If Kashmir blows up, all bets off: US

[S-2]

"Pakistan will not have a weak PPP government for ever. The attitudes are bound to harden on the Pakistan side and these pressure tactics will only go so far."

These pressure "tactics" as you call them, are affirmations of American policy. Read them as you will. As to "bound to harden", there's little more hardening that you can accomplish. Remaining static is self-evident. How can you be more entrenched than you currently are?

As to the future composition of your gov't, let's just see if this current one survives to the next scheduled elections.

We'll hope so.

 

[SSGPA1]

So by the look of current things, in next 5 years, India would have surged ahead in all the departments & would be a significant global player, much more than it is now. And Pakistan, if at all it exists, would have gone down the drain, as a failed state. And at that time, Pakistan would have little , if not no influence at all over Kashmir issue. India would find it much easier to tweak the solution her way. And this would be achieved by extremely simple means. Do nothing. Just keep the situation as it is today. No negotiations, no talks.

No coffee this morning? .... it will make a good plot for another anti-Pakistan Bollywood flick

Pakistan will force you to the table!

Now here is the reality, India will grow but not to the point where it will become a super power, why, because India's becoming a SP means China, Russia and India can make an alliance and become a threat for the West.

I always say that nothing delights me more then India and US alliance.
Reason is that India will be used to keep China in check. When countries start to take positions against their neighbours then they don't become SP.

Look at Iran and Iraq - Look at India and Pakistan, India could have been far better off if she didn't have to fight with its neihgbours.

Lets resolve the Kashmir issue so India can keep working towards its dreams.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Toning down the Kashmir rhetoric will be good for Pakistan. It will force the politicians to find some real issues to espouse - like the fight against the radicalization of Pakistani society, or some crucial land-reforms.

 

[wtf]

Idiotic attempts at trying to browbeat Pakistan into accepting the status quo in Kashmir.

This will not happen. If the Pakistani government backs off, the Pakistani nation will not forgive them for it and every politician in Pakistan knows that there is no bigger political suicide than to back off the Kashmir issue (no different in India).

Statements like the following show the problem with Washington's policy towards Pakistan which is bound to fail big time if the same single-minded approach without regard for Pakistan's concerns is pursued. "Washington was encouraging the Pakistani government to reach out to the Indian government and “continue some of those confidence-building measures that they were doing, like opening the bus routes in Kashmir and other things that did have some positive effect.”

Actually I did not understand the reasoning. Your premise is that India and Pakistan won't budge. So the position of Kashmir will remain unsolved. So does that not imply "Status Quo"? If we are going to be at "Status Quo" on Kashmir, why not co-operate on other things from which both countries benefit ? For example, Last year India had a cement shortage while Pakistan had a glut - why not export some cement for good money ? Similarly, India and Pakistan keep having shortages of Onions, Milk etc. a bit of bilateral trade would fix the issue very well.

 

[blain2]

"Pakistan will not have a weak PPP government for ever. The attitudes are bound to harden on the Pakistan side and these pressure tactics will only go so far."

These pressure "tactics" as you call them, are affirmations of American policy. Read them as you will. As to "bound to harden", there's little more hardening that you can accomplish. Remaining static is self-evident. How can you be more entrenched than you currently are?

As to the future composition of your gov't, let's just see if this current one survives to the next scheduled elections.

We'll hope so.

This government surviving or not surviving matters little when it comes to Pakistan's Kashmir policy. As it is, there are talks of Sharif from PML being accepted as the inevitable choice post the current government. Beyond PPP, its all nationalistic or religious parties.

Also Americans can continue to affirm as much as they want to (sort of like the two state pronouncements in ME). Won't change a thing on the ground with regards to Pakistan's stance on Kashmir. If anything, Pakistan has already shown considerable flexibility. The bottom line for your side is that since the US is not a party to this conflict, its best they sit out and retain the focus on the Afghanistan and tribal areas issue.

It would be good to read Stephen Cohen's recent suggestion that overloading Pakistan with suggestions and demands would in turn yield nothing. I would give his words some credence here because he has been a studying Pakistan and India for a long while.

 

[blain2]

Actually I did not understand the reasoning. Your premise is that India and Pakistan won't budge. So the position of Kashmir will remain unsolved. So does that not imply "Status Quo"? If we are going to be at "Status Quo" on Kashmir, why not co-operate on other things from which both countries benefit ? For example, Last year India had a cement shortage while Pakistan had a glut - why not export some cement for good money ? Similarly, India and Pakistan keep having shortages of Onions, Milk etc. a bit of bilateral trade would fix the issue very well.

