Kashmir

March 30, 2004 6:42 AM

Has the US promised Kashmir to Pakistan? During his recent visit, Colin Powell named Pakistan a US ally. This move has people in India concerned about what the US is willing to give Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda. [The site has pop-ups. Sorry.]
posted by SandeepKrishnamurthy (9 comments total)

It's an interesting article but it seems a little alarmist.

Certainly, winning Kashmir would strengthen Musharraf's hold on Pakistan, which has been imperiled by the rout of the Pakistani army in Waziristan. It is conceivable that the US has decided that anything would be worth the cost of keeping Musharraf in power.

Yet at the same time, it seems that Kashmir is not America's to give away. Any attempt to force a resolution in Kashmir would be severely questioned by the rest of the world. Pakistan's reputation as a terrorist-sponsor and nuclear proliferator would make a Kashmir handover a tough sell. The popular sentiment in India as well as the muscle-flexing of the BJP would preclude Indian co-operation, to say the least. In addition, the ability of the US to unilaterally force international issues is probably limited due to the events in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, such a policy would be unfortunate for the United States in the short and the long term. India is a gigantic market for US goods, it supplies a major pool of educated manpower, and is a growing economic partner. I have read recently that one of the US long term strategies in the Asian arena has been to grow India as a counterweight to the burgeoning power of China. The best link I could find regarding this is is this from the CATO institute. Does anyone know of any others or if this actually reflects US diplomatic thinking?

The Indian-American community has always viewed the American pro-Israel lobby as models for political activity. There is a disproportionate amount of money in the Indian community and the ability to translate that money into political influence seems to be growing.

I think that the appointment of Pakistan to being a major non-NATO ally of the United States is a short term consideration to strengthen Musharraf. Handing off Kashmir to Pakistan seems neither wise nor possible.
posted by rks404 at 7:42 AM on March 30, 2004

Fortunately, Kashmir is not the Americans' to give away.

If America is using it's influence to try and bring peace to the region, then good for it. I wish it would expend the same energy with Israel and Palestine.
posted by salmacis at 7:42 AM on March 30, 2004

Any attempt to force a resolution in Kashmir would be severely questioned by the rest of the world.

...and world opinion made such a difference with regard to American use of force in Iraq, too.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:28 AM on March 30, 2004

While I don't like cozying up to Musharraf any more than the next guy, I'd say it's more than a little alarmist, and it's Indian propaganda from the derogatory headline all the way to the bottom. I'd think only one of the two countries could credibly claim to want nukes as a deterrent to invasion or attack by the other, and that's probably not the one that's bigger by a factor of eight.

And the idea that the US is somehow going to "give away" an area heavily defended and occupied by Indian troops is, well, silly.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:34 AM on March 30, 2004

What ROU_Xenophobe said. Especially:

And the idea that the US is somehow going to "give away" an area heavily defended and occupied by Indian troops is, well, silly.

Not only silly, but utterly impossible/ridiculous.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:35 AM on March 30, 2004

Kashmir's nice and all but I want to know who gets Shangri-la.
posted by jfuller at 10:26 AM on March 30, 2004

The site has pop-ups. Sorry.

I have Mozilla ... no problem. :D
posted by jlachapell at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2004

who gets Shangri-la.

China.
posted by homunculus at 11:28 AM on March 30, 2004

Lashkar-e-Taiba activists arrested near Baghdad
posted by homunculus at 11:35 AM on April 2, 2004