Kashmir conflict will last for 100 years, says Cohen

[Blackwater]

Jammu, May 31 (IANS) A leading American expert on South Asia feels that the India-Pakistan conflict over Jammu and Kashmir will last for 100 years -- or perhaps even more.

Stephen P. Cohen, author of 'The Idea of Pakistan' and a senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington, told the Pakistani newspaper Dawn: 'My prediction is that the India-Pakistan conflict, which includes Kashmir besides many other problems, will last for 100 years or even more.'

'I am very pessimistic about a solution between the two countries. They should cooperate over trade, for instance. Kashmir will eventually find its way (to a solution).

'The US should have only a silent role which should be limited to providing ideas and suggestions as we often do in the Middle East peace process.'

Cohen said he was writing a book about the India-Pakistan rivalry and that he would call it a 'hundred year old war'.

He was asked if the Pakistan Army can ever overcome its obsession with India and how the US can help the two countries resolve their dragging row over Jammu and Kashmir, which is divided between them.

Cohen said the Pakistan Army was today more anti-American than radical. He traced the radicalisation of the Pakistan Army to the days of the movement which led to the break up of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh.

That was when the army recruited people for outfits such as Al Badar and its death squads.

This, Cohen said, became more systematic during the regime of Zia-ul-Haq both in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

'Now, it is a full-fledged strategic alliance for the Pakistan military.'

Cohen also felt that the Pakistani Army was more anti-American than anti-India.

'It has become more anti-American. Some sections of the army are more anti-American than they are anti-India.

'The obsession with India, on the other hand, is weakening Pakistan rather than strengthening it. Pakistan has a huge list of reforms that it should have made.'


Kashmir conflict will last for 100 years, says Cohen - Yahoo! News

 

[Blackwater]

I don't think it will last for 100 yrs. Pak land will no longer survive for another 10 yrs. No pak, no thakedari ,,end of story

 

[chex3009]

All in all it shows that Americans want this war between Pakistan and India to continue till atleast 100 years if not more...

 

[nitesh]

Will pakistan survive for that long time

 

[Solid Beast]

][][][[][][][][]][][]

 

[Yusuf]

Well seeing the thread title, the first thing that sprang to mind was will pak last that long? Clicked the thread and found similar thoughts.

I would not agree with Cohen on PA being more anti American than anti Indian. Being anti India is what gives it relevance and also the grip on power.

I am of the opinion that even if Kashmir is handed on a platter to Pakistan, it will not stop being anti India.

 

[debasree]

the true american intention come out with this speach,they want to provide arms to both party thus give oxigen to their dying defence industry,the same old game uncle sam is playing,now we understand why is such a hue & cry about not getting mrca deal from the us.

 

[ejazr]

Well keeping the merit of the 100 year war theory aside, its not unexpected that it is in US interest that India and Pakistan have an antagaistic relationship.

The main policy of the US post Soviet was to NOT have another superpower emerge. Then 9/11 happened and Bush went bumbling into his wars and got side tracked which gave China some much needed breathing space.

Now they are in a hurry to build up balancers against China. But that's not all. India being the third most powerful country in the long term with a possibility of piping China (I am talking 50+ years from now) would be another threat. And this can only happen if we have a harmonious SAARC region which would not keep India busy with Pakistan.

Geroge Friedmann the CEO of the influential think tank STRATFOR has come out with an interesting book The Next Decade and he basically suggests that weakening Pakistan is not in US interests and once the "war on terror" winds down post OBL and Afghan withdrawal; we should build up Pakistan as a counterwight to India and maintain the balance of power. HE also suggests that India should be made to focus on Air and Land forces against China and Pakistan and prevent it from building a strong Navy because that would directly challenge USN in Indian Ocean region where India would have the advantage.

In otherwords, we should not fault the US for thinking 50-100 years into the future and preventing the emergence of a competitor. That is what is expected from them. It is up to us to realise wether we will fall for that or are we now capable enough to see further and prevent ourselves and our region from being manipulated.

 

[Phenom]

^^

Interesting,
what is the name of that book?

 

[ejazr]

The Next Decade by George Friedmann. You can youtube the book to get the main points. It focuses generally on balancing emerging powers so its not India centric. Like I said, its written from maintaining US dominance and its interests.

