The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir

[pkd]

The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir
By Jonathan Tepperman | NEWSWEEK

Published Feb 11, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Feb 22, 2010

Sometime in the last year, secret back-channel talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir restarted, say U.S. and Indian sources. The countries last held such talks under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and were reportedly on the verge of a breakthrough when Musharraf was ousted in August 2008. Then the Mumbai terror attacks that November badly frayed relations. For negotiations to resume now—open talks are also being discussed—would represent a huge boon for the region.

And not just there. The payoff would stretch all the way to Washington. Peace between India and Pakistan could help unlock another conflict with even higher stakes for the United States: the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, a growing chorus of experts has begun arguing that the road to Kabul runs through Kashmir—that the U.S. will never stabilize the former without peace in the latter. Suddenly, bringing India and Pakistan together seems to be very much in America's interest. Which makes the Obama administration's determination to avoid the issue increasingly hard to fathom.

To understand why Kashmir is so important to Afghanistan, start with the fact that the U.S. can't defeat the Afghan insurgency without Pakistan's help. Pakistan midwifed the Taliban and continues to provide it with shelter (and, allegedly, support). And that won't change until Pakistan resolves its rivalry with India. For Pakistan's Afghan strategy is based on the idea that it needs a pliant regime there to give it "strategic depth": room to retreat in case of an Indian invasion. Fear of India also keeps Pakistan from putting enough troops on its 2,250-kilometer-long Afghan border, which the Taliban still cross at will. As Strobe Talbott, who was Bill Clinton's envoy to India and Pakistan, says, "The Pakistani military is so obsessed with India that it hinders their ability to deal with other real threats." The only thing that might ease that obsession is peace with New Delhi.

Given this, you'd expect the Obama team to be pushing the peace process forward. Instead, it has studiously avoided the issue. On one level that makes sense: Washington has its hands full, and India, thanks to its bad experience with past mediation and America's Cold War tilt toward Pakistan, erupts with rage whenever the U.S. hints it might get involved. In 2008, when Obama said he might include India in the mandate of his AfPak team, New Delhi raised such hell that the matter was dropped. Thus Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. AfPak envoy, refuses to consider U.S. involvement today.

Yet even he concedes that Kashmir makes Afghanistan "more difficult to resolve," and Washington simply can't afford to avoid it if it hopes to leave the region any time soon.

Now it may not have to. The possible resumption of India-Pakistan talks suggests a growing constituency for peace on both sides. India, preoccupied with its economic boom, is especially eager to make the issue go away. A hard push from Washington could make the difference—especially if handled in a way that assuages India's fears. Obama has been much cooler toward New Delhi than Bush was. Were he to symbolically elevate the U.S.-India relationship to the level of the U.S.-China dialogue, it could give Washington much greater leeway on Kashmir. So would pressing Pakistan to cooperate on the Mumbai terrorists. Better still would be helping New Delhi grab two prizes it desperately covets: entry into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. As Sumit Ganguly of Indiana University puts it, "If that were to happen, India would roll over on any issue." Washington would still need to get Islamabad on board. But Pakistan has long favored U.S. mediation, and with its rival embracing talks, it might find it too awkward to refuse.

This message seems finally to be sinking in in Washington: as one high-level U.S. official recently told me, "People keep saying we have to deal with Kashmir. The buzz is in the air, and it's not like we're not hearing it." Let's hope they listen.

With Ron Moreau in Islamabad and Sudip Mazumdar in New Delhi

The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir - Newsweek.com

 

[Hellfire]

A sensible and interesting read

thanx pkd

 

[praveen]

What is the quid pro quo US has to offer for talks with pakistan

 

[Hellfire]

What is the quid pro quo US has to offer for talks with pakistan

supremacy in dealing with Afghanistan

 

[ambidex]

The whole perception will change when an Afghan will become nationalist. I am waiting for the day.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Road to Kabul should run only through the independent, democratically elected government of Afghanistan and through nowhere else.

Why should Afghans suffer for Pakistan's imagined grievances vis-a-vis India?

 

[blain2]

supremacy in dealing with Afghanistan

No that is not it. Its the Kashmir issue. Pakistan gains no benefit from having supremacy over any other country including Afghanistan. If the Kashmir issue is resolved, Pakistan will not even have an issue with India becoming a member of UNSC (given some adjustments on Veto powers are made - which is a demand by the vast majority of UN members given the less than fair dealings at UNSC).

