A regional solution must include India
There is much to like about the recently released Afghanistan Pakistan strategy by the Obama administration. There is a strong emphasis on institution building in both countries. There are references to making a long term commitment to the region – a lesson that has hopefully been learned after short term approaches have led us down the path where we now find ourselves. The strategy recognizes the critical role that both civilian and military components must play. So, yes, in my opinion, the strategy is right on in most of its components….except for one glaring omission. There is virtually no reference to India in the whole document.
Of course, this was a very intentional decision. The Indians clearly don’t want to be pulled into a “regional” solution to the terrorist issue because it might mean outside interference on Kashmir. As Laura Rozen reported here, there was substantial lobbying by the Indian government to ensure that Holbrooke’s purview in South Asia did not include India.
Although many will argue that Kashmir is not directly related to the Al Qaeda terrorist threat in the region, the reality is that this perceived threat limits Pakistan’s willingness to devote sufficient attention to the terrorist havens bordering Afghanistan. If we are truly going to partner with the Pakistanis in this struggle against violent extremists, it is important to acknowledge the Pakistani point of view. The reality for many in the Pakistani leadership and military is that they actually see the threat from India as much more serious than that from Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Few Americans feel threatened by India. Most Americans see a tremendous threat from Al Qaeda. So, it’s a bit difficult for many in this country to appreciate that Pakistan has gone to war with India three times since partition. Considering that, I’m not altogether surprised that Pakistan has been talking tough against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but at the same time preparing for conflict with India. The main sticking point remains Kashmir. We may not think that it’s related, but the reality is that if we want Pakistan’s full attention on the terrorist threat, we’d be much more likely to get it if the Kashmir issue was resolved.
Some will argue that its not our place to get involved in this conflict. If we take that approach, we may be in the right, but we may also end up losing the fight against the Al Qaeda because the country that we need as an ally, Pakistan, is preparing for two very different conflicts and not devoting its resources 100% to either.
Let me be clear. This is not an attempt to take sides in this decades-long conflict. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that all three countries – India, Pakistan, and the US – would be much more secure if this conflict were resolved peacefully.
A resolution to the conflict is possible. In fact, Steve Coll reported in a recent New Yorker article that Musharraf and Manmohan Singh nearly came to a resolution through back door negotiations on this difficult issue but it was derailed by Musharraf’s declining popularity at home. Furthermore, recent polling by PIPA showed that public opinion in India and Pakistan was open to a range of solutions. In particular, respondents from both countries expressed a willingness to let the Kashmiri people decide their own fate.
Although it’s possible that a breakthrough could happen simply by letting the Indians and the Pakistanis deal with the issue on their own terms, we don’t know how long it would take for such a development to happen. The reality is that if we want a resolution sooner rather than later, the US (or the UN) will need to play a facilitator role.
This certainly wasn’t included in the Af-Pak white paper. Hopefully that’s just a symbolic concession to the Indians and there’s a real willingness by the Obama administration to engage on this issue. There was a glimmer of hope in a press conference that Obama recently gave where he called for “more effective dialogue” between India and Pakistan. Let’s hope that this is more than just talk.
Related posts:
F**k you!
India will not concede one nanometer to Pakistan and any US pressure will end in permanent damage to US-India ties.
No sane US leader will risk permanently jeopardizing ties with a rising world power in order to accomodate a paranoid failing state.
Not one nanometer and go pound sand
Comment on April 7, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
BTW, how rich is it to put the cost of US fecklessness with Pakistan on India’s door?
A terrorist sponsoring nation, Pakistan, blackmails the US and seeks to annex territory that it could not get through war nor through terror proxies.
But it now says “Gimme Kashmir or I’ll keep sending Al Qaeda and Taliban into AFghanistan and beyond”
The way to handle a blackmailing thug is to call his bluff and give him a choice between doing the right thing and going to jail.
What next? Pakistanis may say, give me $100B and nuclear submarines or we won’t cooperate and the US just pays up like it did with AIG and the banks?
Indians are tired of Pakistan’s terror raids, with the wounds from Mumbai still raw. We will never yield to threats.
Even as the Mumbai masterminds are enjoying Pakistani patronage, Obama wants India to “talk” to Pakistan.
How rich?
Hey Obama, why didn’t you call for talks with Osama Bin Laden after 9/11? Maybe he too has genuine concerns that need to be addressed.
As I said, not one nanometer to Pakistan. Ever.
Comment on April 7, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Mr. Vogt,
Please explain to me how you can conclude that Pakistan’s failures are one due ot a “lack of attention” when the very Obama administration has blamed Pakistan for the wrong kind of attention with the Taliban and Al Qaeda i.e the one where Pakistani spies are working with the terrorists that they are supposed to be fighting?
Please also explain to me where in your wonderful logic, you have factored in the steady and unrelenting Pakistani state support for jihadists murdering people in India, Kashmir and elsewhere, in an apparent attempt to bleed Indian forces?
Do you even know what you are talking about?
If a serial killer says “I’ll stop killing if you can get my neighbor to send his wife to me”, would you consider it a reasonable request?
