Evil Iraq? Good Pakistan? USA's Strange Calculus

[Guest guest]

>BJP News <bjp-news

>bjp-l

>vaidika1008

>[bJP News]: Differential Calculus

>Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:50:44 -0700

>

>Title: Differential calculus

>Author: Brahma Chellaney

>Publication: Hindustan Times

>Aug. 28, 2002

>

>Which country poses a serious threat because of its established links with

>international terrorism, proven weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

>programme, and close ties with other dictatorships in WMD-related matters?

>To an Indian, the answer may be obvious: Pakistan, bristling with dangerous

>extremists inside and outside its armed forces and engaged in covert WMD

>cooperation with the communist regimes in Beijing and Pyongyang.

>

>But to President George W. Bush and several of his advisors, the answer is

>Iraq, a starving, humbled country reeling under oppressive international

>sanctions for 11 years whose WMD projects were dismantled methodically by

>UN inspectors over several years before they were expelled for refusing to

>acknowledge their mission was over. In the current din in the US over

>whether to wage war on Iraq or find other ways to change the regime there,

>an undeclared Bush policy is emerging ? demand democracy in enemy states

>and oil friendly dictatorships.

>

>Bush is right that Saddam Hussein, a leader who gassed members of his

>Kurdish minority, symbolises evil, and that his downfall, by whatever

>means, is essential to resolve the humanitarian crisis confronting Iraqis

>and bring their nation back into the international mainstream. If Iraq is

>reintegrated with the world, it would send oil prices tumbling down, and

>India would directly benefit.

>But Bush is wrong in seeking to impose a unilateral solution to the Iraq

>problem. In doing so, he is in danger of pointlessly stoking anti-US

>sentiment when America?s unprecedented primacy in the world calls for

>responsible leadership and prudence. The more justifications Bush puts

>forward for war with Iraq, the more he exposes the contradictions in his

>foreign policy.

>While offering few firm facts in support of his claims on Iraq, Bush

>continues to turn a blind eye to and even wink at inconvenient facts about

>Pakistan. Even as Bush was threatening war on Iraq for democracy?s sake,

>General Pervez Musharraf, not content with the sham referendum he held over

>his self-declared presidency, proclaimed 29 constitutional amendments in

>one stroke to crown himself virtually the Emperor of Pakistan.

>

>More interesting is the way Bush reacted to this constitutional assault by

>someone who, true to his training, likes to execute everything in commando

>style. Bush began by heaping praise on Musharraf for being ?still tight

>with us on the war against terror? and, after stating disingenuously that

>he would ?continue to work with our friends and allies to promote

>democracy?, ended without a word in criticism.

>

>If democracy is good (and necessary) for Iraqis, why isn?t it so for

>Pakistanis? If the US really wants regional peace and stability, it cannot

>forget that every Pakistani military ruler has waged war with India and

>that the only occasions when the two neighbours have come close to peace

>have been during the short periods of democratic rule in Islamabad. Yet no

>ruler in the world has benefited more from 9/11 than the man who presides

>over the nation that is the main sanctuary of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and

>Kashmiri terrorists.

>

>Bush espouses a doctrine of preemptive war that flies in the face of the

>principle of inviolability of states enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia.

>He justifies his doctrine on the plea that the 350-year-old convention must

>give way to the new WMD reality. As he put it at West Point in June, the

>WMD factor precludes the luxury of waiting for an attack and America must

>be ?ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty?.

>

>While many in America worry about Iraq or some terrorists acquiring weapons

>of mass destruction, the reality for India is that Pakistan has

>State-supported terrorists and nuclear weapons controlled by Islamist

>generals. When the Pakistani dictatorship openly employs nuclear terror to

>shield its export of terror, shouldn't the right of preemptive war come

>into effect automatically? Yet when Pakistan again employed nuclear

>blackmail this summer, the Bush administration, rather than working with

>New Delhi to immobilise such blackmail, targeted India economically through

>a hitherto untried sanctions tool ?- travel advisory.

>

>The Bush team wants to practise a policy of preemptive war to protect US

>interests, but when it comes to India it applies a different standard by

>trying to actively dissuade New Delhi from striking preemptively or even in

>reprisal to major State-sponsored terrorist attacks. Henry Kissinger

>contends speciously that there is now ?an imperative for preemptive action?

>by the US against Iraq. If there was a convincing imperative for military

>action by a democracy, it was the audacious attempt by five Pakistani

>gunmen last December 13 to wipe out India?s elected leadership.

>

>But what did Bush and his folks advise India then? Restraint. And how have

>they sought to thwart the possibility of Indian action ever since? By

>extracting two anti-terrorism pledges from Musharraf in less than six

>months that he has not honoured, and by supplying him more than $ 175

>million worth of military equipment, including badly-needed replacement

>parts to get the Pakistani F-16 fleet back in full service again.

>

>If anything, Washington has validated Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee?s public

>admission that he erred in not seizing the moment after December 13 to

>launch action ? not preemptive but retaliatory. The Indian Air Force was

>ready (and capable) on December 14 to surgically inflict punitive blows on

>the Pakistani terror infrastructure and its guardians, with escalation to

>ground war precluded by the absence of mobilisation of the rival armies.

>But the air force waited in vain for the political green light.

>After all, India?s history is one of lost opportunities.

>

>In the nearly 11 months since the terrorist attack on the Jammu and Kashmir

>legislature, counter-terrorism has emerged as a useful political instrument

>for the US to do what it had always aspired for ? to advance its interests

>by being an intermediary between India and Pakistan. With each side

>pleading its case with every visiting US official, America finds itself

>playing its desired role as arbiter, soother and calmer. No longer New

>Delhi demurs when US officials halt in Islamabad before or after visiting

>New Delhi. In contrast, India kicked up a diplomatic storm to try and stop

>Bill Clinton from stopping even for a few hours in Pakistan on his

>subcontinental tour as president.

>

>While carving out a role for itself in managing the India-Pakistan conflict

>and relationship, including the Kashmir issue, Washington has sought to

>keep both New Delhi and Islamabad happy with carefully crafted statements

>that regional analysts vie to interpret as support to their country?s

>official position. But the latest subcontinental tours of Colin Powell and

>Richard Armitage have served as a reminder that there are limits to such a

>balancing act and that these visits are yielding diminishing returns. A key

>goal of the US diplomatic intervention ? ?Bring about a situation where

>there can be a dialogue? ? looks more distant. Given the rising level of

>cross-border terrorism and the self-enthronement of Musharraf after his

>belligerent independence day speech, the dangers of a declared

>Indo-Pakistan war are likely to come a full circle by this winter.

>

>The more powers Musharraf has usurped, the more unpopular at home and the

>more dependent on his army he has become. That in turn makes it more likely

>he will ratchet up hostilities with India. India has to guard against the

>risk that Musharraf, not wanting to be seen as an emperor without clothes,

>may employ in commando style the doctrine of preemption of his new-found

>chief patron.

>

>----

> http://www.ofbjp.org

>----

>A worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists:

>Friends of the BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob

>----

>

>

>Click on the link below to be removed from the BJP News mailing list.

>http://www.ofbjp.org/listserv/.cgi?vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com

>

>

>

> The BJP News (http://www.ofbjp.org/news)

 

 

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com