|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere |
| May 29, 2002
KASHMIR: CROSS-BORDER INFILTRATION COULD BE 'TRIPWIRE TO WAR'
|
May 29, 2002
KASHMIR: CROSS-BORDER INFILTRATION COULD BE 'TRIPWIRE TO WAR'
KEY FINDINGS:
** Editorials treated nuclear exchange as unthinkable, yet possible, given the current tensions.
** Media in neither country viewed Pakistani missile tests as a decisive step towards war.
** Indians saw war averted if the U.S. pressured Pakistan into stopping cross-border infiltration.
** While Pakistani papers blamed the crisis on Indian "war mongering," some nonetheless worried that jihadi terrorism might "provoke full-scale war."
MAJOR THEMES
NUCLEAR THREAT: Writers the world over warned the South Asian adversaries against "the dangerous assumption" that it is feasible to limit war between nuclear powers to conventional weapons. Even as Indian editorialists called on their government to "do something" in retaliation for the "barbaric massacre" of military dependents in Jammu May 14, most urged PM Vajpayee to exhaust India's diplomatic and economic options before launching any strikes across the LoC. Assuming that it would be up to New Delhi to initiate a war between the subcontinental rivals, Pakistani writers put the international community on notice that "a nuclear war might start if India is not stopped right now" and that "the effects of this war will...engulf the entire world." Despite the lamentable timing and strategic ramifications of last weekend's Pakistani missile tests, the media in neither country viewed them as casus belli.
CROSS-BORDER INFILTRATION: Indian papers, exasperated with General Musharraf's "posturing" on the issue of anti-Indian terrorism, expressed satisfaction that "the U.S. has woken up to Musharraf's tricks and has asked him not only to stop the Pakistan-based jihadis from entering Kashmir, but also to 'show results'." They posited that, if Washington doesn't influence Islamabad, perhaps through suspending economic assistance, New Delhi would have "few options but to ratchet up" its military operations. Pakistani editorials, which uniformly ascribed the current crisis to Indian "war mongering," didn't question Musharraf's assertion that "there was no cross-LoC infiltration." Nonetheless, a number of writers in Pakistan's independent English-language press identified cross-border infiltration as a tripwire. Lahore's Daily Times, despite supporting moves like the missile tests as "tactical signals to India...that Pakistan would not be a walk-over," still declared that Pakistan should not "allow any group to use Pakistani soil for mounting attacks on any other state, including India." And Karachi's Dawn worried that jihadi fighters might cross the LoC to "commit some huge atrocity...which would turn India into a mad bull dashing blindly into nuclear-armed Pakistan."
EDITOR: Stephen Thibeault
EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 63 reports from 22 countries, May 21 - 29. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed by most recent date.
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Bluff And Bluster"
The nationalist Hindustan Times stated (5/29): "So, it was bluff and bluster all the way in keeping with the time-honored belief that offense is the best defense.... For India, General Musharraf remains the slippery customer that he has always been.... Even if he is, for argument's sake, not as closely linked with the rogue elements in the ISI and the military junta as before September 11, he still probably turns a blind eye to their jihadi operation in the hope that it will get him Kashmir. India, therefore, will have to remain vigilant."
"General Thrust"
The centrist Indian Express observed (5/29): "Musharraf's speech poses a greater challenge to world leaders than to India. The last time round they were able to convince India that the general needed some time to crack down on the terrorist lobby in his country. But the overt bellicosity in his speech this time makes it all the more difficult for them to convince India about the need to show restraint."
"Na-Pak Pervez"
The centrist Pioneer editorialized (5/29): "Whatever minimal chances there could have been of New Delhi taking President Musharraf's assurances about halting the export of terrorism at face value, have been scuttled by the ill-concealed hostility towards India that characterized his address. He not only repeatedly referred to this country as the 'enemy,' but leveled against it a wide range of allegations--from atrocities in Gujarat and elsewhere in India on Muslims and other minorities to repression in Jammu and Kashmir.... His posturing has served to raise and not lower the tensions that are threatening to push the subcontinent into war. It will be entirely his responsibility if the latter breaks out."
"War By Other Means"
K. Subrahmanya wrote in the centrist Times Of India (5/29): "The only effective weapon available against Pakistan's terrorism--whether in support of the al-Qaida and the Taliban or against India--is an economic squeeze.... This is the point that needs to be stressed by India to the United States, Japan, the EU and others who are munificent donors to Pakistan.... The war against Pakistani terrorism has to be fought in a more sophisticated manner."
"PM's Confession"
Pro-BJP, Urdu-language Pratap's editorial emphasized (5/28): "Prime Minister Vajpayee has admitted that he missed the chance to strike Pakistan in retaliation for the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13. He didn't say, however, why he refrained from doing so.... Since India did not act the way a sovereign and self-respecting country should have acted in response to the December 13 attack, the world soon forgot the incident. This time again, the government has so far relied upon plain rhetoric with no concrete action forthcoming. After the government has regretted the missed chance for retaliation in the past, the people expect it to go beyond making hollow statements and deal firmly with Pakistan."
"Put In Place"
The centrist Pioneer stated (5/28): "New Delhi has every reason to feel elated with the statements emanating from Moscow over the weekend unequivocally calling upon President Pervez Musharraf to end his sponsorship of cross-border terrorism against India.... Against this background, it needs to be appreciated that President Putin's invitation to Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf to visit Moscow for a dialogue is well intentioned and cannot be construed as third-party intervention in Kashmir--a route India has consistently rejected."
