Emerging Threat
from US-India Nexus
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
The US may claim
that it has de-linked its relationship with India
from that with Pakistan, but ironically, its policies
relating to India now impact Pakistan's security
concerns as never before and US government representatives
continue to identify common security issues for
Pakistan and India. In the context of the former,
much has already been written in this column earlier
on the direct security threat that the US-India
nuclear deal poses to Pakistan, which will provide
safeguarded US nuclear fuel for India's civil reactors
and thereby liberate a large quantity of un-safeguarded
Indian fissile material from these reactors. This
can now be diverted to weapons production, allowing
India to stockpile a vast nuclear arsenal.
In the context of the US constantly linking Pakistan
and India in terms of regional security policies,
we have now seen General Peter Pace, Chairman of
the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a visit to
New Delhi, urging Pakistan and India to work together
to fight the Taliban. What was General Pace implying,
given that India shares no border with Afghanistan
and the highly questionable presence of Indian forces
in Afghanistan is already a source of a security
threat for Pakistan? Does he actually seek a more
enlarged Indian military presence in Afghanistan?
If so, is he truly unaware of the security dilemma
and threat that would pose to Pakistan?
He also indulged Indian commanders as they apparently
briefed him on New Delhi's concerns regarding Pakistan's
Afghan policy. Now why should Pakistan's Afghan
policy be a source of concern for India? Do we voice
our concerns, of which there are many, to the US
regarding India's Nepal policy, especially in the
historical context of India's territorial expansion
in the neighborhood? And are we to actually believe
General Pace's naiveté when he remarked that
the Indians brought to his attention "that
the Taliban has sanctuaries in Pakistan"? Or
was he actually using the Indians to voice his own
accusations? Interestingly, while he declared that
"Pakistan's President Musharraf is fighting
hard to clear those territories" (that is,
the so-called sanctuaries), the Pakistan army and
state's efforts in this fight against terrorism
were totally ignored.
This has been a common trait in US statements regarding
Pakistan's massive contribution to the war against
terror in the region. The state's role is barely
mentioned and an attempt is always made to de-link
the president from the state -- which seems to be
an effort to undermine the state of Pakistan by
insinuating that the state may not be fully supportive
of the president's anti-terrorist commitment. This
does no service either to Pakistan, which continues
to sacrifice its own citizens in the fight against
terrorism, or to the president in terms of his relationship
to the state and society.
Clearly what we are seeing is a heightened arrogance
on the part of the US with scant regard for the
sensitivities of its allies. This is especially
true in the context of Pakistan, whose nationals
are often referred to as "Paks" in public
remarks by US officials, including retired generals.
Because we choose to be too accepting of all that
is dished out to us, I suppose we are naturally
prime targets of the prevailing American arrogance.
But this arrogance is far more widespread. The US
has only recently declared that the driver of the
US truck that rammed into civilian traffic in Kabul,
killing and injuring a number of Afghans, cannot
be prosecuted in Afghanistan because of an agreement
between the US and the Afghan government. So effectively
US forces can act with impunity in Afghanistan.
Not that the US is concerned particularly with international
norms and laws presently -- especially in terms
of its soldiers and the treatment they mete out
to their prisoners. According to a Los Angeles Times
report of June 5, new policies on prisoners being
drawn up by the Pentagon will leave out a key provision
of the Geneva Convention that specifically bans
"humiliating and degrading treatment".
Given the level of abuse that prisoners in Iraq
and Guantanamo Bay are already being subjected to,
this action will only give a covert face to what
is already a reality. For those in Pakistan, this
arrogance becomes a direct issue of concern because
one is increasingly seeing it being reflected in
the Indian leadership's statements towards Pakistan
and their approach to the bilateral dialogue --
especially the issues of conflict that show no sign
of moving towards resolution. While the Indians
have been exceptionally clever in creating a myth
about their willingness to dialogue on all issues
with Pakistan, while focusing primarily on atmospherics
and trade, the reality of India's inability and
unwillingness to dialogue on the conflictual issues
in a substantive manner occasionally surfaces in
bizarre ways that belie claims of the growing civil
society interaction at all levels between Pakistanis
and Indians.
A recent example of this was the issue of participation
by Pakistani students from elite schools in a seminar/workshop
on Kashmir in Pune, India. The project was part
of the Initiative for Peace undertaken by the United
World College, Hong Kong, over the last few years.
This year the focus was on Kashmir and, as usual,
Pakistan's elite schools chose their students who
worked hard on learning about the Kashmir issue
and dutifully sent their passports to the Indian
High Commission in Islamabad. Close to the time
of the planned departure, and after a period of
almost three weeks, the Indian High Commission informed
the students that their visa forms had been misplaced.
Despite hastily re-filling these forms and despite
a supposed intervention on the part of the High
Commissioner himself, the students could not make
it to Pune so the meeting on Kashmir went ahead
without the main Pakistani participation.
Now what were Indian fears regarding Kashmir? Would
they have been put in an awkward position if the
Pakistanis had reiterated President Musharraf's
proactive proposals on Kashmir and asked why there
had been no Indian response? Or were they expecting
embarrassment on their human rights abuses for almost
over two decades in occupied Kashmir? Whatever the
case, India's hard line approach towards political
issues, and the rigidity of its Kashmir policy,
do get exposed occasionally. And we should learn
from these brief revelations of India's real intent
on bilateral conflicts and its arrogant efforts
to shift the focus to atmospherics and platitudes
even as it seeks to undermine Pakistan at multiple
levels internationally -- be it in misrepresentations
to third parties or in efforts to seek intervention
indirectly within Pakistan's internal dynamics under
cover of the war on terror. It is in this context
that Pakistan needs to be wary of the emerging US-India
strategic nexus, both in terms of form and content.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
