Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

United States has created terrorism in India

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

http://meadev.nic.in/ind-ter/for-med/latimes-27jan2002.htm

 

America's India Problem

The Los Angeles Times - January 27, 2002

 

By SELIG S. HARRISON

Selig S. Harrison has reported on South Asia since 1951 and written five books on the region. He is director of the National Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior schola

 

WASHINGTON -- "If Pakistan is an ally of the United States of America ... good luck to the United States of America."

 

When Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh made this caustic remark to an American journalist recently, he was sending multiple messages to Washington. The most obvious one was that Pakistan remains a hotbed of Islamic extremists, despite President Pervez Musharraf's promised crackdown, and cannot be trusted. But at a deeper level, his words also serve as a powerful reminder that Indian anger over Pakistani provocations in Kashmir is directed not only at Islamabad, but also at the United States.

 

Behind the polite diplomatic exchanges now taking place between New Delhi and Washington lies the Indian belief that America's unconditional embrace of Musharraf since Sept. 11 has emboldened Pakistani hawks to step up their pressure in Kashmir. More broadly, in this view, U.S. military aid to Pakistan (some $7.3 billion over the past five decades) has encouraged Pakistan to twist India's tail, and there is no sign yet that Washington is ready for a showdown with Musharraf if he fails to stop cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. If the United States wants to restrain Indian hawks and help prevent another India-Pakistan war, the Bush administration should send a threefold message back to New Delhi: first, that it regards India, some seven times bigger than Pakistan, as the focus of U.S. interests in South Asia; second, that it will gradually phase out U.S. military cooperation with Islamabad now that the need for it is declining; and finally, that it will make economic aid to Musharraf conditional on an end to Pakistani army support for Islamic militants infiltrating Kashmir.

 

Until Sept. 11, the White House was moving toward a long-overdue reversal of Cold War policies, in which Washington either tilted toward Islamabad or, at best, treated India on a par with Pakistan--notwithstanding its superior size and its growing importance to the United States as a counterweight to China in the Asian balance of power.

 

Since the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies, in the hopes of getting military and intelligence cooperation in Afghanistan, the United States has lionized Musharraf, showering him with a cornucopia of economic aid--no strings attached--that has so far included $600 million in immediate cash infusions, $2.1 billion in projected grants and credits, $1.5 billion in International Monetary Fund credits (which had previously been blocked by the United States because Pakistan had not met IMF criteria) and a rescheduling of $12.2 billion in Pakistan's debt to a U.S.-led consortium of aid donors (including $3.75 billion owed directly to the United States). This aid was possible only after sanctions imposed on Pakistan after its 1998 nuclear test were lifted in the wake of Sept. 11.

 

With budgetary sleight of hand, much of this economic aid can be used to subsidize military spending. More important, Pentagon statements increasingly envisage the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Pakistan, closer Pakistani ties with the U.S. Central Command, the supplying of spare parts and components for U.S. weapons already in Pakistani hands and a possible resumption of grants and sales of military hardware.

 

To balance out its growing ties with Islamabad, the United States is offering to sell sophisticated defense equipment to New Delhi. Since India wants to get as much as it can while the getting is good, New Delhi is not making a public fuss, for the moment, over the U.S. embrace of Pakistan. If a U.S. military role there temporarily serves Indian interests, New Delhi will swallow it. But the test in Indian eyes will be whether Musharraf's crackdown on Islamic extremists extends to Kashmir, and whether it will last or is merely a tactical gambit.

 

New trouble in Kashmir would quickly bring to the surface sublimated Indian anxieties over a long-term U.S. military role in Pakistan. In any case, Musharraf has strongly advised against such a role, warning that Pakistani anger over U.S. policy in the Middle East would make U.S. forces a divisive issue. To the extent that a continuing U.S. military role is needed in Afghanistan to back up peacekeeping forces, it can be adequately supported by the new U.S. military base now being established in Kandahar.

 

The Pentagon spin that the U.S. military role in Pakistan relates only to the "war on terrorism" rekindles Indian memories of earlier reassurances by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954 that the program of "limited" weapons aid to Pakistan then unfolding was solely for use against communist aggression. By 1965, the United States had provided $3.8 billion in military hardware to Pakistan. This led the military dictator then ruling in Islamabad, Gen. Ayub Khan, to launch cross-border raids in Kashmir that triggered a broader war, in which Pakistan, predictably, relied primarily on its U.S. planes and tanks.

 

Just when India had begun to forgive and forget, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan prompted the U.S. to supply Pakistan with $3.5 billion in new weapons aid as a reward for serving as a "front-line state." The nature of this aid package, with its F-16 aircraft and its heavy tanks, made clear that it was not intended for use on the mountainous Afghan border but rather to bolster Pakistan's balance of power in open-plains warfare with India. Additional U.S. weapons were sent through Pakistan to the Afghan resistance forces.

 

In contrast to 1954, the United States did not even pretend in 1982 that its aid could be used only against the Soviet Union. In a controversial speech on Oct. 10, 1984, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Deane Hinton said that the 1959 U.S. mutual security treaty with Islamabad left the door open for the United States to support Pakistan in a war with India. Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was Undersecretary of State at the time, told me later that the United States wanted to establish a "balance" between India and its smaller neighbor.