Pakistan is willing to budge. However accepting the LoC as-is is not acceptable. CBMs on the economic front are all fine, however telling Pakistan to not worry about the Kashmir issue/India is misplaced.

 

[blain2]

Toning down the Kashmir rhetoric will be good for Pakistan. It will force the politicians to find some real issues to espouse - like the fight against the radicalization of Pakistani society, or some crucial land-reforms.

There is absolutely no rhetoric on Kashmir from the Pakistan side currently. The stated positions remain. The pronouncements as of late from the US side are stirring up the hornets nest so to speak. It would be better if US pronouncements were left to Afghanistan and the tribal areas. Since the Obama administration has decided to stay away from Kashmir issue by excluding India from Richard Holbrooke's portfolio, it would be best that they do not overload Pakistan with such proclamations and demands.

 

[wtf]

Pakistan is willing to budge. However accepting the LoC as-is is not acceptable. CBMs on the economic front are all fine, however telling Pakistan to not worry about the Kashmir issue/India is misplaced.

Her fear is that if Kashmir blows up and militants cross over in large numbers, things would be disastrous. This is common-sense. I think her point was that CBM's should continue to build trust so that a blow-up would not occour. That's all I could read into it, she did not mention anything about "asking Pakistan not to worry" - In fact she is asking Pakistan to worry about the situation where Kashmir blows up.

 

[blain2]

Her fear is that if Kashmir blows up and militants cross over in large numbers, things would be disastrous. This is common-sense. I think her point was that CBM's should continue to build trust so that a blow-up would not occour. That's all I could read into it, she did not mention anything about "asking Pakistan not to worry" - In fact she is asking Pakistan to worry about the situation where Kashmir blows up.

Its common sense for sure but why say it only now? How about when the Pakistan side told the Obama administration that the Kashmir issue requires proper handling and mediation...why were such statements not made then to bring both India and Pakistan to the talks? Back then the ill-advised route was taken to pull out of the Kashmir issue altogether (Afghanistan-Pakistan but no India in Holbrook's agenda).

Secondly, she may not say it pointedly that Pakistan should not worry about xyz, however the overall media campaign starting from Gen Petraeus et-al to others points to the same.

Asking only Pakistan to bend to the will of all others will be counter-productive. There are very many pragmatic Pakistanis who are willing to work and give diplomacy with India a chance, the same goes for the problem of Pashtun ingresses into Afghanistan, however thus far Pakistani suggestions have been meeting roadblocks.

Public pronouncements which only put pressure on Pakistan hurt these pragmatists in Pakistan, while strengthening the hands of the religious right.

Also the current tense situation between Pakistan and India is not of the making of the Pakistani side only. Read the following:

Shuja Nawaz , the director of South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council of the United States , suggested that the United States encourage India to "cool the temperature" on Pakistan . That, however, will be difficult for Indian politicians to do in the middle of an election campaign and with many Indians still reeling from last year's Mumbai terrorist attacks, which were planned in Pakistan .

Moreover, some administration officials worry that any outreach to India would strengthen the Islamic militants by reinforcing Pakistani fears that the U.S. is allied with mostly Hindu India against predominately Muslim Pakistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is no better, officials concede. The U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai has failed to curb corruption and drug trafficking, and that's helped the Afghan Taliban win the support of poor and disenfranchised rural majority.

Applying pressure tactics only help so much. Don't push Pakistan too hard would be my advice to the American side.

 

[wtf]

Its common sense for sure but why say it only now? How about when the Pakistan side told the Obama administration that the Kashmir issue requires proper handling and mediation...why were such statements not made then to bring both India and Pakistan to the talks? Back then the ill-advised route was taken to pull out of the Kashmir issue altogether (****** but no India).

About the timing of the comments .....

In the US, the secretary of state is not a member of Senate. This is unlike the Indian/Pak system where ministers also remain members of the house (at least in India, you have to be a member of one of the houses to be a minister). This means that the secretaries testify in the Senate when required but do not give constant updates to Senate. This in turn means that comments given to Senate tend to be rare and extremely long once given. The word "testimony" also implies an element of truth and gravitas to the issue - you cannot afford to be polite.
Other than that, the only venue they speak for the nation is when they meet foreign dignitaries/ public talks- and they are often polite or uninformative. Hillary recently gave a long Senate testimonial which touched upon a lot of issues. That triggered the talks in newspapers again about Afghan/Pak issues and about Kashmir. All comments about Kashmir get promptly reported by Indian/Pak media.

