January 5, 2004
COLIN POWELL JUST KEEPS COMING UP BIG:
Volatile nuclear rivals begin to talk: The leaders of India and Pakistan met Monday, marking a pragmatic thaw in relations between the two nations. (Owais Tohid and Howard LaFranchi, 1/06/04, CS Monitor)
"This time [Prime Minister] Vajpayee and Musharraf are showing wisdom to adopt steady steps to achieve sustainable peace rather than dashing towards [the] finishing line," says Shamim Akhtar, a professor at the University of Karachi. "The decades-old foes cannot be friends overnight. There is a history of rivalry, mistrust, and bloodshed, and it takes time to forget and forgive."Indeed, Mr. Vajpayee may have been anxious not to demonstrate too much enthusiasm for renewed contact with the Pakistani leadership, but at the same time a scheduled visit to the Pakistani capital for a regional cooperation meeting left him little alternative, some analysts say,
"For Vajpayee, he was going to be there anyway for a SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) meeting, so he faced a dilemma," says Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Project at the Center for International Policy in Washington. "If he hadn't met Musharraf, it would have conflicted with the role of peace developer he's trying to play, and it wouldn't have played well with a watching world."
Beyond that, the recent attempts on Musharraf's life may have acted as a wakeup call for both sides, others say.
"The assassination attempts probably left the Indians thinking that while [Musharraf] may not be exactly to their liking, he's better than chaos in Pakistan," says Stephen Cohen, a South Asian expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. As for Musharraf, "He may have finally been convinced that what he thought were some of his best friends" - the extremists whose activities have vaulted him to a secure pedestal in the eyes of Washington - "are actually his worst enemies." [...]
Brookings's Cohen says it may turn out that the US pressured both sides behind the scenes to give this very public and symbolic show of renewed cooperation. "Both sides are probably expecting some reward from the US, perhaps economic, for making this gesture, and they should get it," he says.
In the long run, chaos is probably more helpful because it'll give us leeway to go into Western Pakistan and annihilate the Taliban/al Qaeda, but in the meantime this is yet another massive diplomatic victory for the Bush administration which engineered the whole deal. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 5, 2004 9:02 PM
OJ's remarks remind me why I keep coming back to this website. There's generally a lot to read, which is good, and its of varied sources, rather than the usual blogosphere navel gazing. But these remarks also encapsulate his usual mercilessness (why is it better in the long-run for the people of India & Pakistan to live in chaos?), partisan tub-thumping and myopic cultural chauvanism: What evidence is there that the B.A. engineered the whole thing? Who are you to assume that the leaders of those countries cannot see what is in their best interest?
Posted by: Brad at January 5, 2004 9:49 PMNot India, just post-Musharraf Pakistan. It's wideluy acknowledged that this is a Bush deal, but that neither leader can acknowledge it because of anti-Americanism (I'll look for more cites). Look at Pakistan and tell me its leaders can see what's in their best interest.
Posted by: oj at January 5, 2004 9:57 PMWe do know that Powell certainly spent enough time in the past 2 years trying to prevent escalations. We do know that India and the US are closer than at any time since probably the early 50s. We do know that Powell and Musharraf talk regularly. Isn't that enough?
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 5, 2004 10:26 PMApparently one of the key figures on the Indian side is buddies with Condi. We're probably going to have to wait for the Washington Post story in a couple days to tell us what really went down.
Posted by: oj at January 5, 2004 10:35 PMBrad -
Perhaps, but my take on this is: For every time that oj looks at facts that are 50-50 and jumps to a conclusion that is sympathetic to the administration; 18 TV anchors, 852 bureau chiefs, 1582 journalists look at facts that are 80:20 in the adminstration's favor and sees nothing but defeat. That is why I keep coming back.
Posted by: MG at January 5, 2004 10:42 PMGoing into Pakistan?
Well, I don't know how desirable that would be.
Even if it were necessary.
Pakistan is a vortex just waiting to happen.
I would think that the hope would be that Musharaf does the dirty work for us. But that's counting on quite a bit, since the country, with its impressive history of instability, seems to constantly live up to its rather negative expectations (or should one say, "country"?). And one gets the impresion that M. is doing his best just to stay alive (and wonder which of his Pakistani friends he can count on, in the process).
So that the latest diplomatic maneuvering may well be merely a distraction, to make it appear as though M. has some sort of policy (aside from trying to stay alive). Something to take the heat off the more recent revelations of Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation (which shouldn't have come as any surprise in the first place). Something akin to that "diplomatic relations with Israel" trial balloon nonsense that caused such a buzz six months ago....
Once again, masters of distraction. Smoke and mirrors....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 6, 2004 1:50 AMLook at Pakistan and tell me its leaders can see what's in their best interest.
Well, maybe not in the past, but recently Musharraf has acted to help the U.S., which is self-interested.
As for Jim's comment: We do know that Powell and Musharraf talk regularly. Isn't that enough?
Well, no, its not enough to support the claim that the U.S. "engineered it". That's hyperbole and no amount of circumstantial evidence can prove it.
Posted by: Brad at January 6, 2004 9:48 AMHe refuses to crack down on the people trying to kill him. He refuses to clean out Western Pakistan which means that we'll have to. He keeps nukes, which means either we or the Indians or both will eventually have to remove them--one way or another.
Posted by: oj at January 6, 2004 10:03 AM