Mr Obama, the issue isn't J&K

by G Parthasarathy

(November 27, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The international community is evolving a strategy to prevent Pakistan from collapsing economically. With its foreign exchange reserves rapidly declining to a level that would enable it to meet its needs only for six weeks of imports, Pakistan was facing a situation of defaulting on a sovereign debt when a $ 500 million 'Euro Bond' would mature in February 2009. In order to ensure that Pakistan did not get assistance without undertaking drastic macro-economic reforms, the United States put together a new consortium, including China and Saudi Arabia, named 'Friends of Pakistan', to bail out that country. Finding that even Saudi Arabia and China were unwilling to bail it out unilaterally, Pakistan has been forced to accept a 23-month standby arrangement with the IMF for $ 7.6 billion, under which it will have to reduce defence expenditure and subsidies.

Worse still, the Pakistani Army is fighting a grim battle with Afghan and Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, with virtually the entire North-West Frontier Province now Talibanised. Key urban centres in Punjab, like Bahawalpur, are now controlled by gun-toting jihadis of the Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Maulana Masood Azhar. In Lahore, a restaurant frequented by students has been reduced to rubble, with neighbouring shopkeepers cheering, while the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba's leader calls Jews, Christians and Hindus "enemies of Islam".

Islamabad has been transformed into a fortress, with diplomats evacuating their families and IMF officials demanding crucial talks in Dubai rather than in Pakistan's capital city. In Afghanistan, the Karzai regime is under siege, with substantial areas south of Kabul under the control of the Taliban, whose political leader Mullah Omar and military commander Jalaluddin Haqqani function with ISI protection from Pakistani soil.

Amid this chaos, the world is told by Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid, now a key adviser to US military commander Gen David Petraeus, that America must "redefine" its goals and avoid targeting "local groups" like the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, and focus only on Al Qaeda. Rashid has proposed direct UN Security Council intervention through a 'Contact Group' comprising the permanent members and Saudi Arabia to find a solution to the "Kashmir dispute". While Rashid wants the 'Contact Group' to define India's role in Afghanistan, a perceptive Indian diplomat recently noted: "The Pakistani argument is not about 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan, rather than that as a prominent Islamic state, it has the right to call the shots in Afghanistan by determining its internal and external alignments."

New Delhi can hardly countenance such Pakistani ambitions. Rashid's policy prescriptions appear part of a diplomatic drive to deflect attention from Pakistan's own failings by focussing on its 'disputes' with India and Afghanistan. Pakistan's former Ambassador to the UN Munir Akram and other Pakistani academics are echoing Rashid's views in the US.

President-elect Barack Obama recently averred: "We also have to help make the case that the biggest threat to Pakistan, right now is not India, which has been their historical enemy, it is actually from within their borders." While such views are unexceptionable, what has raised eyebrows in India is his assertion: "We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try and resolve the Kashmir crisis, so that they (Pakistan) can stay focussed not on India, but on the situation with those militants".

No Government in Delhi will tolerate an intrusive foreign role on an issue affecting its secular and pluralistic nationhood. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had even declined an invitation from President Bill Clinton to visit Washington to meet Mr Nawaz Sharif during the Kargil conflict. It would, however, be naïve to treat these developments as not being inter-connected as there are other recent instances of influential think tanks affiliated to the Democratic Party articulating similar views. At the same time, however, there is also reportedly recognition among Mr Obama's advisers that the best the US can do is encourage the dialogue process between India and Pakistan.

India should respond coolly to these developments as relations with the US have now expanded sufficiently for any American Administration to realise their importance to American strategic interests. In his letter of September 23 to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mr Obama has said, "Our common strategic interests call for redoubling US-Indian military, intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation" while calling for a "new partnership" with India. The American corporate sector is all too aware of the immense potential for sale of nuclear reactors, F-16 aircraft and other defence equipment to India and for cooperation in areas like space and energy.

New Delhi should make it clear is that since the November 2003 ceasefire in Jammu & Kashmir, tensions along Pakistan's borders with India are virtually non-existent. Moreover, CBMs, including on military exercises along the common border, are in place. New Delhi can even offer a reduction of troops along the LoC and international border if Pakistan disarms and effectively bans the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, and disbands the ISI-backed United Jihad Council in Muzaffarabad. It is disingenuous of Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani and Ahmed Rashid to conjure up mythical Indian 'threats' to Pakistan's security as an excuse to avoid eliminating their Taliban and other jihadi protégés.

Pakistan's former Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has acknowledged that substantial progress has been made in addressing the 'Kashmir issue' through back channel talks between India and Pakistan. Mr Singh owes it to Parliament and people to disclose what has transpired in these talks, based on his proposal that while borders cannot be changed they can be made 'irrelevant'. While President Asif Ali Zardari appears ready to move forward on these proposals, he evidently lacks the clout to do so in the face of opposition from the hard-line military establishment and his foreign office.

The Americans should be advised to follow the approach of the European Parliament which has broadly supported resolving the 'Kashmir issue' by 'softening' the LoC, promoting cross-LoC cooperation and harmonising the level of autonomy/self-governance on both sides of the LoC, rather than being intrusive. Moreover, India should clarify that the Pakistan-Afghanistan dispute over the Durand Line should be resolved through bilateral discussions, taking into account Pakhtun aspirations. Even Pakistan's Taliban allies have refused to recognise the Durand Line as the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. India has remained silent for far too long on this issue. - Sri Lanka Guardian