Role of USA in Kashmir

[Singh]

India a major foreign policy priority: U.S.

NEW DELHI: United States Under Secretary of State William Burns said here on Wednesday that India is a major foreign policy priority for his country and New Delhi will be a crucial global partner of Washington in the 21st century.

Mr. Burns held talks with External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on a wide range of bilateral issues, including the unsettled neighbourhood, a defence end-user agreement and India’s quest for reprocessing rights. He described his discussions as “excellent.”

The U.S. official, who is slated to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Advisor M. K. Narayanan, said the interactions would enable both sides to “chart together [an] ambitious bilateral agenda for the next phase in the strategic partnership.”

While the U.S. is understood to have mentioned the desirability of a dialogue with Pakistan, India underscored Dr. Singh’s assertion in Parliament on Tuesday — dialogue is unavoidable but Islamabad must show the courage and resolve to act against terrorists masterminding attacks against soft targets in India.

Mr. Burns’ visit is the first by a senior official of the Barack Obama administration after the new UPA government took charge. The interaction is expected to prepare the ground for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit next month.

On a four-day visit, Mr. Burns, accompanied by Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake, will also travel to Mumbai and interact with business leaders.

The Ministry of External Affairs expects that the visit would “review and take forward the India-U.S. partnership and exchange views on matters of mutual interest.” Its U.S. counterpart, the State Department, while ruling out any move to appoint a special envoy on Kashmir, said Washington would support more dialogue between India and Pakistan.

“We would support more dialogue between the two countries. I’m sure that Burns will talk about this issue among the many issues that he has on his agenda,” its spokesperson said.

The two sides exchanged notes on the need for an end-user agreement for all defence purchases from the U.S. India wants a comprehensive pact for all defence purchases and is opposed to any move to undertake physical inspections. Drafts of the agreement have been exchanged and India is ready to sign the agreement, provided verbal assurances by the U.S. are not compromised in the text of the agreement.

The Hindu : Front Page : India a major foreign policy priority: U.S.

 

[Singh]

India-U.S. divergences require deft diplomacy

The current visit to Delhi by U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns marks the first high-level official interaction at the bilateral level after the Obama transition to the White House in January this year.

Concurrently it is the first major U.S. dialogue with the new government in Delhi - albeit being led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for a second successive term.

But UPA has a different coalition identity from its predecessor and this has its own relevance in the bilateral context.

The Burns visit will explore the complex bilateral canvas to prepare for the July visit to India of U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton when major policy initiatives and divergences will become more apparent.

The India-U.S. relationship has entered a qualitatively new phase after the successful completion of the Bush-Manmohan Singh civilian nuclear cooperation agreement in September 2008.

The strategic and bilateral context against which this was pursued during the Bush years underwent a major transmutation. The three events that followed – the financial meltdown that exposed U.S. fiscal flaws; the spectacular Obama victory of early November; and the Mumbai militant attack of late November 2008 – now provide the immediate backdrop to the potentialities and pitfalls inherent in the India-U.S. bilateral relationship.

In the intervening months, President Obama has unveiled a new policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan - the much debated and analyzed "Af-Pak" construct.

India is not formally part of the U.S. formulation of the troubled Southern Asian region but despite this exclusion, the unwritten sub-text is very clear.

If the Obama Af-Pak strategy has any chance of being reasonably successful – even as millions of Pakistani citizens are displaced from Swat and elsewhere – then India would have to be persuaded to provide the necessary incentives for the Pak military to sustain its current anti-Taliban operations.

This poses the abiding dilemma for India-U.S. relations – namely the direct and tacit support to terrorism by the Pakistani military establishment – and the manner in which Delhi and DC perceive this covert malignancy.

The Mumbai carnage of November 2008 is only the most recent example of this long drawn out "bleed the enemy by a thousand cuts" strategy and the response of the Zardari-led government in Islamabad has been sporadic and ambivalent as far as apprehending the suspects is concerned.

The recent release from judicial custody of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed by the Pakistani courts is case in point.

Thus the Burns visit will be about managing two basic policy contradictions and denials.