Short of India ceasing to exist, Pakistan’s paranoid Generals will keep sensing an existential threat from the Indians.
Should US policies to protect itself from terrorists revolve around this Pakistani paranoia?
Comment on April 7, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Pakistan, whose name means “land of the pure” was created out of a hatred of anything “non-Islamic” and therefore “impure”. This idea disregarded cultural differences among the Muslims themselves, which is the reason why Bangladesh broke free and became a Muslim country on its own in 1971. This also explains why the different ethnicities in present-day Pakistan feel threatened by the Punjabi identity, and is also the reason why different parts of Pakistan are now in open revolt. The idea of hatred as a cornerstone of existence also meant that a convenient enemy should be manufactured and sustained, and “Hindu” India became the target. Therefore, even if the Kashmir issue is solved, another reason to hate India will immediately be manufactured. This is also the reason why the Army has ruled Pakistan for most of its shaky history. It is therefore imperative that a democracy that works should be instituted amd maintained in Pakistan, even if at the cost of the so-called “Islamic” identity.
Comment on April 8, 2009 @ 4:52 am
Churchill once said that “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” There is a fundamental civilizational conflict at work in Kashmir. India’s view is that the world should be a multicultural, multireligious place with no special status for ANY faith regardless of whether it is Hinduism or Islam or whatever. Pakistan’s worldview is that there need to be zones that are exclusively reserved where Islam is supreme. This is the core problem. This Islamist belief is at the core of why Pakistani intelligence supports the Taliban. India and Pakistan are not like Israel and the Arabs. Indians and Pakistanis are ethnically close-to-identical people, who speak the same languages, eat the same food, have the same reactions to the world at large. They are, in essence, one race split by two worldviews – but the split is so virulent that they will both deny they are the same to the death (and then secretly watch each other’s movies and sing each other’s songs and feel guilty about it). Lasting end of hostility in a situation like this can only happen when one worldview wins: Is Islam to be supreme or is the world to be a religiously relaxed place? The US can try to accelerate this, but it won’t work. They could end-up making the Indians mad (which is bad because you will need them when China inevitably begins its move to drive the Americans out of Asia, and because it may drive the Indians closer to Shia Iran, which India views as VERY distinct and much more friendly compared to the rest of the Islamic world). And it will make Pakistan mad (because when the Indians don’t listen to the US, as they will not, Pakistan will blame the US for being duplicitous and backstabbing it, as Pakistan always does). Most people know better than to set out to make peace between two hate-filled brothers. You will probably drive them further apart, and they will both hate you in the end.
Comment on April 8, 2009 @ 6:36 am
First of all, the whole Jihadi problem is a legacy of US. Insurgency erupted in Kashmir only when your unemployed Mujahideens, the honourable cold war warriors, had nothing else to do after the end of soviet withdrawal of Afghanistan. So, US can hardly claim to be an interlocutor with clean hands.
Secondly, the kleptocratic Pakistani establishment of Army-ISI has always used hostility against to perpetuate its own privileges. So, the reality that lurks behind all the hyperbole about kashmir is that a negotiated settlement with India is more inimical to Pakistani establishment’s interests.
Thirdly, Pakistan has a long festering dispute about its border with Afghanistan as the latter does not recognize the Durand Line. In fact, the only country that had opposed Pakistan’s entry into UN was Afghanistan. That is why, it is imperative for Pakistan to have a pliant regime in Kabul which will never raise the Durand Line issue. Use of Islamic fundamentalism and terror is thus, in the warped world view of the Pakistani Army, a necessity that will outlive the Kashmir dispute.
and finally, the argument that Pakistan will not take steps against Islamic terror until Kashmir issue is resolved, is nothing short of brazen blackmail. I had always been in favour of peace-process with a democratic Pakistan. But dialogue cannot take place under the shadow of gun. If the Pakistani establishment thinks, it can blackmail the world into pressurizing India through terror, it is only paving the path for its own implosion.
A plural, multicultural India for all its flaws, is a strong and resilient enough to survive odd terrorist attacks. But long before they can bleed India to death with thousand cuts, this Islamist fire will burn Pakistan to ashes. The process has already started. But alas, these criminals are still seen as ‘strategic assets’ by the Pakistani army.
and if attacks cross a threshold and the Pakistani state keeps on encouraging one terror attack against India after another, India will give a fitting reply to these crooks in uniform.
I cannot help but notice the parallel with 1971. As the Pakistani army unleashed a genocide in Bangladesh and India, (flooded with more than 10 million refugees) pleaded the international community to restrain Pakistan, U.S, UK, etc. all turned a blind eye (because of pakistan’s role in the Nixon-China dialogue). Instead, India was asked to shut up. But international community’s apathy and self-centered myopia finally led to a war and Independence of Bangladesh.
Before writing such ignorant trash , Mr. Vogt would have done better to learn a bit more of the sub-continent history. It would go a long way in building a ‘Secure America’.
Appeasement of terror will only further embolden these zealots. Europe appeased one set of killers in 1930s and the world paid a ghastly price. Humankind can scarcely afford a repeat.
Comment on April 8, 2009 @ 9:31 pm