That's the significance of timing, as far as I can make out. The actions from US are often with a lag of 3-4 months after senate testimonial giving enough time for debate. Secretaries are also given a lot of independence to act on their own, so not all actions are preceded by Senate hearings.

 

[Cheetah786]

Clinton said both the Obama and the Bush administrations had worked very hard to prevent India from reacting to the Mumbai attacks

Wrong Our nukes and long Range missiles prevented India from attacking.I am sick and tired of people taking credits for things we have achived on our own.
As far as kashmere is concerned a bullet between the eyes will be the answer to any politician who ever accept any kind of deal but the one that is fair to people of kashmere.

As far as TAlibans is concerned yes they are a problem for us but they wont be as much problem for us if USA shows some Guts here and actually put there money where there mouth is and control the flow of arms and terrorist from afghanistan into pakistan seal the afghani border Americans have the money and tech to do it stop blaming pakistan for your short comings.
Why dont they ask there darling india to pull all her troops out of kashmere how bout it show some leader ship we should keep bending absolutly positively NO.


Re: If Kashmir blows up, all bets off: US
whats that mean i am kind of confused they will stop selling us modren weaponery or they will sell more advance goods to india let me think oh wait thats already happening bets were off long time ago.

A super power that attacked Afghanistan after 911 controls 10% of Kabul and have managed to go no where in Afghanistan since then.
Which created nothing but problems for Pakistan on one border and is blaming Pakistan for there own problems is asking pakistan to open another front yeah i mean who can we trust More then uncle sanctions.

 

[blain2]

About the timing of the comments .....

In the US, the secretary of state is not a member of Senate. This is unlike the Indian/Pak system where ministers also remain members of the house (at least in India, you have to be a member of one of the houses to be a minister). This means that the secretaries testify in the Senate when required but do not give constant updates to Senate. This in turn means that comments given to Senate tend to be rare and extremely long once given. The word "testimony" also implies an element of truth and gravitas to the issue - you cannot afford to be polite.
Other than that, the only venue they speak for the nation is when they meet foreign dignitaries/ public talks- and they are often polite or uninformative. Hillary recently gave a long Senate testimonial which touched upon a lot of issues. That triggered the talks in newspapers again about Afghan/Pak issues and about Kashmir. All comments about Kashmir get promptly reported by Indian/Pak media.

That's the significance of timing, as far as I can make out. The actions from US are often with a lag of 3-4 months after senate testimonial giving enough time for debate. Secretaries are also given a lot of independence to act on their own, so not all actions are preceded by Senate hearings.

My friend, I am aware of what goes on during senate hearings. I have been a visitor to DC many times over in both a professional and private capacity (although not dealing with folks on the Hill directly) and understand the workings of the various US chambers.

I believe this testimony was in a closed doors setting. The comments that are released to the media etc. are chosen well instead of putting the entire transcript out in front of everyone. Thus the statements made and released to the public have a purpose behind them and all I can tell is that a ton of pressure has been put on Pakistan simultaneously from 3 directions including DoD (Adm Mullin & Centcom Comd), State Department (Secy Clinton) and the White House (Holbrook) all suggesting to Pakistan that the stand on Kashmir should be relegated to one of no importance and to put focus elsewhere (I do not disagree with the focus needed on the militancy issue, however to pressure Pakistan on the Kashmir side is, excuse my urdu, "bakvaas"!). Thus my reaction. In the past the US policy pronouncements (or nudges) come in waves and at different intervals. Maybe its all a co-incident, however if the precedence is anything to go by, I doubt it very much.

 

[wtf]

I believe this testimony was in a closed doors setting.

Not in this instance, I think.
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/111/cli042209.pdf
http://www.hcfa.house.gov/111/042209a.pdf

 

[Munir]

Hillary makes a big mistake. Understandable pro India but if you think that a nation that has been in trouble with India should focus to Afghanistan while it is being trashed daily by India is a bit simplisitic. However, we are used to simplistic views of the US. If you want Pakistan to fight a war then provide finance and equipment, don't start teaching them lessons while you have been using them for decades. Even the poorest farmer knows that US is not worth to be trusted.

 

[BaburCM]

These people think that they are going to get everything on a plate. Well, they are all sorely mistaken. Never test the resolve of a collective nation is my advice.