"Nuclear Deterrence"
Raja Menon stated in the centrist Times of India (5/28): "Fears of a nuclear war are never unfounded, because these weapons are meant to deter by frightening governments. But the origin of the West's fear lies in a simplistic belief that India and Pakistan are trapped in a process so inevitably doomed that neither government can save its people. Most strategic thinkers in this country are also fearful, but their anxiety is justified because neither India nor Pakistan has put in place those institutions that will enable deterrence to operate."
"Rap On The Knuckles"
The nationalist Hindustan Times editorialized (5/28): "Like Israel, Pakistan has always been something of a favorite with America.... The United States has woken up to General Musharraf's tricks and has asked him not only to stop the Pakistan-based jihadis from entering Kashmir, but also to 'show results'.... The earlier American indulgence towards Pakistan may have also encouraged him to play such a double game. What he overlooked, however, is that the equations in the subcontinent have changed. India today is far more important in American eyes than at the time of General Musharraf's predecessors. Hence, the rap on his knuckles."
"Defining The Victory"
Strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan observed the centrist Hindu (5/27): "New Delhi will now have to manage the international intervention with sophistication to realize its objective of ending cross-border terrorism once and for all.... The focus would soon turn to what New Delhi will do in return.... Here are a few guidelines.... First, trust but verify. Second, make sure that Pakistan's offer is not just a tactical pause. Third, make it clear to the international community that de-escalation and substantive dialogue with Pakistan will follow as a consequence of the gun being put down and not as a precondition or a quid pro quo. Fourth, Mr. Vajpayee needs to hold firm to defined, clearly strategic objectives but demonstrate tactical flexibility..... Fifth, don't let the lunatic fringe of the ruling party define the terms of de-escalation..... Sixth, take the opposition parties into confidence, for internal unity is the key to successful coercive diplomacy. Finally, don't rub General Musharraf's nose in the ground. Give him some space."
"To Ease Tension"
The nationalist, Hindi-language Rashtriya Sahara declared (5/27): "It is imperative that the U.S. control General Musharraf as it is felt that the United States has always supported Pakistan for its own selfish political reasons.... The United States needs Pakistan to destroy al-Qaida and also in the future to keep an eye on India and China. Pakistan is taking advantage of U.S. compulsions and [only] takes some small steps when the United States increases pressure to satisfy the world community but reverts to its actions against India when the situation becomes normal."
"Before Tragedy Strikes Again"
Leftist theoretician and columnist Mohit Sen declared in the centrist Telegraph (5/27): "The most disturbing fact is that we remain unable to stop terrorists from crossing the border almost at will. The situation and the implementation of measures need to be seriously looked into to prevent infiltration. We cannot blame our enemies alone for our own incompetence. Prevention of infiltration, or for that matter the capture of infiltrators can knock the wind from the sails of the Pakistan propaganda which insists that the infiltrators are freedom fighters from Kashmir."
"Three Views On The General"
Pramit Pal Chaudhuri penned this analysis in the nationalist Hindustan Times (5/25): "Scenario one: Musharraf accepts defeat but still needs others to agree. He has told his cabinet and National Security Council that infiltration must end. But there is no evidence he has gotten the corps commanders to subscribe to this view. Scenario two: Musharraf is just playing for time. The West is pressing him because it believes India will jump the gun. By making reasonable sounds, he may hope to ease the squeeze. Scenario three: Musharraf is testing India's response.... By spreading the word he is ready to curb infiltration, he may be hoping to see whether India will offer him dialogue. If not, he can tell the West to lay off. The only certainty: Neither the United States, India nor Europe is certain which scenario is right."
"Reading Musharraf"
An editorial in the centrist Indian Express held (5/24): "It is crucial that cross-border terrorism be terminated, since the people of the state are scheduled to exercise their democratic rights in the coming months while the same continues to be denied to the people across the LoC. The touchstone of peace and war will be the willingness of Islamabad to implement the collective decision taken at a joint meeting of the cabinet and the National Security Council presided by General Musharraf."
"Pakistani Gambit Opens Diplomatic Space"
Strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan put forth this analysis in the centrist Hindu (5/24): "The signals from Musharraf, that he is prepared to control cross-border infiltration, appears to have opened up a wee bit of space for the unfolding international diplomatic effort to defuse the Indo-Pak military tension. India, however, is unlikely to reconsider its military posture unless it is convinced that the signals from Pakistan are about a comprehensive effort to dismantle, irreversibly, the infrastructure of terrorism on its soil.... The stage now has been set for a diplomatic choreography in the next few days that might involve a series of steps by both India and Pakistan to move back from the nuclear brink. The threat of war has not receded. But General Musharraf has made the first move. If he delivers on all aspects of cross-border terrorism, a different future might await the subcontinent."
"Call From Kupwara"
An editorial in the centrist Pioneer held (5/24): "What particularly evokes skepticism is the fact that almost in the same way as in the January 12 address, the release stated that Pakistan would continue to extend moral, political and diplomatic support to the legitimate struggle of the people of Jammu & Kashmir for self-determination according to UN resolutions. There is no mention of the Shimla Agreement. This hardly inspires confidence. Emissaries from the West, arriving in New Delhi to urge restraint upon India, would do well to keep in mind India wants results. If they want to be taken seriously, they must be able to spell out a clear deadline for Pakistan to curb cross-border terrorism."
"Blink And Glare"
The nationalist Hindustan Times insisted (5/24): "Now, Pakistan is indicating yet another reluctant recourse to a third step--that of no longer allowing terrorists to use its soil for fomenting terror in Kashmir. It is hard to tell how serious the junta is about implementing this policy. Whatever it has done so far has been under U.S. pressure. It is the expression of India's determination to respond even militarily if needed which has evidently had an impact in Islamabad."
