Is Kashmir key to Afghan peace?

Barack Obama says resolving the Indian-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir will be a goal of his presidency, ending eight years of silence on the issue.
By Mark Sappenfield Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor and
Shahan Mufti Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW DELHI; and ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - As part of his push to find new solutions to the war in Afghanistan, President-elect Barack Obama is considering a new diplomatic push on Kashmir, reversing eight years of American silence on the issue.
Mr. Obama has argued that Pakistan will not fully commit to fighting the insurgency it shares with Afghanistan until it sheds historic insecurities toward India. Talks about Kashmir, the central point of contention between the two nuclear rivals, are among the "critical tasks for the next administration," Obama said in an interview last month with Time magazine.
It is a strategy that worries Indians, who suggest the Pakistani Army is blackmailing Obama to support its claims. Yet security analysts say the Afghan insurgency has roots in the power struggle between India and Pakistan and cannot be solved without a regional approach.
"It will be very hard to put Afghanistan on a long-term positive path without alleviating some of the Indo-Pakistan tensions," says Xenia Dormandy of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Such ideas would appear to fit well with the doctrines of Gen. David Petraeus, who oversaw a significant improvement in law and order in Iraq. He is now the commander of American forces in the entire region, which includes Afghanistan.
General Petraeus has been an open advocate of regional diplomacy as a key counterinsurgency tactic. On Oct. 15, he told a round table of Washington Post reporters that in seeking solutions to Afghanistan, "there may be opportunities with respect to India."
The goal would be to build a level of trust between India and Pakistan, freeing Pakistan from its historic fear of India, with which it has fought three wars. The surest way to do this, Obama has said, is to find a solution to Kashmir – the state split between each but claimed in full by both.
"We should try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that [Pakistan] can stay focused – not on India, but on the situation with those militants," he told MSNBC on Oct. 31.
Obama went further in the Time interview, mentioning he has spoken with former President Bill Clinton about becoming a special envoy to the region – a comment that has been front-page news in India and Pakistan.
Nothing could be more damaging to American interests in the region, says Raja Mohan, a member of India's National Security Advisory Board. He claims Indo-Pakistan relations are better than they have ever been, citing the recent opening of trade between Pakistan - and-Indian-controlled Kashmir as something that would have been unthinkable in the past.
Moreover, he suggests India and Pakistan have behind the scenes made significant progress on the issue of Kashmir, to the point that the two nations have a tentative road map for how to resolve the crisis. It was scuppered only by the collapse of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's regime in August.
Bush steered clear of Kashmir
The progress was partly the result of the Bush administration's decision to steer clear of Kashmir, says Mr. Mohan. Entering the fray now would only disrupt the delicate balance, making it appear as if the US was merely trying to placate Pakistan in return for its support in the war against terror.
In such a case, Mohan says, India might have a hard time winning concessions for a fair deal: "So long as the Pakistani Army thinks that the Americans are on their side, they're not going to deal with India."
Both Obama and his top South Asia adviser, Bruce Riedel, have spoken of the need to be discreet. In a 2007 teleconference for the journal Foreign Affairs, Mr. Riedel said: "I would urge the administration to seize the opportunity to quietly, but forcefully, push for a resolution there."