The first is the determined Pakistan military conviction that India is the existential ‘threat’ to Pakistan’s national security and hence the strategic denial within Pakistan GHQ, Rawalpindi about how to re-orient the ‘fauj’ as an institution in the national matrix.

The second is the consistent U.S. policy approach that the Pakistan military with its present mind-set is the only institution that can salvage Pakistan and hence the strategic denial in DC to acknowledge the many transgressions of the Pakistan military – from support to religious radicalism, terrorism and a revisionist nuclear posture that includes the A.Q. Khan episode.

These are complex structural divergences that impinge on the national security perceptions and objectives of India and the USA and deft diplomacy will be required to ensure that the Burns visit is reasonably productive.

India-U.S. divergences require deft diplomacy | Reuters

 

[Known_Unknown]

Burns had come to India carrying a special letter from President Obama to PM Singh. Holbrooke refused to divulge the contents of the letter when asked. Wonder what was in it?

 

[Known_Unknown]

One of Obama's senior advisers, Bruce Riedel has recently proposed that the US should promise India a permanent seat in the UNSC in return for significant concessions on Kashmir.

 

[johnee]

One of Obama's senior advisers, Bruce Riedel has recently proposed that the US should promise India a permanent seat in the UNSC in return for significant concessions on Kashmir.

What kind of concessions?

 

[K Factor]

One of Obama's senior advisers, Bruce Riedel has recently proposed that the US should promise India a permanent seat in the UNSC in return for significant concessions on Kashmir.

KU, do you have a link where more details could be found?

 

[Yusuf]

I dont know what to say of this Obama Admin. Its not clear in its thoughts of its policy towards India.
Wondering now if McCain would have been a better man for Indo-US relations?

 

[SATISH]

Burn the UNSC permanent seat. Kashmir is more important than that seat.

 

[Known_Unknown]

What kind of concessions?

KU, do you have a link where more details could be found?

He didn't spell them out. Let me see if I can find the article.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Sorry, got the name of the guy wrong. It's actually a veteran American diplomat that suggested this.

'US should offer UNSC seat to India to resolve Kashmir'

Schaffer is a former US Ambassador to Bangladesh and has also served in India and Pakistan.

"Washington needs to look for ways to persuade New Delhi to accept an agreement that does not meet all Indian demands and involves genuine and enforceable concessions on its part," Schaffer has said in his latest book.

In "The Limits of Influence: America's Role in Kashmir," Schaffer said: "An offer of strong and active US support for a permanent Indian UN Security Council seat could be one approach worth weighing".

 

[Singh]

I am not a belligerent but the voices that I am hearing from India, Pak and US has me worried a bit.

Pak is asking us to reduce our border troops. The logic that they are using is India is our enemy, it has the capability to hurt is and the only deterrent that is keeping India away from attacking Pak is their border formations.
While obviously disregarding their own past misadventures, their reluctance in fighting extremism and their continued support to terrorism.

US is asking us to initiate a dialogue with a nation whose citizens and state machinery have targeted India in dozens of terrorist attacks. Now, Pak is yet to be blamed for a single attack on US, yet US is bombing that nation with its drones and also giving it aid with which it has in the past armed its forces against India.

And now, India is also signaling its intent in resuming talks with Pak, reducing border troops, and letting US act on its behalf. This would be a smart move if we are an equal of Pak. The fact that we have UNSC ambitions, a stated goal of being the sole power in the Indian Ocean, and are hailed as one of the Asian Tiger, such moves by India make us appear weak and demoralises the nation and its forces.

It is not in our interest to see a failed state but at the same time not allow a nation which is hell bent on breaking India to get away.

 

[Singh]

Sorry, got the name of the guy wrong. It's actually a veteran American diplomat that suggested this.

'US should offer UNSC seat to India to resolve Kashmir'

It would be morally wrong of India to accept a UNSC seat if it yields to US or Pak in matters of sovereignty.

 

[SATISH]

Pakistanis survive on their hate for India. This is the only binding factor they have got. They dont even have religion to bind them together. They must first get their priorities straight. The Americans are too proud to talk to Iran and ask the CAR for an alternative route. And if they lose Pakistan then they lose a strategic foot hold in the south Asian region. So the Americans are walking a tight rope. You cant blame Obama. You must blame Regan for this mess.