"World Against Terror?"
New Delhi's centrist, English-language Indian Express commented (5/21): "One week after the barbaric killings of women and children, one has heard little from the United States, which is leading the global war against terrorism. In the interim, the killings go on and India is being left with few options but to ratchet up its military options, knowing full well that there are risks involved. After the initial condemnation of the Jammu massacre, the United States seems to have become preoccupied with other issues like its nuclear deal with Russia. Either the West has not grasped the import of what is happening in the subcontinent, or it assumes--like Islamabad does--that New Delhi will respond with restraint, in accordance with its interests. The problem is compounded by the fact that Pakistanis appear to be gloating over the absence of action from Washington....
"The United States has numerous instrumentalities at its disposal.... U.S. policymakers must draw a balance between the incentives it provides Pakistan, with unambiguous disincentives for its failure to act. In substance, the United States should review the economic assistance programs to Islamabad, which only lead to greater intransigence in controlling jihadi terrorism. At the same time, Western democracies must support the election process in [Jammu and Kashmir]. In fact, their advice for restraint would carry much more weight if it is accompanied by identifiable measures against terrorism."
"Blind Alley"
The nationalist, English-language Hindustan Times declared (5/21): "A major reason why the war clouds have appeared over the subcontinent is General Musharraf's 'failure'--more by design than by accident--to control the jihadis. After the American offensive in Afghanistan and the general's own promises in the wake of the December 13 attack on Parliament, it was expected that Pakistan would rein in the terrorists.... But the general has evidently been untrue to his words.... The admission by the United States that Pakistan is unwilling to let American troops operate in the western regions of Pakistan against the al-Qaida and Taliban is evidence enough of Islamabad's double-dealing.... The ISI [Inter Service Intelligence] and the Pakistani military junta, which have remained committed to their jihadi doctrine, are now apparently as involved in fomenting trouble in Kashmir as before September 11. The United States is unwilling to take cognizance of their sinister plans, presumably because General Musharraf has sold them the line that he remains their last point of contact in the terrorist camp. But as the statement by the alliance has shown, there is concern and dismay in Pakistan about this reckless adventurer leading the country into the blind alley of terror and destruction."
PAKISTAN: "A Forthright Speech"
The center-right, national Nation declared (5/29): "One thing that comes out loud and clear from the president's address to the nation is that Islamabad has no intention of making any further concessions to appease New Delhi's seemingly bottomless craving for war.... It is markedly unfair on the part of global powers to continue to point an accusing finger towards Islamabad and not take up the President's challenge to post neutral observers on both sides of the LoC to see for themselves whether any infiltration of militants from Azad Kashmir was taking place, and also witness the reality on the ground in the valley, where the people are living under the brutalities and repression of the Indian forces.... It does not serve the interests of peace to blindly buy the Indian version and keep on counseling Pakistan 'to do more.' Durable peace can only be assured through dialogue and letting the people to the disputed state freely exercise their right of self-determination, and not under the shadow of occupying forces, which should be withdrawn."
"Indian Rope Trick"
The centrist, national News commented (5/29): "President Musharraf in his address to the nation on Monday, while strongly affirming that Pakistan was not exporting terrorism and there was no cross-LoC infiltration, rightly made it clear to India that a liberation struggle is going on in Indian-held Kashmir and Islamabad cannot be held responsible for it. This is a fact larger than life that Delhi has refused to recognize and instead used the indigenous freedom movement as an excuse to unnecessarily agitate the fears of the world community about possible terrorism brewing in the region.... The task of ending the standoff--now having graduated into a virtual head on collision--should, therefore, be started from India, where its roots lie.... Foreign leaders would do well to ask the Indian government whether it sees the prolonged freedom fight as terrorism and, if so, why it did not make the allegation years earlier.... Somehow, this Indian trick does not make sense, even if there is an eager Western media biased enough to see 'Islamic terrorists' even in the backyard. What Delhi is doing is no more than performing to a credulous audience and placing the blame on its favorite whipping boy--Pakistan."
"International Community And India's Obligation After Address"
Second largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt editorialized (5/29): "American forces are present in Pakistan, the U.S. communication system is working here and its powerful satellites are watching every movement. It is not difficult for them to know the extent to which General Musharraf's assurance is implemented and to know the atrocities India is committing against innocent Kashmiris.... To go on pressing a nuclear Islamic country by considering it isolated is not prudent; such a line of action could result in the destruction of India.... India is not withdrawing troops from the borders even now and, [amid] continued unprovoked firing on the LoC, will conclude that it wants a war with Pakistan at any cost.... Thus India will be responsible for the war and ensuing destruction."
"President's Address And The Demands Of The Situation"
Sensationalist, Urdu-language Khabrain insisted (5/29): "In his latest speech, the president clarified to the world that Pakistan has never engaged in cross-border infiltration nor will it allow it in the future. Pakistan has always invited India for a comprehensive dialogue. The president has announced that Pakistan is still extending that offer. It is now the international community's responsibility to get India to agree to talks."
"Another Address To The Nation By President Musharraf"
Popular Urdu-language Din editorialized (5/29): "President Musharraf's address to the nation demonstrated his unique sense of realism and his unequivocal stance.... [He] has again assured the international community that Pakistan is not involved in any terrorist activities inside India, nor is there any infiltration across the LoC.... By not bowing to Indian pressure, Pakistan has brought it to a point where the same India that blocked any third-party mediation in 'bilateral issues' is now calling upon the global powers to come forward and ask Pakistan to 'stop the infiltration.' This can be termed as a victory for Pakistan.... If India wants the Kashmiri freedom fighters to stop militant activities, it must adopt the path of peace."
