|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
South Asia: Pre-Emption Comments Indicate Escalating Tensions, Experts Say By Mike Nartker Early this month, Sinha said Pakistan was a “fit case” for a pre-emptive strike, — much like Iraq — because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, provides sanctuary for terrorists and lacks democracy. Soon after, Pakistani officials responded in kind to Sinha’s remarks, saying India was itself ripe for pre-emptive action for also possessing weapons of mass destruction. “India is a fit case for a pre-emptive strike,” Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed was quoted by the Islamic Republic News Agency as saying. “If India thinks, and could do so, then we also have the right to go for a pre-emptive strike,” he said. While India and Pakistan have often exchanged heated rhetoric, Sinha’s pre-emption comments cannot be taken lightly, said Hussain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “When do we know when it is no longer posturing?” he said. A number of previous conflicts between India and Pakistan ended in such a way as to leave both countries with “scores to settle,” said Michael Krepon, founding president of the Henry L. Stimson Center. For example, an attack by Kashmiri separatists on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 led to India mobilizing its armed forces on the border with Pakistan for almost 10 months. All-out war was averted, however, after the United States pressured Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to crack down on militant Kashmiri separatist groups based on the Pakistani side of the “line of control” that divides the disputed Kashmir province. The question facing India now is what to do if another such attack were to occur, Krepon said, adding that some Indian military officials were “frustrated” when the military was mobilized without going to war. He warned that some experts are predicting a new wave of violence to begin in Kashmir during the spring and summer because of improving weather conditions. “People are worried,” Krepon said. Teresita Schaffer, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ South Asia program, said India believes Musharaff has not followed through on his pledge to combat cross-border terrorism (see GSN, April 18). There is increasing belief among Indian officials that the current situation requires a larger response than last year’s mobilization, she said. Sinha’s use of the term “pre-emption” might have been part of a strategy to create a foundation for future action, according to some experts. During the debate over the U.S. National Security Strategy, which includes the use of pre-emptive attacks, some officials and experts feared that other countries would use the new U.S. strategy to justify their own actions (see GSN, Sept. 23, 2002). “It sets in motion a series of uncontrollable actions that could be taken by China, by Russia, by Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea,” U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said in a speech late last year, referring to the U.S. strategy (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2002). The idea of pre-emption, if not that exact term, has been in Indian minds before the U.S. adoption of the strategy, which was manifested in the recent war with Iraq, Krepon said. Indian officials have thought since at least 1999 that India cannot always be in a “receive mode” of terrorist attacks and that Pakistan needed to be taught a lesson, he said. India is using pre-emption comments to employ a similar theme as those of the United States in order to maintain freedom of action if New Delhi chooses to go to war, Krepon said, calling Sinha’s comments “opportunistic.” Haqqani agreed, saying the U.S.-led war against Iraq provided India with a “legal stool to stand on” if it conducted similar action against Pakistan. “Legalization is important in South Asia,” Haqqani said. U.S. Role The current tensions between India and Pakistan appear to have become a significant concern for the United States, according to experts. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is expected to travel to the region next month in an attempt to help reduce tensions (see GSN, April 17). Schaffer said she believed Armitage hoped to set the momentum of India-Pakistan relations “on a different course” by his visit. She does not think Armitage expects to see immediate results, but his visit could begin a period of quiet backchannel diplomacy in preparation for a summit. Indian Prime Minster Atal Bihari Vajpayee hinted at such a summit during a speech last week in the Kashmiri city of Srinagar. In his remarks, Vajpayee proposed that India and Pakistan hold talks to resolve their dispute over Kashmir (see GSN, April 21). “Problems can be resolved by talks,” Vajpayee was quoted as saying by the Washington Post. “We are ready,” he said. Pakistani officials early this week said they welcomed the idea of talks. Haqqani, however, noted that Armitage’s visit would be the third time in the last two years that the United States has had to step in to ease tensions in South Asia. “Does the United States want to play babysitter in that region for the foreseeable future?” Haqqani said. “You can’t keep babysitting two nuclear-armed neighbors forever,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
