Posted on 05/23/2002 1:24:57 PM PDT by milestogo
Once again, India and Pakistan are trading threats and artillery shells. Once again, the flashpoint is the disputed territory of Kashmir. Last week, Muslim terrorists attacked a military base in Indian-held territory, killing more than 30 people, most of them wives and children of soldiers. India sees Pakistan's hand behind the carnage. Until recently, Kashmiri terrorist groups operated openly in Pakistan and received support from the country's intelligence agency. After gunmen attacked India's Parliament in December, Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf, banned Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Muhammad), the most active terrorist groups. But India believes Mr. Musharraf's crackdown has been half-hearted, and that the banned groups still operate under new names.
Kashmir is just about the most dangerous place on earth. But it is obscure to most Westerners. Thus, press coverage of the region, as of the Middle East, is typically cast in an easily digestible "cycle of violence" narrative. Inevitably, commonalities are emphasized: Pakistan and India both possess nuclear weapons; both claim Kashmir as their own; and both have shown themselves willing to fight full-fledged wars over the issue.
But this analysis blurs a less symmetrical reality: It is Pakistan, not India, that has sought to destabilize Kashmir with a terrorist proxy. Like Israel, India is not a partner in a "cycle of violence," but a reactive party that mobilizes only when attacked. If there were no terrorism, there would be no violence.
President Musharraf should do everything in his power to shut down the terrorist groups that use Pakistan as a base for attacking India. But our concern extends beyond Kashmir. The crisis in South Asia follows a trend being established all over the world: Weak Muslim nations, unable to challenge their non-Muslim neighbours through traditional military means, create lawless proxy territories from which to launch allegedly indigenous terrorist uprisings.
Kashmir was exploited by Pakistan the same way southern Lebanon has been transformed into a Hezbollah playpen by Syria and Iran. The West Bank and Gaza, likewise, are crawling with groups financed by Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Syria is a particularly interesting example: Its shared border with Israel is one of the most stable in the Middle East because Damascus does not dare confront Israel's military head on. Instead, it fights a proxy war against Israeli civilians. The parallel with Pakistan is hard to ignore.
On all fronts, terrorism's state supporters generally deny or minimize their role, and cling to the fiction that terrorism is an indigenous, spontaneous phenomenon. But without state support, there would be no Hezbollah in Lebanon, no Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the West Bank and no Lashkar-e-Tayyiba or Jaish-e-Muhammad in Kashmir.
An all-out war between India and Pakistan would likely produce thousands of casualties and risk a local nuclear exchange. Both sides have a responsibility to prevent further escalation. But blame for the ongoing crisis is not shared equally: Pakistan must demonstrate conclusively that it is not harbouring or supporting terrorist groups. If Pakistan does not provide solid assurances, India will conclude it is the target of war by other means, and the likelihood of catastrophe will grow.
The only problem I have is with the conclusion;
It is impossible to prove a negative, so there is no way Pakistan can demonstrate this. Every act of terror in Kashmir is blamed on the Pakistani government, and if there's proof of that connection, it's never shared with us.
Now, India is refusing to even speak with Pakistan and has refused Pakistan's offer to place international observers on the LoC to make sure that no infiltrators are getting across.
I'm not sure what Pakistan can do. Obviously, they must do everything they can to arrest or stop terrorists before they enter Kashmir, but they have to hope that none of the muslims living in Kashmir commit any acts on their own.
That's a pretty slim hope if that's all there is between peace and nuclear war.
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.