"Fourth Youm-I-Takbeer And New Missile Tests"
Popular Din opined (5/28): "By carrying out missile tests only three days before the fourth Youm-I-Takbeer (anniversary of the nuclear tests), Pakistan has resumed the process it started on May 28, 1998 in response to the Indian nuclear tests. The tests of surface-to-surface missiles is timely in that it was necessary to remind India's extremist Hindu leadership that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent is not weak--in fact, it has been strengthened. Now every Indian city is within Pakistan's nuclear attack range.... Although Russia, America and Japan have expressed disappointment at Pakistan's missile tests, they must bear in mind the tense climate in which Pakistan has made this decision. The international community must also not forget that there is a vast difference between Indian and Pakistani motives (in carrying out missile tests.) While India conducts tests to be called a 'global power' and to threaten its neighboring countries, Pakistan does so in self-defense."
"Take Integrated View Of India-Pakistan Standoff"
The Lahore-based, independent Daily Times declared (5/28): "We supported the decision to test, linking it with General Musharraf's reiteration not to allow any group to use Pakistani soil for mounting attacks on any other state, including India. In our assessment, the strategic impact of Pakistan's concession not to sponsor cross-border infiltration--in view of the concerns of India and the international community--had to be countered by a tactical signal to India and the international community that Pakistan would not be a walk-over and regard should be paid to Pakistan's concerns: that while Pakistan respected other states' sensitivities regarding various forms of militancy, it has genuine security concerns of its own emanating from India that is using a mix of propaganda, diplomatic offensive and military pressure, in tandem with the international abhorrence of violent non-state actors, to not only threaten Pakistan but also use this ruse to move international concerns away from the issue of the rightful demands of Kashmir.... While India would like the insurgency to stop getting support from 'guest militants,' it has no intention of negotiating Kashmir with Pakistan. It would like to use that breather to put down the freedom fighters and hold elections within Held-Kashmir to convince the world that it has embarked on a genuine political process within the disputed territory. It is this thinking that has turned Kashmir into a bleeding wound."
"The Toughest Speech"
Rahimullah Yusufzai commented in the centrist, national News (5/28): "The Western media generally expressed disappointment that Musharraf failed to announce further steps to check the activities of Islamic militants. Somehow Western commentators, along with their Indian counterparts, had taken it for granted that the general would take steps to intensify his crackdown against the extremist Islamic groups.... It would be wrong to say that every word in Musharraf's half-hour speech spit fire. Conciliatory at times, he made a conscious effort to address India's concerns by describing the December 13 attack on the Indian Parliament as an act of terror and by condemning the bombing in Jammu."
"Lighting The Nuclear Fire"
Pervez Hoodbhoy wrote in Karachi-based, independent, national Dawn (5/28): "Terrible dangers lie ahead. Lacking any desire for a political settlement or accommodation, or even a strategy for achieving victory, Jihadis in Kashmir now operate as a third force independent of the Pakistani state. Their goal is to provoke a full-scale war between India and Pakistan, destabilize the Musharraf government and settle scores with America. Hence the possibility that they will soon commit some huge atrocity--such as a mass murder of Indian civilians--which would turn India into a mad bull dashing blindly into nuclear-armed Pakistan. Many observers have noted that the Srinagar, Delhi, and Jammu attacks on Indian civilians coincided with the visits of high officials from Western countries. Could the forthcoming visit by Richard Armitage provide a trigger for the next atrocity and a nuclear war?"
"Nuclear War: An Insane Option"
Zubeida Mustafa also observed in Karachi-based, independent, national Dawn (5/28): "It is strange that there is no general concern among the people at the mounting tension and hazards of a nuclear war. That is probably due to the low level of knowledge and awareness of the dangers of radiation. In fact, the political parties and the media, which should know better, are whipping up a war psychosis and militant nationalism which will only encourage the government to throw all restraint to the wind.... Musharraf insists that the militants in Kashmir are not operating from our side of the border. If that is so and he is sincere about avoiding a war, the president should heed the sensible suggestion a newly launched daily from Lahore (Daily Times) gave last week. Pakistan should offer to unilaterally pull back its forces from the LoC, create a demilitarized zone on Pakistan's side of the Line and ask the UN for international monitors to be stationed there. This will rob India of the pretext to attack."
"Pakistan-Specific Pressure: How Long Should We Tolerate It?"
Second largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt stressed (5/28): "India is not going to budge on our assurances and goodwill steps, nor will America stop encouraging India against Pakistan. So it (India) will attack Pakistan after getting the last no objection certificate from the boss (America). We will have to put up a tough fight. Vajpayee has gone to the extent of saying: we made a mistake by not taking action (against Pakistan) in December, the policy of restraint should have been abandoned at that time."
"India Boosts War Plans"
Islamabad's rightist, English-language Pakistan Observer intoned (5/21): "Belligerence, thy name is India. New Delhi is fine tuning its war plans and toning up its war machinery as the world community calls for restraint.... India, however, has its own designs and is not receptive to the calls of sanity and wisdom. It is, in fact, bent upon pushing the region towards conflict with no realization whatsoever of the cost that the people of the two countries will have to pay for its follies. The world community should take note of Indian obduracy and invoke the UN Security Council to exert pressure on New Delhi to eschew the path of confrontation and conflict, as it will be disastrous for the region as a whole. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan should...for a change, act at the right time and save the situation from further deterioration. The Indian leadership is sadly mistaken, if it contemplates that the Indian people will escape the rigors of war and only Pakistan will face its wrath. The Indian people are, in fact, bound to suffer more than the Pakistanis.... Neither the Indian armed forces nor its people will have legitimacy for their actions in case of an attack on Pakistan.... India will, therefore, be well advised to shun its war frenzy and revert to the negotiating table."
