Post-cold war America has become along with militarized Pan-Islamism as the new source of destabilization for the countries of the third world. It sells the balkanising proposals as being the victim country’s national interest. US has already soiled its hands in the Balkans, Central Asia and South-West Asia. Its new strategy is to manipulate the victim country’s civil society and make its dangerous proposals acceptable to the people there.

  US role in the subcontinent has evaded serious scrutiny at the hands of civil society and political leadership in India. Even the left, which derived its ideological legitimacy through an anti-American stance, has publicly endorsed US intervention and lauded US balkanising proposals on Kashmir.

  USIP

  The roots of the current pro-active US role on Kashmir need to be traced to 1996, when Robert Oakley, the retired US ambassador to Pakistan, was entrusted the  task of heading US Institute of “Peace” (USIP) by the US Congress. Kashmir issue became a project of this institute. This institute, which operates too closely with the US administration came to the “conclusion” that (a) Indian and Pakistani diplomatic circles acquiesced to Kashmir’s status as a “disputed territory” b) the third option or quasi-independence on the model of “Trieste or Andora” was somehow workable and c) “third option disengages the two armies and reduces the threat of a nuclear war that would be disastrous to the US interests in the region. In US view all this was possible if the crucial role was assigned to Kashmiri Muslims (Sunni) Segment. Frequent references to solution “in accordance with wishes of Kashmiri people”, Kashmir being a “disputed territory” “third” party mediation, greater autonomy with “porous borders” and Kashmir being a nuclear flashpoint, by the US policy makers represent a well-craft exercise by US to pursue its geo-political designs in this region. It is trying to pitch fork itself as another party to the dispute. This has further complicated the problem and raised the prospect of escalated proxy-war. Prestigious think-tanks in the US in pursuit of US global strategy, have been inviting illiterate lumpen elements as “freedom fighters” from Kashmir.

  During the past two years, two groups aligned to US administration—Kashmir Study Group (KSG) headed by Farooq Kathwari and Mansoor Ijaz, have been active in persuading NDA government to make “strategic” compromises on Kashmir. Americans have been nudging India and Pakistan to go to the negotiating table and create proper conditions for talks. The US officials have not been feeling shy in admitting that the road to summit was prepared by the Americans and even claiming that US representatives were around at Agra with suggestions. All this while denying that US was going to mediate.

  In the run-up to the summit, Christina Rocca, Asstt. Secretary of State for South Asia, told Pakistan-American Congress, “I know for Pakistan Kashmir is at the heart of these differences. We believe that it is important for all sides in Kashmir to exercise restraint and reduce violence. Restraint on all sides will facilitate prospects for any dialogue to produce positive results.” Agreeing with Rocca, Michael Krepon, head of Henry Stimson Centre said, “If India and Pakistan are to demonstrate a superior wisdom that resists ever increasing nuclear capabilities, they must first demonstrate a superior wisdom to reduce nuclear risks.”

  Congressman Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations talked about US role in encouraging both leaders for a dialogue. Welcoming the bilateral dialogue, he said US would play a constructive role in resolving the outstanding issues in South Asian region. He added “....you have new people, new President of Pakistan, negotiating and the fact that Indian government made the offer, is a good sign. We could be disappointed, but as long as they are talking to each other, it is a good sign.”

  Prior to Agra Summit, both Abdul Satar, Foreign Minister of Pakistan and Mr Brijesh Mishra National Security advisor visited US and interacted with senior officials in US administration. Mr Mishra, among others also met George Tenet, the Director of CIA. It was during Mr Satar’s visit to US that General Musharraf elevated himself to presidency. Americans pursued the track-two efforts to involve overseas Kashmiri separatists in US and UK and the Jehadis in Pakistan. In this connection, an Indian delegation headed by Saifudin Soz and VK Chawla, former bureaucrat in MEA visited US and UK.

  To engage Jehadis services of Maulana Makki, a cleric based in Pakistan and Shahi Imam were requisitioned. Bukhari paid four day visit to Pakistan and had detailed meetings with General Musharraf, Abdul Satar and other top officials in Pak Foreign office. As per reports, Jehadi groups refused to meet him. Surprisingly, the Indian government gave permission to leaders of Jamaat Ulema Hind—Asad Madni, Marghoobur Rehman and Maulana Nizamatullah Azmi to attend Khidmat Deoband Almi Conference at Taru Jabba town in Peshawar. The Conference was held on April 9-11. Lashkar-e-Toiba, is the terrorist wine of the Deobandis. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who is the patron of terrorist outfits Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (including Al Faran) was to visit Delhi in April last. Somehow the visit failed to come off.

  Pressure on Pakistan

  Americans used different strategies to push India and Pakistan to the negotiating table. Abdul Satar was told that US appreciated Pakistan’s role in catching in acts of terrorism against US interests abroad but it was not doing anything in containing the threat of extremism from Afghanistan. It warned him that new Arab elements were moving into Afghanistan. Outgoing US ambassador to Pakistan, WB Milam told a seminar gathering in Lahore on June 28 that anti-Jinnha forces were averse to Indo-Pak ties. He added, “To them Kashmir is a holy crusade, and support for the Taliban in Afghanistan is a close second, Jinnah would have been supportive of the idea of dialogue to resolve Kashmir issue instead of promoting, ‘Jehad’ holy war”. Milam also countered Satar’s contention that Pakistan had little control over Taliban and that it needs to maintain cordial relations with the group, because of Afghanistan’s strategic location and long-standing friendship. Milam made direct accusation against Pakistan. In an interview  to Washington Post (July 8), Milan said that Pakistan was collaborating with Taliban regime in supporting insurgents operating in Kashmir and said “differences on this issue would continue to dog relations between Washington and Islamabad for a long time.”