Come to think about it, even NSG supply to India becomes a non-issue for Pakistan if Kashmir is resolved.

 

[blain2]

Road to Kabul should run only through the independent, democratically elected government of Afghanistan and through nowhere else.

Why should Afghans suffer for Pakistan's imagined grievances vis-a-vis India?

As if Pakistan is the sole reason for your suffering. You are being used by all sides. People picking up guns and fighting ISAF and the US forces are Afghans after all. They can chose to not tow the Pakistani line and not fight (if you are implying that Pakistan is responsible for all of the Taliban insurgency). But why do they?

Secondly, under the garb of economic development (a short term benefit), what is the Indian purpose for investing in your country? Do you think anyone gives anyone anything for free? No. Its their national interests that are driving their desire to fund Afghanistan. The Indian interest is to guide your foreign policy to not accommodate Pakistan. Your country will eventually do what it must, but if being landlocked with Pakistan, there is no accommodation of Pakistan's concerns due to consideration for the Indian interests, there will be a problem.

If you really want to think it through, the only solution for Afghanistan is to tell both Pakistan and India to take their problems outside of your country. This would be a favour to both Pakistan and India in the long run.

As a Pakistani, I have no interest nor any desire to meddle in the Afghan affairs for as long as they do not impact Pakistan negatively. If Afghanistan takes the neutral approach vis-a-vis Pakistan and India, Pakistan's policy in Afghanistan will automatically become passive.

 

[S-2]

This article is poorly researched, IMV. It begins here where the writer displays a thorough misunderstanding of "strategic depth".

"For Pakistan's Afghan strategy is based on the idea that it needs a pliant regime there to give it "strategic depth": room to retreat in case of an Indian invasion."

He postures Afghanistan as some kind of final redoubt when that simply isn't the case and is utterly impossible to achieve militarily. No Pakistani Army is retreating through the Khyber pass. Doing so lays bare the strategic heart of Pakistan while providing the IAF with a target-rich environment of an army in retreat through constricted passages easy to block. Pakistan would use its strategic assets before ever resorting to such a hopeless endeavor.

"Given this, you'd expect the Obama team to be pushing the peace process forward. Instead, it has studiously avoided the issue."

Gates in his recent visit has made clear that neither Pakistan nor India has asked us to take on a role of mediation. He also made clear that if both sides wished such, we'd be amenable. It's not necessary, however.

"The countries last held such talks under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and were reportedly on the verge of a breakthrough when Musharraf was ousted in August 2008. Then the Mumbai terror attacks that November badly frayed relations."

The essential rationales for these meetings and their near success have remained without interjecting America anymore than our participation was required during Musharraf's tenure. The conditions for success are already there and only need building upon while avoiding more incidents by elements within both states that might seek to de-stabilize a political solution to Kashmir.

Restraining the radical elements that might tip the apple-cart by creating an incident which plays both sides against one is the key. There are elements within both countries which have no vested interest in a political compromise that allows Pakistan and India to proceed beyond this roadblock to progress.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

"Secondly, under the garb of economic development (a short term benefit), what is the Indian purpose for investing in your country?"

Why do you presume that economic development constitutes a "short-term benefit" to India? It is long-term.

"Do you think anyone gives anyone anything for free? No."

There are forty plus nations that are giving freely to Afghanistan for one common purpose-its stabilization. Achieving such benefits all, most notably Afghanistan's immediate neighbors in CAR, Iran, and Pakistan. Implicit to stabilization is economic progress.

"Its their national interests that are driving their desire to fund Afghanistan."

National interests might encompass a variety of arenas and deserves inclusion of ALL those interests to fully appreciate the value. Those interests include economic development of Afghanistan. If a quid pro quo exists for India is that any worse than the PRC funding investment in, say, copper mines in Afghanistan? I don't think so.

"The Indian interest is to guide your foreign policy to not accommodate Pakistan."

Perhaps. Perhaps not. That is a cynical proposition when considering what Pakistan's demonstrated interests have been in the same regard. You are, in effect, projecting yourself here. Just two weeks ago Lt. Gen. Talat Masood suggested Pakistan sees great value in retaining strategic assets WRT to Afghanistan.

"Your country will eventually do what it must, but if being landlocked with Pakistan, there is no accommodation of Pakistan's concerns due to consideration for the Indian interests, there will be a problem."