"Rumblings Of War"
The center-right, English-language Nation editorialized (5/21): "Going by the escalatory steps India has initiated, it may well have finally decided on the option of war, even a limited war, despite calls for restraint from Russia, Britain and the EU.... The fruitless Rocca visit and the postponement of the Armitage mission in effect mean that New Delhi has been allowed a freer hand to counter so-called cross-border terrorism the way it likes, as there seems to be a subtle element of concurrence in the U.S. position. All these developments are collectively indicative of a dangerous security downslide in the region, which may push things towards an all-out war between the two nuclear-armed rivals.... There should be no ambiguity left by now that India means business, which should prompt Islamabad to speed ahead with all possible preparations on military and diplomatic fronts.... Our 'allies' will not help us. Indeed, they will only create hindrances.... Let the process of building a national consensus and reconciliation be started without delay."
"Dangerous Escalation"
The Karachi-based, independent, English-language Dawn declared (5/21): "The world is aware of the risks involved in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the two nuclear powers. World capitals, including Washington, Moscow and Beijing, have repeatedly called upon Pakistan and India to exercise restraint and resume talks. Pakistan has accepted each and every offer and agreed to negotiate with India anywhere, anytime, but New Delhi's response has been one of hauteur stemming from great power pretensions.... One hopes friends of India and Pakistan will put pressure where pressure needs to be put and stress on India the need for accepting the offer of talks as a way of defusing the crisis that at some stage could spin out of control."
"Indian War-Mongering Can Prove Devastating For The World"
Lahore-based, sensationalist Khabrain editorialized (5/21): "The international community, especially the United States, must urge India to reduce tensions and agree to a dialogue.... Countries that encourage India in its aggressive acts and countries that who ignore these acts should change their attitude. South Asia is standing on the brink of a devastating war. A nuclear war might start if India is not stopped right now; the effects of this war will not remain confined to this region but engulf the entire world. Only peace-loving countries can stop India from playing this dangerous game."
"Killing Fields Of Kashmir"
Moonis Ahmar wrote in an op-ed in the centrist, national, English-language News (5/21): "New Delhi's attempt to draw international, particularly American, support for its retaliatory policy against Pakistan after the May 14 incident may not succeed. It is not because of the fact that the United States and its allies require the support of the Musharraf regime for their war against terrorism and the liquidation of the al-Qaida network in Afghanistan; it is the threat of the escalation of the Indo-Pak conflict into a full-fledged nuclear war which goes against supporting any Indian adventures against Islamabad.... Now it is too late for India to seek a military solution to the Kashmir conflict.... If India thinks that by seeking the United States' support it can neutralize the popular uprising in Kashmir, it is terribly mistaken."
BANGLADESH: "Putin's Invitation"
Pro-opposition, Bangla-language Janakantha held (5/29): "We think that, although Pakistan continues its missile tests and Musharraf repeats his country's preparedness for a war, his position is like that of Ayub Khan in 1965. He must find a way out, and negotiations are the only way. We expect India and Pakistan to accept the Russian invitation."
"Indo-Pak War Cry"
The independent, English-language Daily Star remarked (5/28): "This present war to be has become more worrying because both have nuclear capability. Now most would think that, although they have the bomb they won't use it, but then why have it in the first place? There certainly is a point for both which, if crossed, will lead to nuclear weapon exchange no matter how placid are the respective warring minds. And a nuclear exchange in Kashmir may well mean that such echoes will be heard elsewhere. It will be a terrible first strike that will encourage other nuclear weapon holders to try it out.... Given that scenario, the superpower United States must play its role. Bashing Mullah Omar is good, but ending potential military apocalypse in Kashmir is more important and necessary.... The United States stayed away from action in the Middle East because it was too biased towards Israel, but it has a stake in the health of both India and Pakistan. Let the United States act now. At least till Pakistan and India can start thinking peace."
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "If Anyone Can Keep A Lid On Kashmir, Musharraf Can"
Foreign editor Bronwen Maddox observed in the conservative Times (5/28): "Jack Straw, who arrived in Islamabad in the early hours of this morning, will deliver an uncompromising message from the West and Russia to President Musharraf today: Crack down immediately on terrorism across the Kashmir border or you will suffer. The foreign secretary's message will be repeated within a week by Richard Armitage, the U.S. deputy secretary of state. The decision to increase the pressure on Musharraf follows a week of diplomacy in which India, in an exasperating dance of equivocation, has put out clear signals of restraint, appearing to offer Pakistan a breathing space before considering further action.
"Can General Musharraf crack down on the militants? It has become fashionable to question this because of the number of militants and the support of the Pakistani army and the ISI internal security agency. The more important question is: if Musharraf cannot control the army and the ISI, who can? Would it really be worse to take on the militants over Kashmir? Yes, in the sense that Kashmir is a question of identity for Pakistan, in a way that Afghanistan and the Taliban never were. Yes, in that Musharraf himself, telling his people in September why he was backing America, promised that he would never betray the Kashmiri cause. At the same time, the problem of the border militants may be exaggerated, in the way that perceptions of the support for the Taliban were overblown. If anyone is going to bring the army in the North East into line, the commander-in-chief would seem to be the fair candidate."
