U.S. Cannot Be Trusted to Sponsor Indo-Pakistan Talks
"India
has been leveraging its strategic partnership with the U.S. to pressure
Pakistan through the Americans. American statements on the Pakistan-India
dialogue haven't been encouraging in that they seem to support India's position
and leave Kashmir out of the initial talks."
A certain negative pattern to
Indo-U.S. designs in this region has become apparent,
especially for Pakistan. U.S. officials remain dissatisfied with this country, despite
the it's continuing to go out of its way to assist with America's misguided
“war on terror” and its manifest failure to pick up the costs of our doing so under
Coalition Support Fund agreements. That's why General Petraeus still refuses to
say categorically that the U.S. is “satisfied” with Pakistan’s efforts. Why? Because
we've practically destroyed Pakistani stability by sacrificing the lives of our
troops, law enforcers and civilians and doing so many other things to support the
U.S. in this region. But nevertheless, the U.S. mantra of “do more” continues
to haunt us.
Although Petraeus conceded
that even with all of its constraints, Pakistan had been doing increasingly more,
and that it's incumbent on the U.S. to build trust, he still niggardly refused
to state clearly that the U.S. is satisfied. Worse still, the Americans seem
adamant about providing India with strategic access to Afghanistan despite
Pakistan’s protests that India is using Afghan territory to offer covert
support to militants in Pakistan. This dubious American approach has emboldened
India, which has declared that it won't scale back its operations in
Afghanistan. This will continue to aggravate Pakistan’s security environment.
Meanwhile, India has been leveraging
its strategic partnership with the U.S. to pressure Pakistan through the
Americans. It's already protesting to the U.S. over sales to Pakistan of what
are essentially tactical weapons for the so-called "war on terror." Even
the F-16s that Pakistan has purchased don't match up to the weapons systems and
nuclear technology that the U.S. is supplying to India. In addition, American statements
relating to the Pakistan-India dialogue haven't been encouraging in that they
seem to support India's position on the overall dialogue and in particular, leaving
Kashmir out of the initial talks.
Map
of Jammu and Kashmir: Perhaps the most
ignored
and least understood potential flash
point on earth. [click for map jumbo version]
[Editor's Note: India and Pakistan have
fought four wars over what was once the "princely state of Jammu
and Kashmir," and which, from 1846-1947, was ruled by a British Satrap
called a Maharaja. When
India and Pakistan became states, Jammu Kashmir became disputed territory
between the two. While Jammu Kashmir is majority Muslim, it wanted to maintain
its independence, which led to the first Indi-Pak war. Eventually, Maharajah Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession
"acceding to the dominion" of India. Pakistan rejects the agreement because
of the area's majority Muslim population. Other countries that came into being as
a result of the Partition
of India were Burma, Napal, Bhutan, and the
Maldives.]
Under these circumstances, news
in a Washington newspaper that President Obama might host talks between the prime
ministers of Pakistan and India should be treated with trepidation. After all, given
how vulnerable our leadership seems when confronted by the Americans, one can imagine
compromises from Pakistan that would endanger our long-term interests. At the
very least, a new agenda for talks could be hoisted on Pakistan.
We will certainly see a
coalescing of Indo-U.S. interests. Perhaps it would
be better if Pakistan struck to its principled position of restarting the overall
dialogue, which is a format with wide support and that provides for institutional
input. The sensitivity of Pakistan-India relations can't be left to U.S.-compelled
summits between political leaders.
