Military

DATE=January 17, 2002

TYPE=Dateline

NUMBER=7-35827

TITLE=Terrorism and South Asian Security

BYLINE=Judith Latham

TELEPHONE=202-619-3464

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Neal Lavon

CONTENT=

INTRO: Tensions between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir and acts of terrorism seem to have eased in the past week. But the two nations still have nearly one million troops massed along their border in the largest military buildup in three decades. During his trip to South Asia this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wants both countries to start a dialogue, although the United States will not serve as a mediator between New Delhi and Islamabad. With more in this Dateline report on "Terrorism and South Asian Security," here's Judith Latham.

JL: The current tensions between India and Pakistan date back to 1947. That year, the Indian sub-continent gained its independence from Britain. The newly-freed land was split into two separate nations--India and Pakistan. Since then, the two countries have fought three wars over disputed border areas. Two of these wars have involved Kashmir, which both nations claim, and where each controls a portion. India has blamed Islamic groups based in the Indian part of Kashmir for more than 16 hundred terrorist attacks in the last year. On December 13, armed men attacked the Indian Parliament. Fourteen people died including the attackers. India blamed Pakistani militants for the attack and accused Pakistan of supporting groups to which terrorists belong. Pakistan denies the charges.

This past weekend, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf delivered a speech which condemned terrorism and vowed to curb Islamic militants accused of the attacks in India. To complicate the prospects of armed conflict, both nations have nuclear weapons.

Former American diplomat and now Director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Teresita Schaeffer, calls President Musharraf's commitment to forbid Pakistan to be used as a base for terrorist attacks in Kashmir as "highly significant."

TAPE: CUT #1: SCHAEFFER Q&A [FM LATHAM] x:xx

TS: The most significant parts of it were those where he in effect set out to redefine Pakistan and to redefine jihad as a struggle that needs to be directed at illiteracy and poverty. Taken in that context, I think his ringing denunciations of terrorism should be taken seriously. But, I would add two caveats. First, because of the place that Kashmir occupies in Pakistan's psychology, I think you're going to have to wait and see what happens on the ground. Second, I think it's going to be important that India responds with appropriate de-escalatory gestures to keep them moving in the right direction. [BEGIN OPT] I think at some fairly early date that one would like to see India and Pakistan start to reverse the military steps they had taken. [END OPT]

JL: How unpopular is President Musharraf's new attitude toward cross-border terrorism in Pakistan itself?

TS: Let me give you two answers to that. It depends on whom you talk to. There are quite a lot of Pakistanis who think the moment is long overdue for the Pakistani state to reclaim its authority against the militant groups and to put Pakistan on a path to a more liberal future. There are others in the urban slums and in the religious political parties who are afraid this is a betrayal of a sacred cause. Musharraf's speech was very clear that Pakistan would not countenance terrorism, period. But there has always been an important strain in Pakistani thinking that has drawn a distinction between "terrorism" and a "freedom struggle." The context of Musharraf's speech is that he is telling his government to reverse its course.

JL: To what degree has India used the September 11th attacks in the United States to crack down against Muslim insurgents? And how does this feed into the incidents in December when the Indian Parliament was attacked?

TS: Well, I think the key incident in India was the attack on the Parliament on December 13th. I think it was a response to what Pakistan did after September 11th. Pakistan did put restrictions on these organizations. (OPT) It primarily restricted their activities in Afghanistan and within Pakistan. At that time there was not much action taken to limit their freedom of action in Kashmir. But those responsible for the attack on the Indian Parliament and I find the Indian accusations there quite plausible were basically trying to demonstrate that their actions against India were not limited by Musharraf's policy decision up until that point. (END OPT)

JL: At this stage, what are the chances for a military conflict between India and Pakistan?

TS: I do not think India and Pakistan are likely to go to war in the short term unless there is some new high-profile incident that starts an escalation. One can never completely discount the possibility of a miscalculation.

JL: It appears that the United States wants to have very good relations with both India and Pakistan. Is it possible to do that without alienating the other?

TS: Well, I think we are about to find out. It is true that India and Pakistan both relentlessly keep score about who is closer to the United States and whether the United States is picking sides. Obviously, the United States is very concerned about the possibility of a nuclear faceoff in South Asia. With Pakistan there is the whole Afghanistan dimension, which is a critically important element in our new relationship. And similarly, with India the U-S now has a very strong interest in common that has to do with Indian Ocean security and broader Asian security and has relatively little to do with Pakistan. So, we've got a lot to talk about with each state that doesn't necessarily concern the other one.