 

Against this background, India's current brinkmanship becomes more understandable. New Delhi is not likely to pull back from the brink unless the United States can get Musharraf to take meaningful steps toward peace.

 

The most important immediate step would be to stop infiltration by Pakistani and Kashmiri Islamic militants into the India-controlled Kashmir Valley. Pakistan's army would have to stop providing the diversionary covering fire and logistical support that makes this infiltration possible.

 

Indian Interior Minister Lal Krishna Advani told a recent off-the-record meeting in Washington that the cease-fire line should be "adjusted" in key places where the terrain makes infiltration easy. If Musharraf means business, he would agree to negotiations on such changes. In return, New Delhi would not only have to withdraw the forward deployments ordered after the Dec. 13 attack on the Indian Parliament building but, equally important, negotiate with insurgent groups on greater autonomy for Kashmir within India.

 

Such negotiations would require Pakistani support for a cease-fire between the Indian army and Kashmiri insurgents like the one proposed in July 2000 by Hizbul Moujahedeen. Hizbul consists solely of Kashmiris, not Pakistanis, and was sensitive to the mood of war-weariness in the valley. But the group receives Pakistani weapons aid, and when Islamabad objected to the proposal, Hizbul withdrew its cease-fire offer.

 

Despite its denials, Pakistan controls most Kashmiri insurgent groups. On May 29, 1999, shortly after the Pakistani army launched its offensive across the cease-fire line at Kargil, Indian intelligence intercepted a revealing international telephone conversation between then-Gen. Musharraf, who was in Beijing, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz. CIA sources have validated the authenticity of the intercept. Nawaz Sharif, then prime-minister, had expressed concern, Aziz said, that Kashmiri insurgent groups fighting with the army might get out of hand and force an escalation, but that "there need be no such fear, since we have them by the scruff of the neck and whenever desired, we can regulate the situation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone moves out of their own perceived self interest. The USA needs Musharraf at this time. Consider the alternatives.

 

Would India like to see a weak Musharaff lose out to the Islamists terrorists? Would any sane person like to see their finger on the button?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

"Would India like to see a weak Musharaff lose out to the Islamists terrorists?"

 

No, India would like to see Musharaff stop supporting terrorists from invading India. And I would of liked to see United States stop supporting terrorism by giving military weapons to Pakistan which creates terrorism in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Yeah your preety smart. Why don't you do it yourself by leading those standing Indians into war with Pakistan. Preety good idea there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear i think India should really clean up in Kashmir, not invade Pakistan.

 

Fanatics slicing women's throats because they don't wear a veil is not something that one needs to take to the UN. Just kill the rabid dogs who did it in the street. Forget court even. What to speak of whinning about the USA. Quit wringing your hands and do something practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They claim they found guilty one Moroccan 9/11 terrorist in Germany.

If he's guilty, then kaimutya-nyAya = what to speak of those who planned & facilitated him/them?

Those who specifically chose & trained Saudis from Saudi's poorest region, whom had the least to lose, most to gain, according to their conception of God = Allah's eyes, whom felt most desperate about our military presence at their Holiest Mecca, whom were brought here, set up with flats, pilot training, the works.

Crystal Clear who is terrorizing whom, no, less we b FAR worse than blind, id est, COCK-EYED.

Intimidate someone beyond his brink, hand him inferior weapons or jet cockpit control, point & push him in your strategically chosen direction, then blame him for how he reacts.

Such pushers attempt to pass themselves off as Patriots, Home Securers, even Religious.

Hmm, amazing.

Or, as many insist, was it all done by remote control?

In which case...

Being tri-kala-jnA, YamarAj already has all guilty parties' bunks tagged.

"Step right this way, Sir. Too late for jIv jAgo."

Our Foreign Policy, Foreign to the Bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are times that I think the USA just needs to put her breast back in her bra button up her blouse to the neck and stop nursing other lands. Heck she helped out with the railroads in a couple lands but when the USA railroads went down no one even sent a used caboose.

 

Seems to me that India has been terrorized by the most imperialistic culture in the history of man for aeons. And I am not refering to the Brits.

 

It was just recently that the USA felt the bite of what other lands have been going through in the realm of terrorism.

 

The article is kind of like when someone has been sick for a long time then they go to a doctor and blame the medication for the illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we call sanity is sitting in front of boxes letting others raise our children believing everything the poloticians say even thought we never see a result due to words spoken during elections i think the american people are to stupid to make sane deisions we have become so patriotic we dont care who has to die to prove it.So you may ask what is your point well my point is this there are very real reasons for other countrys to hate us and if we cant even admit to the reasons they hate us then we aare hopeless as far as reaching solutions.It is sad for me to have to say these bad things about america but i cannot live a lie to make myself feel good.

many blessings to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame Bush alone because, like Reagan, bombastic billionaires had to choose/SELECT someone who was dumb enough to go along with so much ugra-karma, that is, take visible responsibility for leading Amerika down such dark destructive paths.

Rambo Ronny claimed he didn't know Colonel Oliver North was breaking Federal & International law literally right under his nose... in White House basement.

mattaH smRtir jnAnam apohanam ca (Gita 15.15)

Now Krishna has given Ronaldo something not to remember: EVERYTHING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...