| |
Kashmir the talk of
Washington
By Ramtanu Maitra
The hesitant
movements by New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the
Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) dispute are making
Washington decidedly jittery. On roller skates,
Washington seems to be more concerned about movement and
less about direction.
In May, when Indian Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced that he would
begin talks with Pakistan to resolve all bilateral
disputes, including the 50-year old J&K one, he also
put on the condition that such talks would be meaningful
only if Pakistan stopped cross-border terrorism across
the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the Indian and
Pakistan-administered sections of J&K. That
Washington chose to ignore this condition was neither
surprising nor out of character for the Bush
administration.
Instead, US Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage, at a press conference in
Islamabad on May 8, addressed jointly with Pakistani
Foreign Minister Khurshid Ahmed Kasuri, pointed out that
he had brought up in his meeting with Pakistani
President General Pervez Musharraf the issues of alleged
cross-border infiltration and the dismantling of
training camps in Azad (Free) Kashmir, that portion of
Kashmir administered by Pakistan. When asked if Pakistan
had done enough to address the alleged infiltration
problem, Armitage replied, "We are not keeping score.
Any violence is bad. But it is down from the same time
last year. Anyone suffering [because of violence] is a
cause of concern. President Musharraf has told me
nothing is happening at the Line of Control. He said
that there are no camps in Azad Kashmir and if there
are, they will be gone by tomorrow."
No more
promises
Needless to say, Armitage's statements
did not go down very well in New Delhi. On the other
hand, it had already become evident to some analysts and
policymakers in New Delhi that while the US could be of
great help to India in many other areas, it will not be
much of a help in solving any of India's disputes with
its neighbor Pakistan.
Washington is now trapped
in a deep hole, otherwise known as Afghanistan, and it
is inconceivable at this point for the US even to hope
of ever climbing out of this pit and working out a
face-saving formula without having Pakistan as its
friend. Antagonizing Pakistan, or India, over J&K in
order to end the bilateral dispute of those two
countries is no longer a part of the American agenda,
although their nuclear capability is of ongoing concern.
The apparent lack of direction in the Bush
administration on Kashmir does not mean that it has lost
its interest there. The US's political spectrum consists
of a variety of operators, motivators and idealists. Now
that Islamabad and New Delhi are involved in a complex
dance, it is only natural that various interest groups
within the US should voice their opinions.
The
July 1 off-the-record conference, Kashmir Revisited,
organized by the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research, was one such event. It was
shunned by the Indian invitees from India, but Pakistani
and Indian scholars based in the US, along with a
Kashmiri study group representative, participated. The
event involved two panels of experts from India,
Pakistan, the US and Britain who discussed the current
situation and prospects for dialog in the future. The
audience included US government employees and academics
from the US and South Asia. Attendance was by invitation
only.
The State Department, playing down the
event, made clear that the conference was far from
extraordinary, noting that it organizes many similar
events on a range of topics. And a similar "quiet"
conference on Kashmir was held by the same agency with
support from the Policy Planning Bureau in late April,
2001. At that time, the event was described by a State
Department official as "policy neutral", and the only
reason that it was not open to the public was to
encourage an "open exchange of views" among the
participants.
The quiet
conference
According to available information,
the July 1 conference was not quite "policy neutral".
While some claimed that the event was designed to set up
a road map for the Kashmir dispute, others did not quite
agree to such a label. But, according to the Pakistani
media, which ostensibly received a briefing from the
participants, the event at least made clear why the US
continues to keep its attention riveted on Kashmir.
As a footnote to the roadmap concept, one must
note that a Pakistani newspaper, The News, had reported
earlier that the US had set a roadmap which would lead
to a permanent solution of the Kashmir dispute before
December 2004. Even a top leader in Azad Kashmi, Sardar
Sikandar Hayat, acknowledged in an interview with the
BBC that a solution to the core issue of Kashmir was
"soon" to be realized.
To begin with, the US
continues to worry about the worst-case scenario in the
event of hostilities breaking out between India and
Pakistan over Kashmir - all-out nuclear exchanges. Other
observations were more interesting. Discussions at the
event made it clear that the US has come to the
conclusion that India has not managed to resolve the
Kashmir dispute, either through the ruthless
counter-insurgency route or through the "internal
political track" route.
This means that
Washington does not place much faith in the outcome of
last year's much-heralded elections in J&K. In fact,
the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS), a major think tank on South Asian affairs, in a
post-mortem of the elections made it clear that the
absence of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference from the
poll rosters was a clear indication that the elections
"did not really resolve the question of who speaks for
the Kashmiris".
Another worry of the US emerging
from the discussions was that the politically unresolved
Kashmir dispute and deaths of Kashmiri people reinforced
misgivings among Muslims globally of a pronounced
anti-Muslim bias among the powerful and influential in
India. Kashmir, they believe, has the potential to
contribute a new batch of Islamic radicals to the
existing pool of anti-US terrorists, almost in the same
way the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did in the 1980s.
Washington is concerned that a closer
relationship with India, which is now very much in the
works, may make the US a bigger target for the
terrorists bred and trained in Kashmir. Because of this
distinct possibility, finding a solution to the Kashmir
dispute is essential. This suggests that at least some
at the policymaking level would throw their support into
converting the LoC into an international boundary. As a
corollary, one would expect increasing pressure from the
US on both India and Pakistan - particularly on India -
to start fresh talks.
