Author: Arthur H.
Davis
Publication: The Washington
Post
Date: September 11,
2000
While bitter enemies
from Ireland to Israel are bowing to the dictates of peace and economic
development, the threat of war in South Asia continues to loom large.
The economy of Pakistan is sinking, yet the focus of the military leadership
remains stronger than ever on Kashmir. Pakistan's junta continues
to concentrate all its resources on funding and fueling terrorism in Kashmir
on the one hand, while on the other dashing domestic hopes for a return
to a democratic and secular society.
Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
the self-appointed chief executive of Pakistan, who also has the dubious
distinction of being the coup leader and saboteur of the Lahore peace process,
went on record saying that however the people of Kashmir decide their fate
will be acceptable to Pakistan. The general also has reiterated his
willingness to conduct his own talks with India at any place and any time
on all issues, if Kashmir is included. Yet recent events clearly
belie hopes that he intends to honor his words.
In late July the world
welcomed the announcement of a three-month cease-fire and the offer of
unconditional talks with the central government of India by the Hizbul
Mujaheddin, the largest militant group in Indian Kashmir. Majir Dar,
the Hizbul commander operating in Indian Kashmir, reportedly made this
unexpected announcement after secret meetings with Hizbul followers and
presumably with the group's leader, Sayed Salahuddin, who resides in Pakistan.
To this, the Indian government
exhibited a new and welcome flexibility by responding positively to the
offer. Lt. Gen. John Mukherjee, commander of Indian forces
in Kashmir, announced the cessation of all operations against the Hizbul,
while senior officials from Delhi proceeded to Kashmir to discuss the modalities
of talks with the Hizbul. Unfortunately, the prospect for peace was
not met with similar alacrity by Pakistan's military and fundamentalist
religious leaders, who were clearly caught off guard by this show of militant
independence. Pakistani security agents reportedly picked up Salahuddin
shortly after the cease-fire agreement, while his Hizbul Mujaheddin was
ejected from the United Jehad Council, the umbrella alliance of Kashmiri
militant outfits. And while official Pakistani responses initially
were muted, wholesale attempts since have been underway by the junta to
employ its influence over the regional militants to derail the incipient
peace talks.
On the night of Aug.
1, more than a hundred Hindus, many of them pilgrims, were massacred by
Pakistani-backed terrorists. The massacre has been followed by the
attachment of two deal-breaking caveats to Hizbul's offer of "unconditional"
talks. In a move the State Department has since termed "not helpful,"
Hizbul has demanded a seat for Pakistan at any talks and also that those
talks be conducted outside the scope of India's constitution, thus allowing
for a deal on Kashmiri independence. Indian leaders long have resisted
both conditions.
It has been widely stated
in Washington and other Western capitals that India must negotiate with
the Pakistani military for a definitive peace to be achieved. But
the question remains whether the army really wants peace. All three
wars between India and Pakistan have been fought when there were military
governments in Pakistan. A fourth, under the present military leadership,
remains a possibility--this time with a nuclear shadow cast upon it.
The Pakistani military
regime is exhibiting an almost pathological determination to keep South
Asia in turmoil, doing little to curb Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism
breeding within its borders, while scuttling others' steps toward peace.
During his visit to the
region earlier this year, President Clinton threaded a needle of admonishing
Pakistan for its support of violence in Kashmir while keeping the door
open for engagement if it abated such activities. Unfortunately,
his stern warnings have yet to exact much change. Pakistan's intended
destruction of the nascent Kashmir peace process requires a firmer response
from the U.S. administration. Declaring Pakistan a terrorist
state, and thus putting it on par with the terrorist groups it harbors
and supports, would encourage the people of Pakistan to remove the military
warmongers who have deprived them of sustainable development.
It is clear who wants
peace in the region and who does not. Only by challenging Pakistan's
duplicitous ways will peace have a hope of winning.
(The writer was U.S.
ambassador to Paraguay and to Panama in the 1980s and has advised the U.S.
mission to the United Nations on terrorism.)