Amazon.com: The Next Decade: Where We've Been . . . and Where We're Going (9780385532945): George Friedman: Books

 

[ganesh177]

Thats right.First thing coming in mind is that pakistan wud cease to exist that long.

 

[nrj]

Even if Kashmir conflict last for 1000 yrs, its none of your business. Stay away with your ideas or suggestions. This is no middle east.

 

[Yusuf]

Ejaz, what Friedman says may mot be applicable to the Indo US case. There is a genuine case of having a partnership rather than being rivals 50 years down the line.

The US was and is friends with the pre WWII super powers and is friends with the erstwhile axis powers too. The reason for that primarily might be common culture, democracy and convergence of ideas and goals. I dont see any reason why India and US can't have such a relationship. For the US, there is just one enemy in the making, China.

I really don't see any reason why the US should see India as a rival of the future than a friend and partner.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Well it lasted for 60years already and who knows if it may last another 100 years. I tend to agree with this prediction although the world would be a very different place by then and China could have changed a lot as well.

 

[ejazr]

@Yusuf

I am talking about long term say 50-60+ years in the future. If you look at my posts, I also advocate close partnership with the US to counter China at present. And if that suceeds, who is the remaining power that can challenge the US?

The Soviets were containted in part with the alliance with China, US FDI helped build most of its export based economy. Now the US is moving towards a confrontation with China.

Ofcourse, being a dictatorship, it might be easier to deal with China. And being a democracy is not guarantor for having good relations. Afterall,the US has had better relations with dictatorships for most of the 20th century than democracies in Asia. What George Friedmann says may not become policy, but the thinking of balancing regional powers permeates US strategic thinking. Just something to keep in the back of your mind.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Ejaz, what Friedman says may mot be applicable to the Indo US case. There is a genuine case of having a partnership rather than being rivals 50 years down the line.

The US was and is friends with the pre WWII super powers and is friends with the erstwhile axis powers too. The reason for that primarily might be common culture, democracy and convergence of ideas and goals. I dont see any reason why India and US can't have such a relationship. For the US, there is just one enemy in the making, China.

I really don't see any reason why the US should see India as a rival of the future than a friend and partner.

The US is not 'friends' with any of the previous Axis powers. It is their master, has military bases and troops stationed to this day in both Germany and Japan, and has demilitarised them both to the point of castration. Even countries like UK, Canada, Australia etc are subservient to US wishes.....whenever the US goes to war, these countries are forced to participate by coercion/duress. On the other hand, the US didn't fight on the side of the UK in the war with Argentina.

The US has never had to deal with a partner before that was bigger in economic and military might than the US itself. So it is not possible to predict how the US will behave when facing a powerful India in the future.

 

[pmaitra]

The US is not 'friends' with any of the previous Axis powers. It is their master, has military bases and troops stationed to this day in both Germany and Japan, and has demilitarised them both to the point of castration. Even countries like UK, Canada, Australia etc are subservient to US wishes.....whenever the US goes to war, these countries are forced to participate by coercion/duress. On the other hand, the US didn't fight on the side of the UK in the war with Argentina.

The US has never had to deal with a partner before that was bigger in economic and military might than the US itself. So it is not possible to predict how the US will behave when facing a powerful India in the future.

Interesting point.

Yes, it is very possible that if at one point India becomes more powerful than PRC, they will try to help PRC.

 

[The Messiah]

The US is not 'friends' with any of the previous Axis powers. It is their master, has military bases and troops stationed to this day in both Germany and Japan, and has demilitarised them both to the point of castration. Even countries like UK, Canada, Australia etc are subservient to US wishes.....whenever the US goes to war, these countries are forced to participate by coercion/duress. On the other hand, the US didn't fight on the side of the UK in the war with Argentina.

The US has never had to deal with a partner before that was bigger in economic and military might than the US itself. So it is not possible to predict how the US will behave when facing a powerful India in the future.

Of course it is! They will try to put down India.

 

[mayfair]

It is in our best interests to let China be the prime rival of US over the next few decades, while we quietly but surely put our house in order

 

[Tianshan]

It is in our best interests to let China be the prime rival of US over the next few decades, while we quietly but surely put our house in order

This is very clever.

For China, we hope that America stay busy in the Middle East.