"The World's Greatest Danger"
The conservative Daily Telegraph offered this view in its lead editorial (5/21): "The root cause of the problem remains India's refusal to allow the Kashmiris a plebiscite on their future status. But it has been compounded by Pakistani persistence in providing a springboard for sabotage in the disputed state.... Heat and rain along the Indo-Pakistani border will allow Washington a few months in which to turn the protagonists back from the brink. The very weakness of the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad will complicate this task...for both, an external threat affords a tempting diversion from domestic difficulties. To risk a war for such purposes seems folly. But it is in that direction that the two neighbors are drifting."
"Most Dangerous Of All"
The liberal Guardian stated (5/21): "India has good reasons for its current anger.... For its part, Pakistan has good reasons for its alarm.... The brinksmanship is just as foolish, potentially disastrous and unnecessary today as it was in the past.... Pakistan's undemocratic general should try to understand the fierce political pressures on India's democratically elected leadership. India's prime minister should try to understand that General Musharraf is far from being in total control of his country; to some extent he is a victim of the jihadis, too. The two sides need to talk, not fight; they really do need a neutral mediator; and they both need to remember that for Kashmir--all Kashmir--the ultimate goal must be self-determination, as set out more than half a century ago by the UN."
"Once Again, U.S. Must Take The Lead Through Diplomatic Minefield"
The centrist Independent held (5/21): "The case for urgent international diplomatic intervention is overwhelming--and, whether we like it or not, the United States must again take the lead.... America does have some useful cards to play, despite the historic aversion of India to foreign involvement in Kashmir. The first card is simple self-interest. The last thing the United States and its allies want is a distraction from the Afghan campaign; on the other hand, progress over Kashmir would reduce one combustible that is fueling terrorism in the region. Second, the United States has better relations with both sides in the dispute than for many years. After decades of neglect, it is cultivating ties with India, while Pakistan's international respectability depends on loyal membership of the anti-terror coalition assembled by Washington. Last but not least, the physical presence of U.S. forces sent there as part of the war against Al Qaida will make India think doubly carefully before launching military action. But overriding everything is the plain fact that Pakistan and India's nuclear arsenals make the alternative to diplomacy unthinkable."
FRANCE: "India-Pakistan: America's Role"
Charles Lambroschini wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (5/23): "By seeming to raise its voice against Pakistan, what India is trying to do is 'convince' the White House to 'convince' Pakistan to put an end to the Islamic fundamentalists operating in Kashmir.... For the Indian prime minister it is clear that the United States cannot resign itself to a fourth Indo-Pakistani conflict...while the Afghan conflict itself is far from over.... Because of the prominent strategic role played by India in the region, President Bush cannot ignore Atal Vajpayee's appeal. Pakistan's double-dealing is another reason why it is important to listen to India. While President Musharraff has sided with the United States in the war against terrorism, many of his military officers and secret service agents prefer to side with the Islamic fundamentalists.... Musharraff's domestic impotence is proof that the war of words could easily turn into a real war, with the temptation for Pakistan to use its nuclear weapon. Isn't it always the weak ones which prove to be the most dangerous?"
"India And Pakistan On The Brink Of War"
Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (5/23): "These two traditional enemies are dangerously flirting with war. How can we not feel a chill when we hear India's prime minister say to his troops that the 'hour has come for decisive combat?'.... After the growing skirmishes of these past few days, an escalation could quickly become uncontrollable. The game being played is an explosive one, 'potentially devastating' according to Great Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Sraw."
GERMANY: "Ways Out Of The Kashmir Crisis"
Manfred Haack, head of the Delhi office of the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation, argued in business Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg (5/29): "Whether the Kashmir problem can be resolved depends on the question of how far India and Pakistan's sovereignty claims and the demands by the Kashmiris for autonomy can be brought into accordance. This requires political talks of all sides involved without any preconditions and taboos. But such talks are hard to imagine without any outside interference.... In view of the incapability of the two conflicting parties to free themselves from this miserable situation, the chances of such a mission are not bad. In addition to the United States...Europe and its historical experience with fundamental conflicts play an important role. In Pakistan, one has to see to it that Musharraf, who is under considerable international pressure, will not lose support of his people. In India...a considerable degree of persuasive work will be necessary to implement a concept of a cooperative conflict solution--but here, too, people will be able to realize that a solution to the conflict will create advantages for all sides involved."
"Disappointing"
Peter Sturm noted in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (5/28): "Was this all? President Musharraf's speech was announced with great fanfare. That is why it was appropriate to expect an important initiative, but the general only offered something that was well known, something that will not help de-escalate the situation between India and Pakistan.... It offers room for interpretation that Musharraf, now at the (preliminary) peak of the conflict with India, used a great deal of his address to regret irregularities during the most recent referendum on the extension of his term.... The partly justified accusations against India because of the latest attacks against Muslims could not obscure the fact that the Pakistani president has been weakened. But weak rulers are often more dangerous for the surrounding countries than are strong rulers."
RUSSIA: "Nuclear Arms Are Still A Deterrent"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (5/21) stated in a page-one comment by Aleksey Andreyev and Mikhail Khodaryonok: "New Delhi's actions are the mirror image of Israel's with regard to Palestine. Musharraf, just like Arafat, says that he can't control extremists, as India uses violent methods, too. But just like in the case of the Middle East, a big war between India and Pakistan is unlikely, their nuclear weapons a restraining factor."
"Full War Unlikely"
Boris Volkhonsky stated in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (5/21): "It is unlikely that the current hostilities will escalate into a full war. The Pakistanis know only too well that, in the event of a direct conflict...their country may cease to exist. To the Indians, the foreign policy aspect is more important than the military."
