Dr. A. Z. Hilali
During the Cold War era, India was the strategic rival of the United States but after the end of the Cold War variety of factors, including the incident of 9/11, have become paradigm for the US policy makers who initiated so-called pragmatic engagement with India to dismantle Pakistan, neutralize Iran, encircle China and boost India as a regional bully to achieve long-term strategic objectives. The US has developed a comprehensive and institutionalized relationship with India and established broader relations particularly in the fields of economic and military. Ironically, the US has also adopted highly ambiguous policy on the Kashmir issue and called to respect the Line of Control (LOC), advocated direct dialogue between India and Pakistan and opposed the use of force to resolve the dispute which is more u to India. Since the end of Cold War, it has proved that the US has an intense and sustained interest and certainly different than the "episodic interest" of the past in South Asian region but has no intention of mediating on the Kashmir issue.
According to US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, the US is closely watching the implementation of promises made by Pakistan on Indian demand for extraditing terrorists and to prevent militants for cross-border activities. He cleared the US position on Kashmir and mentioned the US has no intention to mediate on the issue but want Pakistan and India to talk about it. In the same manner, President Barack Obama's Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrook, during his recent official visit to India on 8th April ruled out nudging New Delhi to resume bilateral talks with Islamabad and also denied offering any role as mediator between India and Pakistan and suggested that the two neighbouring countries would have to solve their long standing issues between themselves bilaterally. The State Department spokesman Robert Wood cleared the idea that Kashmir was never part of US special envoy Richard Holbrook's portfolio and his mission is to search out about peace and stability in Afghanistan. In reality Holbrook articulated the US thinking by describing India as "absolutely critical leader of the region" which has legitimate interests in Afghanistan. White House also made it clear that its special envoy has sole job to help for bring stability to Afghanistan and work closely with Pakistan to try to deal with the situation in the FATA region because Pakistan tribal belt along their porous border has become a terrorist safe haven. So, the new US policy actually shocked Pakistan's policy makers because it is seems to be the great surprise U-turn by President Obama's initial vision to resolve the Kashmir issue. Moreover, the introduction of the "Peace Act of 2009" in the US House of Representatives attaching stringent conditions to the proposed $1.5 billion annual assistance, require Islamabad not to support any person or group involved in activities meant to hurt India and to allow US investigators access to people suspected of involvement in nuclear proliferation. The US Lower House has injected amazing conditions for Pakistan deliberately shutting eyes from the Indian involvement in the domestic affairs of Pakistan, particularly New Delhi's role in promoting instability in Balochistan and the tribal areas (FATA).
It is a matter of great concern that the US officials are unnecessarily sympathising with India failing to use their influence to curb India's destabilizing role in Pakistan. According to Stephen P. Cohen (the renowned South Asian scholar), India is enjoying the privileges of post-Cold War American foreign policy in which the US found New Delhi pliable for their future interest. It seems that the US administration turned out of the way to bashing India at cost of "war on terror" allies and determined to manipulate for their ends closing its eyes from Pakistan's human and material contributions. In the recent issue of Times magazine Aryn Baker (Pak on the Threshold of Revolution) has written that the country has lost several thousand soldiers in the war on terror and the US administration still believe that the present regime is not doing enough. In reality the democratic government has failed to convince the people that war on terror equally benefit Pakistan as much as the United States. He also claimed that drone attacks and the air strikes have killed more innocent civilians than militants and indiscriminate killing is increasing the influence of Taliban and people are joining the Taliban groups to take revenge from the US and NATO forces. The political and diplomatic observers claim that US behaviour was not different than its traditional character and most of the time its terms reflected the projection of its own state interests conducive to promote their own regional and global objectives. In fact, the US never appears sincere broker of Pakistan and always disregarded the aspirations of "most loyal ally in Asia" and preferred to protect calculated strategic objectives of India rather than Pakistan. The US never comprehends the nature and intensity of the deep-rooted Indo-Pakistan hostility and did not bother to analyze closely the factors and compulsions of its regional ally and they only serve their own national interests. Moreover, the US administration neither fully respects the desire of Pakistan nor accommodate the wishes of the country and always preferred India and extend full diplomatic support to New Delhi on Kashmir issue or actively back in the event of any political or diplomatic crisis. However, the US greatly gain benefits from its association with Pakistan and remain receiving certain specific privileges from the country's establishment, including intelligence sharing, launching high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and drone attacks facilities from the territory of Pakistan. More and more, economic and military assistance to India is on much bigger scale than Pakistan. In this background, the US diplomatic history with Pakistan is not bright and fair but the people had seen the ray of hope when Barack Obama was elected as the President of the United States and shown interest to resolve the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan for the prism of "managing a more effective strategy in Afghanistan." President Obama's idea to solve the problem of Kashmir go back some way in an October 2008 interview to Time magazine and it looked like a pipe dream which is one of his top priorities for winning the war in Afghanistan.
At that time he described that it is difficult to engage Pakistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda because of its sensitive relations with India and Kashmir dispute and shown willingness to resolve the Kashmir crisis in a serious way." But after winning the election it perceived that President Obama's administration policies are the continuations of George W. Bush priorities and for their strategic purposes the new US establishment also dislike to annoy New Delhi. So, the ink is still fresh but Obama's administration has changed its stance on Kashmir and possibly they are not willing to mediate between Pakistan and India unless New Delhi will not allow to others. It is interesting to note that when the Mumbai carnage occured, India created hue and cry that it is an international matter and urged the US to put pressure on Islamabad to act accordingly. However, when the matter comes to the Kashmir dispute then New Delhi always change their stance and claimed that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and it is a socio-cultural dispute between India and Pakistan and it can be resolved only through a political and diplomatic initiative. In the changing scenario, Pakistan's establishment is certainly upset at the way US is pressuring Islamabad and giving a clean passage to India but not willing to accommodate Pakistan's security concerns. Although it is in interest of US to play constructive role for the settlement of Kashmir dispute because without its solution, there will be problem for Pakistan to effetively contribute in the war on terror. Certainly, the issue requires tough diplomacy and without appropriate pressure on the Indian elites they will not show willingness to resolve the matter. It is unquestionable that the US cannot resolve the issue and can only encourage both the countries to do so. However, if the US cannot resolve Kashmir the dispute, then why are they interfering every where in the world and not keeping out from Israel-Palestine affairs. The experts predicted that the sudden change in Obama's policy presumably meant to keep Pakistan under pressure to follow the US agenda while simultaneously keeping New Delhi on the hook. There is another "balancing" observation that would please India but it is also reality that Islamabad has failed to convince Washington of the validity of its Kashmir policy or its commitment to the war on terror. Nevertheless, the civilian government must launch proactive diplomacy to counter Indo-US propaganda against Pakistan and should use different channels to neutralize their negative diplomatic campaign. The leadership should also acquaint the international community with the foundation of cross-border terrorism which was laid down by India itself during 1971 and New Delhi's involvement in domestic affairs of Sri Lanka which is not hidden from the world. So, the time has come that the US must change its selective policy and impress upon India to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of Kashmiri people. azahilali@yahoo.co.uk
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment