The short of it is that Swaraaj and I agree that, as he puts it:
that the rapproachment between Pakistan and India is important and that's what the US Government is encouraging. However, the spanner in the works is provided by the competitive nature of arms selling to the two countries by the Western nations.Yet another strike for America, then - another good idea done badly. However, Swaraaj is more hopeful than I am about the future for Indo-Pakistan relations as he believes that the vast majorities of both populations want peace and coexistance and will eventually force the entrenched groups that oppose this (the militaries, rightwing Hindu hawks, extremist Muslims) into aquiescence. Other Indian commenters on his post disagree strongly, saying that the peoples of both nations will always see the other as essentially enemies.
The pessimist's (realists?) case is strengthened considerably by a recent International Crisis Group report which "expressed the fear that the process of normalisation of Pakistan-India relations is reversible and resumption of conflict is still possible unless the two nuclear powers work harder for advancing the peace process." In particular, the ceasefire in Kashmir was characterised as holding but "far from stable".
At the same time, the US/India nuclear deal, which would still allow India to construct up to 50 nuclear bombs a year, continues to be a huge destabilizing factor as Indian superhawks push for American concessions which would give India a significant upper hand in the so far delicately balanced MAD with Pakistan. They seek to gain for India the right to stockpile nuclear fuel to levels enjoyed by the likes of America, Russia and China as well as pressing Indian negotiators to hold out against a test ban - which would allow India to test a fusion bomb in the near future. In America, the deal is getting a fair bit of flack from Congresscritters and a LOT of flack from the Federation of American Scientists who have the support of no less than 37 Nobel winners for a letter that says the agreement:
"weakens the existing nonproliferation regime without providing an acceptable substitute. Since nothing is more important to US security than blocking further proliferation and possible use of nuclear weapons, the lawmakers should withhold their seal of approval"And goes on to say that the US cannot continue to treat nuclear weapons as "militarily useful and politically salient while expecting to stop global nuclear proliferation.The Indian nuclear deal is just one symptom of a bigger problem.'
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to an eye-opening piece by Mike Marqusee of ZNet which points out that Israel has been a convenient surrogate arms dealer to India on America's behalf through the years of sanctions brought about by India's testing nuclear weapons and refusing to join the NPT. Almost half of all Israel's weapons sales are to India. The common connection between the U.S., Israel and India from 2001 to 2004 was that all had governments which emphasised fear and hatred of Moslems as part of a "clash of cultures" philosophy. Now that a coalition government has replaced the rightwing BJP administration in India, the revolving door of rightwingers between the military, industry and its lobbyists and government (so familiar to Americans) ensures that the road from New Delhi to Washington still passes through Tel Aviv.
Two nuclear armed states with a common border but less common ground, a building arms race which is spilling over into other nations in the region, existing flashpoints for armed conflict (which have already caused major wars) and self-centered meddling from the major powers. Both Bill Clinton and Salman Rushdie have previously described the region as "the most dangerous place in the world". It still might be.
No comments:
Post a Comment