  Richard Boucher, US State Department spokesman emphasized that, “the questions of India and Pakistan and the issues that they are going to deal with are very important to them and to the US. We look forward to them for establishing a base of cooperation to produce a more peaceful and stable situation in the region, and it is our hope that they will do that”. On being asked whether US was making any specific recommendation to the two counties, he said, “I think I will leave that to our representatives in the field”. US. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage told Reuters that there is much ground work to be done to build political support for lifting US sanctions on Pakistanis, but an India-Pakistan summit later this month could have an impact on this process.

  Armitage went on to criticise Musharraf for undermining democracy, first by overthrowing a civilian government and then declaring himself as President. Armitage, who recently visited India as part of President George Bush’s campaign to promote missile defence, described, that 50 years old USA relationship with Pakistan, to its embarrassment as “relatively false”. He praised India as a democracy and rising regional power. Interestingly Armitage did not visit Pakistan.

  Argument For India

  US administration used persuasion to get India around to the negotiating table with Pakistan. India was told that dispute like Kashmir was distracting attention in emerging as world power. India was promised lollipops in terms of upgrading and widening anti-terrorism training programme. US official described Osama bin Laden and Taliban as common threat to national interests of India and US. American officials dug up pro-US and pro-Chinese divide in Pak Army. They told Indian officials that Musharraf, a pro-US moderate man was under pressure from pro-Chinese elements in the army, Lt Gen Aziz and Lt Gen Mehmood. They argued that this loby had strong links with Jehadi groups. General Musharraf was described as a peacenik in commando uniform.  US officials said that it was the fear of a counter-coup that forces Colin Powell to nudge New Delhi to invite Musharraf. US argued that a successful summit will strengthen Musharraf at home. This success needs concessions from India. India was also asked to bail out Pakistan. Pro-American peace lobby in India had launched a media blitz for seeking unilateral concessions to Pakistan. India had already supported 3 billion IBRD-IMF accommodation to Pakistan this year, as well as concessions over Kashmir, like the extended NICO and the involvement of Hurriyat.

  Similarly arguments were given after Benazir Bhutto took reins of power. It was said then that India needed to engage her benignly for fear of provoking Pak military into overthrowing her. The fact on the contrary was that she had made her peace with the military.

  Riders

  Underlining the urgency for India-Pakistan dialogue and US riders to it, President Bush said, “I believe the leaders of India and Pakistan must talk directly to resolve the issues dividing their nations. Ultimately the two countries must find a solution, taking into account the views of the people of region. My administration will continue to encourage the two sides to resume a dialogue, and, I will continue to urge the leaders to talk”. President Bush added that US was interested to mediate due to “inherent dangers in the continuing dispute between India and Pakistan over the region of Kashmir”. The views carried in the letter written by Mr Bush to US Senator Thomas Carper (Delaware) contradicted Mr Vajpayee who had said US had played no role in causing the summit. The letter, though written on May 18, was released on the eve of the summit on July 14.

  Media Role

  Semi-official think tanks and US media also pursued a similar approach. Washington Times (June 9) reported that Musharraf was considering to put forward a proposal to grand some degree of autonomy to Kashmir during Agra Summit. This was contradicted by Pakistan, which said autonomy idea essentially appeared to be that of US government. Washington Post, (July 13) commented editorially that General Musharraf was creating obstacles in reaching a negotiated settlement even before start of summit. It advocated a) renewal of cease-fire b) steps to ease controls over civilians and Muslim c) to curtail government support for militants and reigning Jehadi groups.

  Highly articulate Stephen P Cohen of the Brookings Institution described Vajpayee’s invitation to General Musharraf as a “preemptive move to stave off an active American role in the region later on”. Teresita C. Schaffar of the centre for strategic and international studies said India and Pakistan would have no option but to make “strategic” compromises if they wanted to get any closer towards resolution of the Kashmir tangle. Cohen warned India of direct US intervention if summit failed and asked it to explore “alternate” solutions for Kashmir. Charles H. Norchi, an international security expert at Yale Law School said the summit was being of overwhelming importance for the US. Dennis Kux of the woodrow Wilson International Centre asked Pakistan to go beyond single-point agenda of Kashmir and criticized its composition of Ministerial delegation.

  Summit Failure

  Commenting on the failure of Agra Summit, US maintained that summit was a step forward. Asstt. Secretary of State Christina B. Rocca remarked, “while India and Pakistan did not reach agreement on a final joint statement, it is important to keep this meeting in perspective. The two sides were grappling with very difficult issues that have divided them for over 50 years. Yet the serious and constructive atmosphere of there talks tells me that both sides are committed to resolving their differences, even if this turns on to be a lengthy process... We strongly support this kind of sustained, senior-level engagement between India and Pakistan”. Gary Usery, senior advisor to the State Department commented, “The important thing is they decided to stay at it and they will meet again”.

  The optimism, displayed by the US official was not, however, shared by the American media. Soon after US officials made public their stance on summit, both Indians and Pakistanis lowered down the trading of charges against each other and claimed that summit was not a failure.

  Colin Powell, US Secretary of State went on the outline post-summit US policy in the region. He said, “We will do everything we can to lend our good office to the improvement of relations between the two countries and the difficult outstanding issues, whether it is Kashmir or nuclear weapons. So you will see us deeply engaged in the  region and trying to have balanced and strong relations with both countries. Agra Summit did not  produce as much progress or did not have the success we might have hoped.”
 

Previous Article

Next Article