DENMARK: "U.S., Russia Must Press For India-Pakistan Dialogue"
Center-right Politiken stressed (5/25): "Clinton called Kashmir the most dangerous place in the world. Nonetheless, both the United States and Russia appear intent on maintaining their old Cold War positions. Russia is attempting to continue the former Soviet Union's friendship with India. After September 11, the United States quickly forgot its concerns about Pakistan. Cynicism is alive and well, but it will not help resolve the situation in this hot spot. The two powers should insist that both India and Pakistan agree to a dialogue."
HUNGARY: "On The Verge"
Senior columnist Janos Avar noted in the weekend paper Vasarnapi Hirek (5/26): "President Putin has already indicated his intention to mediate. Well, it would come at a good time for President Bush. He is overloaded with the Mideast 'non-accord' and with leading the fight against terrorism. The leaders of the two great powers have found 'great friends' in each other. Maybe they should invite Musharraf and Vajpayee and offer them a lesson in 'conflict resolution.'"
IRELAND: "Kashmir Is The Tripwire To War"
The liberal Irish Times stated (5/27): "The unthinkable prospect of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan has come suddenly on to the international agenda as their leaders stoked up attacks on one another. Alarming warnings from intelligence services in Britain and the United States that this is a real possibility have led to intensifying diplomatic efforts to scale down the conflict. The air of unreality about the dangers involved would be shattered by a transition to war.... An especially worrying aspect of the crisis is that this carries popular support and military encouragement. Pakistan's leaders have similar political motives to respond belligerently. They believe themselves to have cover from the United States because of Afghanistan.... International pressure must be applied intensively to head off this confrontation and resolve it diplomatically...and should become the most urgent priority of international politics. The Kashmir issue should be part and parcel of the effort to scale the conflict down."
SPAIN: "Pakistan Explains Itself"
Left-of-center El País opined (5/28): "Pakistan has developed a network of violent fanaticism, which is impossible to eliminate in the short run, especially by a president who came to power in a coup and joined the United States in a war against bin Laden and must still consolidate his support.... But all the blame should not be put on the Pakistani side.... India has managed in a deplorable way the only Muslim-majority state to whom independence was promised in 1947, manipulating elections and permitting abuses by its troops.... Only the United States--by making use of its influence on both countries--can prevent the worst. Washington must demand from Musharraf, even though he is a key ally in Afghanistan, the determination to stop the terrorists. And from Delhi, patience and good faith regarding Kashmir. "
TURKEY: "Is There A Risk Of Nuclear War?"
Sami Kohen wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (5/28): "The new disarmament agreement between the United States and Russia minimizes the risk of global nuclear war to the lowest possible level. However, this does not mean that nuclear threat has been totally eliminated. The mounting tension between India and Pakistan is just one recent example.... The escalation of Indian-Pakistani tension comes with the leadership attitudes of the two countries. They are aware of the danger, but when tension gets to an extreme level, it might be very difficult to keep under control.... The only positive aspect of this problem is the fact that both sides are now very much open to foreign involvement in finding a settlement. It looks like genuine deterrence will come from the international community, which does not want to see nuclear confrontation of any kind."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "Pakistani Missiles"
Leading, pro-government Al Ahram's columnist Hazem Abdel Rahman wrote (5/29): "No one can say Washington has 99 percent of the cards with any party (in the Indian-Pakistan situation.) Each party is preoccupied with developing its own capabilities to the maximum extent, including nuclear and missile capabilities. Pakistan made utmost use of the September 11 crisis.... The basic message of Pakistan's missile tests is to India saying Pakistan is no longer the weak party and India no longer imposes its military will.... This is exactly the perplexity we feel about India.... Wisdom impels India to present an acceptable political alternative to solve the Kashmir crisis. If the policy of military victories failed in the past, it should think of other alternatives since the nuclear threat has become imminent and serious."
SYRIA: "Under The Banner Of 'Combating Terrorism'"
Bassam Hashem commented in government-owned Al-Ba'th (5/29): "The most dangerous aspect of the India-Pakistan crisis is that it is taking place under the banner of 'combating terrorism.' The world community has witnessed the catastrophic and tragic outcome of combating terrorism in the occupied Palestinian territories.... What is taking place is not a regular war, nor will there be a loser or winner. There is now a generalized departure from political and cultural values and a return to the law of the jungle."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "India, Pakistan And Bush"
Sharjah-based, pan-Arab Al-Khaleej declared (5/26): "It is clear that Washington and Israel are the sole beneficiaries of this escalation, which has reached the stage of war between the two nations, due to their conviction that in any serious war, India would be victorious (unless nuclear weapons were used) because of its clear superiority in troops and conventional arms.... A war between India and Pakistan, as long as it is within the framework of conventional weapons, means a gain for the United States and its arm factories, because the two nations, especially Pakistan, rely on American weapons and would therefore be forced to use many arms and purchase more American weapons. Israel also participates in the campaign of provocation and escalation against Pakistan, which it (Israel) considers an Islamic nuclear enemy that must be defeated."
EAST ASIA
AUSTRALIA: "No Winners In Kashmir Crisis"
The business-oriented Australian Financial Review (5/28) observed: "Everyone, from U.S. President George Bush down, agrees that the Kashmir crisis is very dangerous. The risk of India and Pakistan going to war has been as high as this only four times in the past 30 years.... Like the stand-off between North and South Korea, the dispute between India and Pakistan is a family quarrel, and as such is likely to resist external mediation.... The natural hope is that the intense diplomatic pressure being exerted by the United States and all the major powers will hold India and Pakistan back from the brink. But even if they do succeed this time, a long-term solution in Kashmir remains as remote as one in Palestine."