 

[Known_Unknown]

I think it depends on what kind of concessions the US wants. If they demand that we give more autonomy to Kashmir, or demilitarise it, as long as we're assured that Pakistan won't take advantage and attack, a UNSC seat in return doesn't seem like a very bad deal.

 

[johnee]

It would be morally wrong of India to accept a UNSC seat if it yields to US or Pak in matters of sovereignty.

Not just morally, but politically, geo-politically, logically and even common-sensically wrong for India to accept a mere UNSC seat by yielding sovereignty and integrity.

US having dealt with Paks for many years seems to be bracketing us in the same league as Paks. They seem to think that we would also sell/lease our sovereignty for the right price. Its time for India to dispel such notions of thinktanks of US. It must be made clear to anyone concerned that India is not up for sale. Period.

 

[MMuthu]

Why can't the Indian Politicians say Pakistan to vacate POK and say India's Commitment towards POK has not changed from 1948?

Jammu & Kashmir is a integral Part of India...... Who is ready for giving that land to Pakistan....?

 

[Known_Unknown]

As long as Pakistan doesn't control Indian Kashmir, I think we can have a number of solutions that can make such a deal possible.

What about this: Kashmir is demilitarised. Pakistan does the same on its side. Residents of the whole of J&K are free to travel anywhere and settle anywhere within J&K. They are also granted dual citizenships of both India and Pak.

In return, the PA and government officially give up claims on Indian Kashmir and vice versa, and the two army chiefs publicly sign an agreement to that effect. They also abolish all the terrorist training camps.

For this concession, the US publicly assures India of its support in the UNSC.

 

[SATISH]

As long as Pakistan doesn't control Indian Kashmir, I think we can have a number of solutions that can make such a deal possible.

What about this: Kashmir is demilitarised. Pakistan does the same on its side. Residents of the whole of J&K are free to travel anywhere and settle anywhere within J&K. They are also granted dual citizenships of both India and Pak.

In return, the PA and government officially give up claims on Indian Kashmir and vice versa, and the two army chiefs publicly sign an agreement to that effect. They also abolish all the terrorist training camps.

For this concession, the US publicly assures India of its support in the UNSC.

Still BS...we must not settle for anything but Kashmir is a integral part of India. You want to make the lives lost by people over the years to go to waste? The Kashmiri Pandits who were chased out and faced hardships to go to waste?...The Pakistanis will never rest till they have broken India into pieces. Understand this.

 

[johnee]

As long as Pakistan doesn't control Indian Kashmir, I think we can have a number of solutions that can make such a deal possible.

What about this: Kashmir is demilitarised. Pakistan does the same on its side. Residents of the whole of J&K are free to travel anywhere and settle anywhere within J&K. They are also granted dual citizenships of both India and Pak.

In return, the PA and government officially give up claims on Indian Kashmir and vice versa, and the two army chiefs publicly sign an agreement to that effect. They also abolish all the terrorist training camps.

For this concession, the US publicly assures India of its support in the UNSC.

A seat at UNSC is too small for such a major concession. BTW, such a move will trigger many more secessionist movements in India. Also, terrorists the Pak breeds, will not give up their 'jihad' until they establish a crescent flag on red fort.

India would gain nothing and risks losing a lot. It is in India's interest to let the status quo continue for another decade, Kashmiris are more and more joining into mainstream India. In another decade, there is every chance that secessionist movement would die a natural death. Pak and US are trying to keep it alive........

 

[Yusuf]

There can be only two resolutions to the Kashmir issue.
The ideal one is that India gets back PoK which is rightfully ours. But then thats the idealistic scenario. We know Pakistan is not going to hand it back. Winning it militarily is not an option and cannot be achieved. Not that I am doubting our forces, but then its not feasible as I have learnt from many army pros.

The second is that the status quo remains and the LoC be converted to a permanent boundary as controlled right now including Siachen.
This option will not be acceptable to Pakistan as it just wants more land from us. We have already lost a third to them and will not handover anymore. So if the US wants to resolve this for Pakistan, then it has to pressure Pakistan into accepting status quo and stop all forms of terrorism against India.
Anything other than that is unacceptable for India.