The Bush administration has decided to increase diplomatic involvement in South Asia, particularly in relation to the dispute over Kashmir, in an attempt to avert another crisis between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, according to media reports (see GSN, June 24).

“It might be three months, it might be nine months, but we all know that India and Pakistan will go back to the brink again,” a senior U.S. official said.  “Maybe next time they will go over the brink.”

The United States, which has previously accepted India’s refusal to allow a third party to mediate its dispute with Pakistan, is quietly changing that position with the support of its allies, the Financial Times reported yesterday.

“We are already de facto mediators on the Kashmir dispute, and there’s a recognition that this time we must stay involved,” the official said.

Several U.S. analysts also have said that the United States must be involved (see GSN, June 10).

“The level of hatred and distrust between India and Pakistan is so great that there is almost zero chance either would listen to the other’s proposals,” said George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “Nothing will happen without the close involvement of the U.S.”

Recent U.S. diplomatic success in easing tensions might provide an opening for more involvement, according to the Times.  The United States obtained a pledge from Pakistan to permanently end infiltration of militants into Indian-controlled Kashmir and convinced India to return its navy to homeport and open airspace to Pakistani aircraft.

India is now more likely to trust the United States and knows that New Delhi alone cannot force Pakistan to end support for Islamic militants, according to the Times.  India now sees U.S. involvement as indispensable, the Times reported.  Also, Pakistan knows it cannot renew support to militants without severe consequences.

“If Pakistan continued to export violence to its neighbors as an instrument of foreign policy, its survival as a country would ultimately come into doubt,” said Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution.

The United States is unlikely to pressure India and Pakistan overtly.  U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who helped resolve the latest crisis, said the United States will act as a “facilitator” rather than a mediator.

U.S. leaders do, however, have a plan for a peace process in South Asia, according to the Times.  Under the U.S. vision, Pakistan would follow up on its promise to crack down on militants and begin to dismantle their camps and infrastructure.  In exchange, India would reduce its military forces along the border.  India and Pakistan would then enter into formal talks and eventually the two countries would agree to formalize the Line of Control dividing Kashmir into an international border that would be open to both Kashmiri communities.  India would agree to establish a “supra-Kashmir” authority to promote cross-border cooperation.

Officials are concerned about two circumstances that might derail a peace process.  First, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s power and stability as a leader could be eroded if the Pakistani military believes he has surrendered Kashmir.  Second, India could react harshly if militants conduct another high-profile attack — and the United States believes there are al-Qaeda operatives in the area who might carry out such an attack (see GSN, June 14; Edward Luce, Financial Times, July 1).

For further information, see:

Stimson Center Background on Kashmir

Pakistani Embassy to the United States

Indian Embassy to the United States

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top