JL:(OPT) How does China fit into that?

TS: Well, China is a very important part of it. In my judgment, both India and the United States share a very important goal in Asian security. And that is that neither country would like to see one single power dominating Asia. (END OPT)

JL: Kashmir appears to be a situation that is almost intractable with respect to the commitment of both India and Pakistan to diametrically opposed outcomes. I have heard a few suggestions that perhaps an ultimate solution would be the independence of Kashmir. Do you see that as even a possible outcome, and what would the pros and cons be?

TS: I think independence is the solution that would win a free and fair election, if one were ever held in the Kashmir Valley. (OPT) The parts that are under Pakistani administration are reasonably comfortable staying there. And the area of Jammu and Ladakh are not uncomfortable within the Indian union and don't particularly want to be ruled from Srinagar, which is the capital of the valley. (END OPT) I don't find the independence solution particularly realistic. I think India will not allow Kashmir to be separated from it peacefully, and any other means of resolving the issue is simply not acceptable. So, when I think about Kashmir solutions, I think much more in terms of self-rule for Kashmir with looser, but still existing, ties to India and Pakistan.

[BEGIN OPT] JL: Do you see it as an enormous threat that India and Pakistan will actually have a nuclear war? Is that just a threat that each uses against the other?

TS: I don't think either side wants that. The danger is that they could miscalculate. It would be so easy to make a slight mistake in trying to gauge the other side's red lines and then to have a nuclear confrontation arise when you don't want it. We don't think the leaders in that part of the world are crazy or that they want to blow each other up. But we do know from America's experience in the Cold War how easy it is to get to the brink and how difficult it sometimes is to read the intentions of an adversary with whom you don't have very good communications. [END OPT]

JL: Ambassador Teresita Schaeffer is Director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Another keen observer of the region is Ambassador Richard Murphy, former U-S envoy to Saudi Arabia and Syria, and former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs from 1983 to 1989. Currently with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he says Indian government officials continue to maintain what he calls an "official skeptical stance" regarding the Pakistani president's promise to crack down on terrorists. Ambassador Murphy says it may be some time before New Delhi responds in any concrete way.

TAPE: CUT #2: MURPHY Q&A [FM LATHAM] x:xx

"I think it's unrealistic to expect that there will be a major Indian reaction in terms of action on the ground of troop withdrawal. [BEGIN OPT] I know some very senior Indian officials have taken the position that there are two areas in which Pakistan could convince us that the [Pakistani] President meant what he said. Let Pakistan deliver 20 of those who are under its control, who have operated in terrorism, and deliver them to India some 15 of whom are Indian nationals. And, secondly, let us see if there is any further penetration across the "line of control" in Kashmir. If those 20 individuals are handed over and there is no infiltration, then they will be ready I believe to do more than they are at the moment in terms of troop withdrawal. [END OPT] But I think Secretary Powell's visit nonetheless is giving both sides a chance to step back from the brink."

JL: Ambassador Murphy says that both Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee face enormous pressure from their respective constituencies to maintain a tough political stance. The former U-S envoy believes that President Musharraf's speech on terrorism this past weekend showed courage.

TAPE: CUT #3: MURPHY Q&A [FM LATHAM] x:xx

"It is very difficult for a political leader to confront his public and say that the direction of their policies, in the case of Kashmir, over the last four decades has been a mistake. I think he is very courageous in saying, "We will not tolerate the use of terrorism to help the Kashmiri people." [BEGIN OPT] President Musharraf did inherit a long-standing policy of support for changing the status of Kashmir from what was created in the late '40s at the time of independence and partition of the sub-continent. The attack on the Parliament in Delhi was a blow at the heart of the political system that is India. That attack was on a target chosen for its enormous symbolic importance to the Indian nation, as the attack on the Pentagon in Washington and the World Trade Center in New York were of enormous symbolic importance to Americans. [END OPT]

JL: Ambassador Richard Murphy of the Council on Foreign Relations. The United States is watching developments carefully in the region as to its impacts on Afghanistan and on international security. Speaking in the region, Secretary of State Powell said Washington stands by to help, as he put it, "its two friends." "Terrorism and South Asian Security" was the subject of today's Dateline. I'm Judith Latham.