In the interview he called Kashmir "the itch that has driven Pakistan towards supporting terrorism for the last 20 years." Indeed, many experts say the enmity – for which Kashmir is the most potent symbol – has shaped security in the region, including Afghanistan.
Rivalry plays out in Afghanistan
For years, the mutual mistrust has led India and Pakistan to play their own version of the Great Game in Afghanistan. India has consistently been Afghanistan's main ally in the region. But Pakistan sees Afghanistan as its strategic backyard, which under no circumstances can be yielded to Indian influence.
Fears are stoked by the memories of 1971, when the Indian Army helped Bengalis secede from Pakistan to form Bangladesh. With Afghanistan historically claiming a significant chunk of Pakistan as its own, Pakistanis worry that an Indian-backed Afghanistan could dismember Pakistan further.
"Pakistan is the only country in South Asia that stands between India's complete hegemony in this region," says Fahmida Ashraf, an analyst at the Institute for Strategic Studies in Islamabad, a thinktank funded by the Pakistan government.
Repeatedly, Pakistan's Army has acted to prevent this from happening. It has done this by cultivating networks of militants as a proxy army. In Afghanistan, the Pakistan-backed mujahideen chased out the Soviet Union, India's ally. Then the Pakistan-backed Taliban took control of the country, preventing it from falling into the hands of pro-India Northern Alliance warlords.
This proxy war continues. India has invested $750 million and pledged $450 million more to the government of President Hamid Karzai, who is strongly pro-India. India is Afghanistan's largest trade partner. And it has taken the provocative step of opening consulates in two cities sitting on the border with Pakistan – Jalalabad and Kandahar.
Pakistan claims Indian intelligence agencies are using these consulates as bases, though it has never made this evidence public. Generally speaking, the allegations are that India is funding separatist militants in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.
"India wants to destabilize [Pakistan's tribal areas] and Balochistan," said Rahman Malik, a Pakistani government security adviser during a trip to Washington.
Analysts say this might be true, but only to a small degree. Militants "might be getting some support from India, but it's not anywhere near what the Pakistanis like to suggest," says Marvin Weinbaum, an analyst at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
Privately, a Pakistani diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity agrees. India's involvement in the unrest along Pakistan's western front "might be no more than 5 percent of all the trouble out there."
But publicly, Pakistan "is basing its Afghan and Indian policy on its perception," says Mr. Weinbaum.
In July, militants struck the Indian Embassy in Kabul with a bomb blast that killed 41 people. American intelligence agencies have said they have evidence that Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, was involved.
"Even today, the Pakistani military sees India as the threat," says Ms. Dormandy, of Harvard. "Until that attitude changes, you're not going to see Pakistan step back from its historically strong use of militant assets to affect foreign policy."
There are signs that this attitude is beginning to change. Pakistan is now fighting many of the militants it once sheltered in Bajaur and Swat in northern Pakistan. Obama's intent would be to accelerate this process and send a clear message to Pakistan.
"Why do you want to keep on being bogged down with [India and Kashmir], particularly at a time where the biggest threat now is coming from the Afghan border?" he told Time. "I think there is a moment where potentially we could get their attention."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1121/p01s01-wosc.html

