What's new

Obama's pitch: Fix Kashmir for UN Security Council seat

trident2010

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
2,775
Reaction score
-9
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
Obama's pitch: Fix Kashmir for UN Security Council seat


WASHINGTON: Go for a Kashmir solution and help bring stability to the region for a ticket to UN Security Council membership and fulfilling your big power aspirations. That's the broad message President Barack Obama will be bringing to New Delhi during his upcoming November visit to India, preparation for which are in full swing in Washington DC.

The Kashmir settlement-for-seat at high table idea (euphemism for UNSC membership) is being discussed animatedly in the highest levels of the US administration, according to a various sources. President Obama himself has decided to revive the process of a US push in this direction, albeit discreetly, because of New Delhi's sensitivities.

Key administration officials are confirming that the UNSC issue will be on Obama's agenda when he visits New Delhi. The US President is expected to announce an incremental American support to India's candidature during his address to the joint session of India's parliament, depending on New Delhi's receptiveness to resolving the Kashmir tangle.

"[UNSC reforms] is something that is under discussion as we prepare for the President's important visit," US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake confirmed on Monday during a read-out of the meeting between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Indian counterpart S.M.Krishna, saying the two had agreed the "President's visit will be a defining moment in the history of our bilateral relations."

The clearest insight into Obama's thinking on the matter comes from Bob Woodward's latest book "Obama's War" in which top US policy makers are shown mulling on defusing the Kashmir situation as part of an exit strategy for US from the AfPak theater.

"Why can't we have straightforward talks with India on why a stable Pakistan is crucial?" Obama is reported as musing at one meeting. "India is moving toward a higher place in its global posture. A stable Pakistan would help." Implicit in the rumination is the idea that settling Kashmir would mollify Pakistan, where, US officials say, hardliners are using the unresolved issue as an excuse to breed an army of terrorists aimed at bleeding India.

But that is easier said than done, according to Bruce Riedel, author of the Obama administration's Af.Pak strategy, who has canvassed the centrality of the Kashmir issue to peace and stability in the region. The spoiler to any settlement is the hardline Pakistani military and its jihadist proxies for whom attrition and confrontation with India is an article of faith.

In fact, the solution Washington has in mind (also proposed by Riedel) is likely more palatable to New Delhi than to Islamabad. It's on the same lines of what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's deposed military leader Pervez Musharraf broadly agreed on before the latter was turfed out of office: The Line of Control would become the international border, but it would be a soft, permeable border, allowing Kashmiris on both sides to move back and forth. The rest – safeguards, procedures etc – is a matter of detail.

"President Obama's strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a Kashmir component to succeed; that need is becoming more urgent and obvious now. His trip to India in November will be a key to addressing it," Riedel said in a commentary this week.

"India cannot become a global power with a prosperous economy if its neighbor is a constant source of terror armed with the bomb. A sick Pakistan is not a good neighbor," he added, echoing Obama's words (Woodward's book also suggests he influenced Obama's thinking).

Virtually setting the agenda for Obama's India visit, Riedel says Obama's challenge is to quietly help Islamabad and New Delhi work behind the scenes to get back to the deal Musharraf and Singh negotiated. "He will have a chance to work this subtly when he visits India in November," he writes.

But Riedel and other US policy makers portrayed in Woodward's book also recognize that the biggest hurdle to a settlement is a hardline Pakistani military. While the civilian leadership in Pakistan would like to embrace the deal "it is unclear if the army chief, General Kayani, is on board."

Woodward's book shows that most top US officials, save Admiral Mike Mullen, believe Kayani to be a closet jihadi and a two-faced "liar" intent on perpetuating war with India. "I'll be the first to admit it, I'm India-centric," Kayani is quoted as telling US officials in one exchange.

Although three top cabinet principals from India -- S.M.Krishna, A.K.Antony, and Pranab Mukherjee -- are in the US this week and next, exchanges on the UNSC and Kashmir are said to be taking place directly between President Obama and Prime Minister Singh through trusted interlocutors such as National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, who is also in Washington DC this week.


Obama's pitch: Fix Kashmir for UN Security Council seat - The Times of India
 
Last edited:
While the civilian leadership in Pakistan would like to embrace the deal "it is unclear if the army chief, General Kayani, is on board."
I don't get this bit. Surely when Musharraf was putting forward his four-point proposal, he took that to his senior officers and had their buy-in.

He'd have been isolated and quite frankly toppled if he'd risked anything on Kashmir without the backing of the Corps Commanders, and Kayani at the time.

However, if there is a hesitancy on Kayani's part at present, perhaps he's viewing that through the recent troubles in the Valley. With three successive summers of protests and unrest, maybe there is that feeling (an incorrect one), that Kashmir could yet tilt towards Pakistan.

It's clutching at straws, but there could be a different view from the top brass given Kashmir is once again giving India sleepless nights.
 
Last edited:
The issue of Kashmir is more ethnic and strategic than political..India wont part ways with kashmir and Pakistan will not accecpt anything less than division across the chenab river...in a clevery way, kudos Obama for putting a lid on Indian ambitions...Obama realised they did not want to risk a big time ally and only way to thawrt indian ambitions would be to put forth unfullfilable conditions.
 