Second conference
Following the "quiet" conference organized by the
State Department, a two-day (July 24-25) conference was
held in Washington. Billed as the International Kashmir
Peace Conference, the event was organized by the
Kashmiri American Council (KAC), which included Senator
Tom Harkins and Congressman Joseph Pitts. The conference
posed two questions - how to promote dialogue between
Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris, and how to provide
humanitarian assistance? Besides American diplomats and
scholars, the conference was attended by delegates from
Pakistan, India and Kashmir.
The conference, to
which Indian ambassador to the US, Lalit Mansingh, sent
his speech, called for attempts to find common ground
between India and Pakistan for peace in the troubled
region. Participants at a roundtable on the concluding
day felt that there was a need to connect Kashmiris on
both sides of the LoC, even before the expected talks
between Delhi and Islamabad are scheduled. An aide to
Pitts, who delivered the inaugural address, said that
lawmakers will share all the information gathered at the
conference with colleagues in Congress.
One of
the issues that permeated the discussions was the
participation of Kashmiris in any dialogue between India
and Pakistan. "Holding bilateral dialogue without the
Kashmiris is not going to solve any problems," Ghulam
Nabi Fai, president of the KAC, told rediff.com, echoing
the sentiments of many speakers.
"A forum for
intra-Kashmiri dialogues is a must as soon as possible
because things are not going to improve overnight," said
Dr Attiya Inayatullah, a former minister in Pakistan.
Similar sentiments were expressed by Ved Bhasin, editor
of the Kashmir Times.
"Apart from dialogue
between India and Pakistan, the most important thing now
is to have dialogue between Kashmiris on both sides of
the Line of Control," said Bhasin. "This will help
change the ground situation," he added.
In
essence, what emerged from the second conference was an
agreement within a section of American policymakers.
This view calls for the participation of Kashmiris
themselves in the dispute-resolution process. The
question, however, is whether this view calls for
looking afresh at the possibility of forming an
independent Kashmir, and if so, at what level such
support lies.
It is also evident that the
faction within American policymakers who have become
closer to India will not endorse this policy. At this
point, New Delhi has formed alliances with the
American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and
the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Non-resident
Indians have formed the US-India Political Action
Committee (USINPAC) and have formed a coalition with
those two powerful Jewish lobbies. Needless to say, all
three - AIPAC, AJC and the USINPAC - have similar views
on how to resolve the Kashmir issue. In fact, the
USINPAC, which was formed in September last year, is now
involved in the joint lobbying with pro-Israel groups to
block arms sales to Pakistan and adding an amendment to
the aid to Pakistan promised recently by President
George W Bush.
The amendment, sponsored by Eni F
H Faleomavaega (Democrat-American Samoa), requires the
Bush administration to report to Congress steps Pakistan
takes to close terrorist camps in Pakistan-administered
Kashmir, to stop militants from crossing into India
across the LoC, and to prevent the spread of weapons of
mass destruction. USINPAC executive director Sanjay Puri
told newspeople recently that even though Jewish groups
have no direct interest in the Kashmir issue, they are
supporting USINPAC to push through the amendment.
According to the Indian lobbyists, a small but
vocal group sympathetic to Kashmiri terrorists within
the US Congress, however, had urged then president Bill
Clinton to declare India a sponsor of terrorism. The
Indians fear that this group may well rake up once again
the Kashmir autonomy issue in the near future. The
Washington-based Kashmir Study Group proposed
sovereignty for Kashmir, with or without India and
Pakistan, in its report entitled "Kashmir: A Way
Forward, February 2000".
The New York-based
Council on Foreign Relations, in its report issued in
2002, pointed out that both India and Pakistan pay lip
service to Kashmiri self-determination, but neither
supports independence, as some Kashmiris do. Since the
1998 nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan,
several international efforts have been made to bring
peace to Kashmir, but hardliners in both countries see
compromise on Kashmir as a fundamental betrayal of their
nations. Some Kashmiri groups pursue nonviolent
solutions to the conflict, as does the United Nations.
However, the reinforced US interest in containing
hostility between India and Pakistan could lead to
progress on Kashmir.
Another line of thinking,
as exhibited by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, is also making rounds. According
to its study, the two countries have been asked to look
seriously at the economic dimensions of a Kashmir
settlement. "This has been a neglected issue but is
critical for the everyday lives of Kashmiris and a vital
aspect of any sustainable peace," says the
recommendation.
It is also
planned that CSIS and the Kashmir Study Group, an
initiative launched by the US-based Kashmiri millionaire
Farooq Kathwari, will examine this issue in greater
depth in the belief that it is the nucleus of a more
open and stable South Asia. The US, says the report,
should use its aid program to encourage the development
of small-scale irrigation and run-of-the- river power
generation on both sides of Kashmir, working within the
limits of the Indus Waters Treaty. The CSIS study calls
Kashmir an economically stagnant region. Until the
1980s, the Kashmir Valley, notes the report, the heart
of subcontinent, had four major economic sectors
tourism, handicrafts, horticulture and woodworking. All
four were devastated once the insurgency
started.
Conclusion
There is, however, little doubt
that the US, despite the difficulties it faces in the
region and worldwide, will not sit on the sidelines on
the Kashmir issue. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
briefing the media on his plane to Bangkok in late July,
clarified what he meant by saying that Kashmir was now
on the international agenda. When asked if his reference
to Kashmir was "some sort of a code word'', Powell said,
"No. I just meant the way I said it. It is on the
international agenda. Everybody is now focused on it."
Similar commitment was also issued earlier by
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. She
told the media on June 27 that Bush had committed
America's influence "to alleviating - and, where
possible, ending - destructive regional conflicts, from
the Middle East, to Kashmir, to the Congo and beyond."
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information
on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
