Posted on 05/21/2002 6:44:13 PM PDT by lyonesse
Summary
As tensions in Kashmir continue to rise, the U.S. is moving to de-escalate the standoff between India and Pakistan once again. Washington is likely hoping to spur Indian restraint by offering to share space technology.
Analysis
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee arrived in Kashmir May 21 after a fifth day of border fire between India and Pakistan and the killing of a moderate separatist leader in the disputed state. Vajpayee's arrival followed a bloody raid on an Indian military camp in Kashmir last week -- leaving 32 dead -- that intensified a military standoff dating back to an attack on India's parliament in December. The government in New Delhi blamed both raids on Pakistan-based Islamic militants.
Retaliation by India against Pakistani targets -- even suspected militant camps in Kashmir -- could potentially plunge the region into chaos. Washington has taken an active role in managing the tension but has a limited list of concessions with which to buy India's restraint. However, sharing space technology could prove key in preventing a wider conflict.
The Bush administration has urged talks between the nuclear-armed rivals and made plans to send Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the region to try and ease tensions. Armitage, who met May 20 with Indian Defense Ministry official Yogindra Narain, will visit both India and Pakistan, the Associated Press reported.
Continued tension in Kashmir has the potential to unleash a chain of events that could plunge South Asia into chaos and upset Washington's geopolitical agenda. New Delhi has hinted strongly that continued attacks on Indian targets could provoke retaliatory strikes on militant camps in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. The Indian government could easily argue that such strikes are legal because India claims control of that territory anyway. And the U.S. attack on Afghanistan provides a self-defense argument for those that would reject India's territorial claim.
In the wake of such strikes, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would have to respond with similar military action, or he would be forced out of office by a tidal wave of nationalist and fundamentalist fervor. The result would be the same in either case: inter-state war between South Asia's two nuclear powers.
A 1999 conflict in Kashmir between the two sides was limited to conventional weapons, not nukes. But a similar confrontation now would cripple U.S. operations against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Open conflict also would upset Washington's delicate diplomatic balance of attempting to maintain strong relationships with both India and Pakistan.
The United States would be faced with a stark choice. Support Pakistan in a losing battle against a future strategic partner, or risk severing relations with the Muslim world by backing India against a Muslim coalition partner.
Senior White House officials speaking to STRATFOR said they were aware of the potential for terrific violence in the region but suggested that the current tension was manageable. The Bush administration has been playing a key role in postponing this kind of doomsday scenario with a policy basically built on bribery.
The Indian-Pakistani border has been tense since December, but Washington rewarded New Delhi's restraint in April when it authorized the first arms deal between the two countries in more than a decade -- the sale of eight weapons-locating radar systems. Washington also proposed a series of joint military exercises with the Indian military.
The Indian government likely understands the ramifications of open conflict with Pakistan and wants to avoid that scenario as well, which is why it allows itself to be appeased by the United States. However, this approach produces limited returns and must be renewed after nearly every sign of conflict with Pakistan.
Relations between India and Pakistan are tense once again and Washington must decide on a course of action. Unfortunately, its options are limited. A political act, such as a presidential visit, would carry a great deal of weight, but it must be made in conjunction with a material or financial commitment that goes beyond symbolism.
Military equipment worked in the past, but it doesn't do much to prevent war on the subcontinent. What's more, sending military gear to India weakens Pakistani President Musharraf's none-too-sturdy support base at home.
Economic aid doesn't have much resonance in India's political scene, which has a strong independent streak. And most of the trade between Washington and New Delhi is relatively unimpeded, which means there are few tariff barriers that could be lowered.
However, Washington may be able to parlay developments in space technology. The United States has clear advantages over India in this area, though New Delhi has spent a large amount of time and money over the years trying to close the gap.
The U.S. government controls the spread of space and missile technology to India via the Missile Technology Control Regime, which was designed to slow the spread of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. But India has developed ballistic missiles on its own. Now most of India's efforts are focused on tapping the lucrative market for satellite launches.
The development of space capabilities plays well in Indian politics, which has a tradition of supporting efforts toward national self-sufficiency. This is especially true now that India's rival China is making a concerted public effort toward space exploration.
Working on space development with India makes sense for the United States as well. It is a long-term project that Washington can string out for years, much easier than having to think of a new token concession after every spike in Kashmir violence. It will also give Washington a window into India's space program, allowing the United States to monitor the progress of a state that is an ally -- but also a rival.
Horse pucky!
India has missile technology, but how powerful is it?
Intercontinental? I doubt if their missiles can fly much farther than the farthest part of Pakistan (I honestly don't know for sure).
If we give them the ability to put a satellite in orbit, they can then put a warhead anywhere on Earth --- an Indian ICBM.
There is a third choice. Support neither, and tell both sides that, if they want to turn each other into crispy critters, we will put in their way neither diplomacy or bribery.
The immolation of millions of crazed Moslem fanatics can only benefit the West. The immolation of millions of crazed Hindu fanatics can also only benefit the West.
I say keep the H*ll out of South Asia, let the idiots do their worst, and then consider a strategic partnership with the remnant population of radioactive cockroches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.