Obama’s Kashmir statement finds takers in Valley

ARIF SHAFI WANI
Srinagar, Nov 3: Cutting across their ideologies, various mainstream and pro-freedom organizations have widely hailed the statement of front-runner US presidential candidate, Barrack Obama’s statement that America should try to help resolve the Kashmir dispute. Ahead of presidential election on November 4, Obama in an interview said, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (fighting the US). US should foster a better understanding between the two nuclear armed South Asian neighbours, that have fought wars over the decades-old Kashmir question in the past but are now engaged in a peace process.”
PRO-FREEDOM CAMP ELATED Chairman of Hurriyat Conference (G), Syed Ali Shah Geelani welcomed Obama’s statement but with a rider. “Obama should look at the Kashmir dispute in its historical perspective. I want to remind Obama that Kashmir is not a territorial or border dispute between India and Pakistan. It concerns 13 million people,” Geelani said. Geelani said if US is serious to resolve the dispute, it should implement the UN resolutions. “India and Pakistan are signatories to many conventions, including UN resolution to give right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Other than this right nothing will be acceptable to Kashmiris,” Geelani said. Chairman of Peoples Conference, Sajad Lone, welcomed Obama’s statement saying if United States will use its clout on India and Pakistan, the Kashmir dispute can be resolved amicably. “Kashmiris have been seeking help of the international community to resolve the dispute. Obama’s statement is good news for Kashmiris. It seems he has a broader understanding on issues confronting South Asia. United States enjoys good rapport with India and Pakistan and it is high time for it to facilitate resolution of Kashmir,” Sajad said. Hailing the statement, Chairman of Hurriyat Conference (M), Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said, “I appreciate the growing interest of Barrack Obama in resolving the Kashmir dispute. The US and internationally community is gradually recognizing that resolution of Kashmir dispute was imperative for peace in south Asia,” Mirwaiz said. Hurriyat leader Javid Ahmad Mir said for past 61 years the US presidents have only been advocating resolution of Kashmir. “Lip service cannot resolve the Kashmir dispute. US has to rise above the statements and impress upon India and Pakistan to resolve the dispute permanently,” Mir said. The acting chairman of Jammu Kashmir Peoples League, Mukhtar Ahmad Waza, while hailing Obama’s statement, said, “At last the sacrifices of Kashmiris are getting internationally recognized.” The president of Mahaz-e-Azadi, Mir Muhammad Iqbal also welcomed Obama’s statement.
MAINSTREAM PARTIES SEE HOPE President of Peoples Democratic Party, Mehbooba Mufti, welcomed Obama’s statement saying it would help to carry forward the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan. “Situation between India and Pakistan has improved with the revival of cross-LoC trade and bus service. The peace process between India and Pakistan needs impetus and if US or any other country can extend help, they are welcome.” The Chairman of Peoples Democratic Front, Hakeen Muhammad Yaseen, sees hope in Obama’s statement. “This shows Kashmir issue is alive in the international arena and emerging leaders, like Obama are showing interest to resolve the long-standing issue. It is really a ray of hope for Kashmiris,” Yaseen said. However, the CPI (M) state secretary, M Y Tarigami said US has been propagating suppressive policies to show its power. “We can only judge Obama’s seriousness to resolve the Kashmir issue only when he takes over as US president. We have seen that instead of resolving issues, the US has been creating conflicting situations as evident in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. The question is can Obama break the traditional policies of US,” Tarigami said. Senior leader of National Conference, Ali Muhammad Sagar, said if US wants it can resolve the Kashmir issue. “Let us hope that Obama becomes president and helps to resolve Kashmir. India and Pakistan have been taking many confidence building measures and it is high time for bloodshed to end in the state and pave way for Kashmir resolution. US intervention will be helpful in the endeavour,” Sagar said.

India jittery over Obama’s Kashmir proposal

SHEIKH AHMED

New Delhi, Nov 6: India appears jittery and uncomfortable over US President-elect Barrack Hussain Obama’s proposal to appoint former President Bill Clinton as special envoy on Kashmir to help resolve this contentious issue peacefully.“India is against third party intervention on Kashmir and had conveyed on umpteen occasions to the international community that it is a bilateral matter between the two neighbours. So America’s special envoy on Kashmir is not welcome,” a diplomat said.The Indian government feels that the issue will be again highlighted by the appointment of the envoy. India has always rejected proposal of the Organization of Islamic Conference to appoint special envoy on Kashmir, stating that the Muslim organisation has no locus standi to get involved in this issue. Similar remarks were made when South African leader Nelson Mandela made reference to Kashmiri at the Non-Aligned summit at Durban in 1999.Recently UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said he was ready to mediate between India and Pakistan on this issue provided both parties agree to it. “I am willing to do that. As you know good offices of the Secretary General are available when and whenever there is some agreed request from both parties.” However, the Indian government is opposed to UN or any third country role.Obama during his luncheon meeting with Clinton in New York recently proposed to him to take up the responsibility of the special envoy so that the issue is solved without any delay. The President-elect said, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that Pakistan can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (on Pak-Afghan border).”He further stated, “I will encourage India and Pakistan to work towards resolving their differences. If Pakistan can look towards the East with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.”When India and Pakistan were at the verge of war in 1999 on the Kargil conflict, Clinton along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair played important role to defuse the crisis. Even at that time, Clinton as well as the European Union had expressed willingness to appoint an envoy for South Asia to enable India and Pakistan to stabilize their relations.Former President Jimmy Carter’s name figured prominently for this job. But then nothing materialised as the Indian government conveyed its opposition to such an idea.It is interesting to watch what will be the policy of Obama when he takes over as the President on January 20, 2009. His deputy, Jeo Biden is considered close to India and he is likely to play an important role in the foreign policy of the Obama administration.The diplomats in New Delhi feel that linking Kashmir with Afghanistan was not justified and it would help Pakistan to internationalise the issue.