I'd suggest that a trust deficit exists not just between Pakistan and India but between Pakistan and Afghanistan. That includes many of the Pashtun citizens of Afghanistan. I'd further suggest that it's in Pakistan's interests to geo-strategically compete with India for Afghanistan's favor in the manner commonly accepted by the rest of mankind-economic and diplomatic relations which benefit the Afghan people.

If Afghanistan, in pursuit of an independant foreign policy finds that IT'S NATIONAL INTERESTS are served by formalized relations with both countries, it might be wise to accede to that and be the best neighbor possible. This isn't a zero-sum game as you seemingly posture and Pakistan has a few hatchets which must be buried between the prevailing Afghan government and itself.

Allow me to go one step further, please? Much of Pakistan's fears derive from the perception that the Afghan government is unbalanced in its favor because the GoA is unduly comprised of elements unfriendly to Pakistan. Maybe, maybe not but such ignore the dynamics of political intercourse and the electoral process just as it might ignore those same dynamics when viewing Pakistan's currently elected government.

Change inevitably occurs where an increasingly educated and sophisticated constituency can perceive options and possesses no fear that those choices might be aborted by powers beyond their control.

To that end, Pakistan should safeguard its own citizens and those of Afghanistan from "one man, one vote, one time". Doing so assures evolutionary change consistent with the desires of the people.

Thanks.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Road to Kabul should run only through the independent, democratically elected government of Afghanistan and through nowhere else.

Why should Afghans suffer for Pakistan's imagined grievances vis-a-vis India?

Amazing how your thankless thinking come out again and again !

what have the afghan's suffered because of Pakistan ?

Think hard and present 5 points.

 

[S-2]

"Think hard and present 5 points."

1. Omar

2. Haqqani

3. Hekmatyar

4. Hafez Gul Bahadur

5. Maulvi Nazir

Afghans suffer daily by their hand.

Thanks.

 

[jeypore]

Change inevitably occurs where an increasingly educated and sophisticated constituency can perceive options and possesses no fear that those choices might be aborted by powers beyond their control.

S-2, very interesting quote, but I do not get what you mean by this aborted by powers beyond their control.

And really, do these people you mention have any power to abort, given the way they are ruled currently?

 

[S-2]

"I do not get what you mean by this aborted by powers beyond their control."

Two elements threaten the results of Pakistanis at the polls IMV- military and corruption.

Kiyani seems committed to keeping the troops where they belong-in the field or in the barracks. However, my guess is he too has masters to whom he must answer. Think of him as first among equals. Secondly, there'll come a day when he resigns, dies, or is replaced. It is inevitable. How committed will be the institution? We'll see I suppose.

Corruption is a second matter. It is the unseen hand of politics. Same true in America. We have some corrupt cops and so forth...but not very many. There's a reason that we're only ranked, IIRC, 18th or 19th by Transparency Internat'l however- lobbies, i.e. Political Action Committees. Select access to the highest corridors of power connotes, used correctly or not, un-monitored influence and I've no doubt that there's been times it has hurt my nation.

Everybody and every cause deserves a voice but some have the ability to be amplified far beyond reason.

Thanks.

 

[Hellfire]

No that is not it. Its the Kashmir issue. Pakistan gains no benefit from having supremacy over any other country including Afghanistan. If the Kashmir issue is resolved, Pakistan will not even have an issue with India becoming a member of UNSC (given some adjustments on Veto powers are made - which is a demand by the vast majority of UN members given the less than fair dealings at UNSC)

As for the highlighted part, granted Kashmir has tied Pakistan down in all aspects, but even then, Afghanistan is very important to Pakistan in terms of military depth .... irrespective of what one may call it. Its more to do with psychological aspects than any other ..... the fear of being "boxed" in .......

as for resolution of kashmir issue, the only plausible resolution is acceptance of status quo with liberty of population to migrate. We can agree that neither Pakistan nor India is giving up any inch of territories being held repectively

Lastly, Pakistani main stream identity is based on perpetuation of a sense of antagonism with India, peace can never be achieved as the basis of identity is mutual antagonism (the original reason why Pakistan was created). That has been the approach of GoP even till date as exemplified by being India obsessed and trying for a conventional military and nuclear parity inspite of having achieved your goal of minimum nuclear deterrence to secure your nation against any Indian aggression, deviating massive amounts of resources towards military expenditure which could have been used elsewhere.

You may draw parallel to Indian proliferation but then India has Chinese concerns to deal with at present.