"Time To Defuse The Kashmir Crisis"
The national conservative Australian editorialized (5/27): "The brinkmanship being played out between India and Pakistan is potentially far more dangerous than international terrorism or the conflict in the Middle East. For the first time, two adversaries with a long history of warfare, sharing a common border but ruled by opposing political systems--one authoritarian, one democratic--are rattling nuclear warheads over Kashmir, a conflict that has defied resolution for more than 50 years. So primed are the armed forces on both sides it will be extremely difficult to back down now. Restraint will be seen as weakness.... For now, however, the ball is in General Musharraf's court. The missile tests carried out over the weekend were unnecessarily provocative, as was General Musharraf's statement that Pakistan 'was ready for war.'"
CHINA: "Nuclear War Would Have Biggest Impact On China"
Official Communist Party international news publication Global Times reported (5/28): "Some specialists in the United States have even worked out a nuclear war option which is likely to take place between the two nations. According to the American specialist, 'India will initiate the war, and then Pakistan will demonstrate its capability of self-defense by introducing nuclear weapons. After several rounds of nuclear attacks from both sides, Pakistan would surrender within 48 hours.'... Nuclear war would have the biggest impact on China and would cause serious nuclear pollution to the Chinese border area and the nuclear pollution might also threaten Tibet, Xinjiang and Southwest China. China is the country that has the longest border with India and Pakistan. China is very concerned about the development of the Indian-Pakistan situation and will spare no effort to promote reconciliation so that the tension between the two nations can be eased."
CHINA / HONG KONG SAR: "Diplomacy's Role"
Hong Kong's independent English-language South China Morning Post remarked (5/28): "British and American diplomacy will have a major role to play in helping to calm tensions. International diplomacy must help create the conditions for the following steps to be taken: a sealing of the border between India and Pakistan so that infiltration is stopped, a standing down of troops on either side of the border, followed by a reduction of the level of violence in Kashmir as well as a political dialogue on how to restore peace to the sub-continent. The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, as well as a senior U.S. State Department official, Richard Armitage, who will be in the region for the rest of the week, will have their work cut out. The price of failure might be nuclear war."
JAPAN: "India, Pakistan Must Ease Tension"
Business-oriented Nihon Keizai stressed in an editorial (5/29): "Moves are afoot among the United States and other countries to mediate between India and Pakistan as tensions mount between the rival nuclear powers over the Kashmir dispute. Both nations must listen to international calls for reducing tensions that could lead to full-scale hostilities.... Against such a background, Pakistan's 'brinkmanship-like' missile test-firings were extremely regrettable. President Bush echoed global concerns over the missile testing by saying Pakistan should give top priority to dealing with terrorism."
PHILIPPINES: "On The Brink Of War...For The Umpteenth Time"
Publisher Max V. Soliven wrote in the third-leading Philippine Star (5/29): "For the umpteenth time, India and Pakistan are on the brink of war.... The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute...estimates that India has a nuclear arsenal of 25 to 40 nuclear weapons, while Pakistan has about 15 to 20. Gee whiz, just three or four of those nukes would suffice to decimate the subcontinent.... Everybody's calling on the Pakistanis and the Indians not to go to war, but to engage in 'dialogue.'... The leaders on both sides have talked themselves into a corner (and Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has further aggravated the messy situation by sending up three test missiles in the past few days, and sticking a verbal dirty finger up India's nose.)... Getting out of a war will be a fakir's miracle and more difficult than the fabled Indian rope trick."
SOUTH KOREA: "Kashmir's North Korea Specter"
Kim Young-hie opined in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (5/29): "If South Asia remains on the brink of war for a long time, let alone if war breaks out between India and Pakistan, Pakistan's nuclear weapons and missiles will further attract international attention. In that case, North Korea, which has enabled Pakistan to develop Ghauri missiles, will be more severely criticized by the Bush administration as a nation exporting weapons of mass destruction.. There is one thing we really hope: that the crisis in South Asia will be settled peacefully, lest it give another justification to the United States for bashing North Korea."
THAILAND: "South Asia Slides Towards New War"
Top-circulation, moderately conservative, English language Bangkok Post observed in an editorial (5/27): "The fate of Kashmir will not be settled by yet another war between India and Pakistan. Both countries should make that clear immediately, and cut the war fever. Pakistan must stop supporting the radical, violent groups who are killing Indian women and children in the name of independence. The best time to stop would be right now. India must engage in serious and meaningful talks over Kashmir with the people who live there. A responsible India will defend its territory without engaging in war. New Delhi may feel it can fight a conventional war and defeat Pakistan. In this nuclear age of South Asia, that would be a dangerous assumption."
VIETNAM: "What Are The Causes Of Indian-Pakistani Tension"
Danh Duc noted in Tuoi Tre, the daily of the Ho Chi Minh City's Communist Youth Party (5/28): "Both the Indian and Pakistani governments are victims of a game of war triggered by the Islamic groups. President Pervez Musharraf is now in a difficult situation similar to that of President Arafat, i.e., while he is trying to clamp down on Islamic groups, he has to be accountable for their terrorist attacks. The United States sent Deputy Secretary Armitage to the region to cool tensions between the two countries as both are U.S strategic partners. However, U.S. intervention is one thing, and rebuilding security for India in Kashmiri is another--[something that] Armitage cannot fulfill since it is in the hands of militant groups. As long as India feels insecure, the shadow of nuclear war will continue to loom."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
