Archive for the 'Kashmir' Category

Sanjeev Miglani with Reuters gives us the news about the visit of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to India.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband may yet end up achieving the opposite of what he intended in India when he called for a resolution of the Kashmir dispute in the interests of regional security.

To some Indians, linking the attacks in Mumbai – which New Delhi says originated from Pakistan – to the issue of Kashmir is not just insensitive, it is also a wake-up call. The lesson they have drawn is this: for all the world’s sense of outrage over Mumbai, India will have to deal with Pakistan on its own, and not expect foreign powers to lean on its neighbour in the manner it wants.

Miliband’s visit was a “jarring reminder to India to stop off-shoring its Pakistan policy,” writes Indian security affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney in the Asian Age. He then goes on to call for a set of measures including a military option short of war to weaken Pakistan …

But this may well be a pointer to a stiffening mood in India as it heads into an election that could bring the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party into power. And then all bets would be off as to what would be India’s policy towards Pakistan.

Over the weekend, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Lal Krishna Advani gathered a bunch of military chiefs, security analysts and party bosses, and the verdict from that meeting was India had been too soft on Pakistan.

“After Mumbai, any self-respecting government would have adopted a much more robust response which alone could compel Pakistan to not only bring to book those behind the incident but also to wind down the infrastructure of terror,” the BJP said in a statement. “Instead India adopted the mildest of response, not like an emerging global player.”

Thanks to Miglani for a good report.  So that the import of what Miliband has done in India doesn’t escape, let’s rehearse a bit.

Miliband has taken the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, recently conducted out of Karachi, Pakistan, and connected them to the solution to Kashmir.  This is simply breathtaking.  In order to placate Pakastan and ensure regional stability, Miliband counsels coming to an understanding over Kashmir.

But the fact that such a tactic would encourage exactly the opposite escapes Miliband.  We have discussed the Pakistani duplicity before, where the ISI and Pakistan Army has used and is currently using the Taliban as a buffer for what it sees as its real enemies, Afghanistan and especially India.  Coming to a “mutual understanding” over Kashmir, especially as it relates to the connection of Mumbai with Kashmir, would only encourage the strategy of use of the Taliban and the terror tactics they promulgate.  When success is achieved, the action is confirmed.

Regardless of whether a mutual understanding is achieved over Kashmir, the connection of it to the Mumbai attacks is the worst possible foreign policy imaginable for Britain or any Western country.  And what Miliband accomplished was not the connection of Kashmir to Mumbai, but rather, the hardening of India and its worldview.

Nice job.  The law of unintended consequences.  Learn it.  As for Miliband, the Brits have an administration that perfectly follows in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain didn’t think about unintended consequences either.

India has long been very wary of the Taliban, having fought Islamic extremists in the Kashmir region for years. Hence, they knew long before the U.S. did that political and security problems would cast doubt on the supply of arms and other military materiel to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Karachi is the next target of the Tehrik-i-Taliban, and it is the port city of entry for NATO supplies. We predicted Karachi would be at risk months ago. India also stands to lose with the ascendancy of the Taliban, i.e., India itself is at risk. So India has been busy, but on what?

KABUL, August 07, 2008 (AFP) – India has almost completed a key road linking Afghanistan to Iranian sea ports despite Taliban attacks that claimed more than 100 lives in two years, the deputy public works minister said.

The 217-kilometre (134-mile) route connects a nearly completed ring road around Afghanistan to the Iranian port cities of Bandar-i-Abas and Chabahar, the official told AFP.

Eight Indian engineers and more than 100 Afghan workers were killed in Taliban attacks since the construction of the road began more than two years ago, said Minister Wali Mohammad Rasouli.

There were a few sections of route that had to be touched up before a handing over ceremony was held in a few weeks, he said.

Landlocked Afghanistan relies mostly on Pakistan’s port of Karachi for goods arriving by sea, including supplies for the nearly 70,000 international soldiers helping to fight a Taliban-led insurgency.

The road was initially budgeted at 80 million dollars but is reported to have cost 185 million dollars, in part because of the high security risks of operating in southern Afghanistan.

The route, already open to traffic, is a welcome alternative, since goods can sometimes be held up on alternate routes from Pakistan, where they are also often subjected to high taxes, Rasouli said.

“The new road is very important for us,” he said. “Now we have an alternative road to use when Pakistan creates problems and obstacles for our traders on their ports.”

Islamabad also does not allow goods from India — its enemy — to transit through Pakistan into Afghanistan.

Kabul has a good relationship with New Delhi, one of the main financers of its efforts to rebuild from decades of war although it has not sent troops to join the international military effort against the resurgent Taliban.

However its ties with Islamabad are strained, notably over the unrest.

Kabul alleges that elements in Pakistan, including its government, are supporting the Taliban. Islamabad was one of only three countries that recognised the 1996-2001 Taliban regime.

A road to Iran. This is truly bizarre. A sworn enemy of the U.S. and perpetrator of all manner of anti-Western military operations through its proxy Syria and Hezbollah, the idea that Iran would ever knowingly allow support for NATO forces in Afghanistan to transit through its borders, while also actively working for the defeat of the very same forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, calls this report into serious suspicion. If it’s true, it isn’t readily apparent why India would have worked for such a road.

It would have been easier to secure disputed areas of Kashmir (or construct air fields to supply NATO via flights over the Northern region of Kashmir) than to get Iranian agreement to assist NATO forces in Afghanistan. To make this report make any sense whatsoever requires a better analyst than The Captain’s Journal. We believe that India has wasted its time and money.