The issue of Kashmir is more ethnic and strategic than political..India wont part ways with kashmir and Pakistan will not accecpt anything less than division across the chenab river...in a clevery way, kudos Obama for putting a lid on Indian ambitions...Obama realised they did not want to risk a big time ally and only way to thawrt indian ambitions would be to put forth unfullfilable conditions.

That and the fact that seat at Security Council requires responsibilities which India cannot have at the moment. Security council is there as a law enforcer, and with India itself stuck with the Kashmir issue, how can it project it's influence on others?
 
Actually read the entire article to see what Obama thinks of Pakistan. If by some chance India (I don't think it would) does allow US to intervene, it is abundantly clear that he would side us than you.
 
That and the fact that seat at Security Council requires responsibilities which India cannot have at the moment. Security council is there as a law enforcer, and with India itself stuck with the Kashmir issue, how can it project it's influence on others?

Then how come China with issues with most other south east asian states and suppression of Tibetan rights is a member. If China can, so can India.
 
Actually read the entire article to see what Obama thinks of Pakistan. If by some chance India (I don't think it would) does allow US to intervene, it is abundantly clear that he would side us than you.

Yes I did thrice and anyone with long term memory remembers US citing neutrality on Kashmir just few days ago..Which means US will NOT intervence wether asked by India or Pakistan.
 
The issue of Kashmir is more ethnic and strategic than political..India wont part ways with kashmir and Pakistan will not accecpt anything less than division across the chenab river...in a clevery way, kudos Obama for putting a lid on Indian ambitions...Obama realised they did not want to risk a big time ally and only way to thawrt indian ambitions would be to put forth unfullfilable conditions.

Your logic is flawed...I think you should read the article once again and you will realize that Obama favors the solution which is anyways acceptable to GOI i.e. convert LOC to permanent border(though make is soft).....This was also acceptable to Musharraf before Pak went for political turmoil...

Now we all know why Obama would like to have Kashmir resolved which is to ensure PAK uses her full might on western border....So not sure how you interpret that he has put a lid on Indian ambition for not risking big time ally.....
 
Obama is problematic for India and US people will vote him out in 2012.

Obama will be voted out in 2012 not because of india, the majority of Americans could care less about india.

Obama will be voted out because he promised change and since he became President there's been no change at all. The economy is still bad, Americans are still losing jobs, war OF terror has still not ended, and 1 in 5 Americans think Obama is a Muslim :rolleyes:
 
What is this "Candy Dangling" policy by Obama?
US is not the only nation controlling the seat to the UN is it?...

Most likely he will be gone in the 2012 election (if not by the Apocalypse ;-)) and it is almost impossible to reach a true resolution to the dispute by then.
 
"President Obama's strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a Kashmir component to succeed; that need is becoming more urgent and obvious now.

I agree.


In fact, the solution Washington has in mind (also proposed by Riedel) is likely more palatable to New Delhi than to Islamabad. It's on the same lines of what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's deposed military leader Pervez Musharraf broadly agreed on before the latter was turfed out of office: The Line of Control would become the international border, but it would be a soft, permeable border, allowing Kashmiris on both sides to move back and forth. The rest – safeguards, procedures etc – is a matter of detail.

indians would love this idea but Pakistanis and Kashmiris will never accept the Line of Control as an International Border.

The best way to solve the Kashmir dispute is through a referendum given to the Kashmiri people that was promised to the Kashmiri people by the United Nations and india's first prime minister in 1948. Kashmiri people are still waiting for the referendum that was promised to them by the UN, the international community, and india's first prime minister in 1948. Either the Kashmiris chose Pakistan or india, then everyone accepts their choice.
 
Obama will be voted out in 2012 not because of india, the majority of Americans could care less about india.

Obama will be voted out because he promised change and since he became President there's been no change at all. The economy is still bad, Americans are still losing jobs, war OF terror has still not ended, and 1 in 5 Americans think Obama is a Muslim :rolleyes:

I also meant the same, Americans even don't know where is which Indian city.
 
The best way to solve the Kashmir dispute is through a referendum...
I would say a referendum is the toughest to hold in today's circumstances. There were several pre-conditions to a legitimate referendum and I doubt either sides will agree to settle the dispute on the lines of the UN resolution almost more than half a century old.

Either they chose Pakistan or india, then everyone accepts their choice.
You forgot the third option of independent Kashmir.
 
Obama will be voted out in 2012 not because of india, the majority of Americans could care less about india.

Obama will be voted out because he promised change and since he became President there's been no change at all. The economy is still bad, Americans are still losing jobs, war OF terror has still not ended, and 1 in 5 Americans think Obama is a Muslim :rolleyes:

1 in 5 Americans think Obama is a Muslim, the rest 4 know that he bows to Islamic autocrats. So every sane American should get rid of this plague. No sir, even if you are liberal, see how Obama treated Howard Dean after his election.

Hillary 2012.. I say.

I never expected Obama would be enemy of India, but he sure acts like one. May be he is too attached to his absentee father and sensitivities of his religion or what ever.

Hillary was great friend of India, I hope Hillary will pick the mantle.. get rid of this tele-prompting crow.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom