Threats and Consequences By Ahmed Rashid/ISLAMABAD and Joanna Slater/DELHI
As India continues to use the threat of war to extract concessions from Pakistan, and Pakistan refuses to comply, only international pressure can reduce tension and give both sides a way out
ON THE MORNING of May 25 a defiant President Pervez Musharraf met with a group of Islamic scholars in Islamabad and announced that Pakistan had just successfully test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile--one capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. He then led the crowd in chanting "God is Great" three times as his audience clapped and cheered. The scene was played and replayed on state-run television in an effort to boost the morale of a public fearful of war with India.
Such scenes are now the daily staple TV diet in Pakistan. In neighbouring India, daily fare includes Pakistan's missile tests and footage of frightened villagers fleeing the border zone between Indian and Pakistani territory in Kashmir. The armies of the two countries have up to 1.2 million men strung along their common borders, poised for battle over the disputed territory. Through design or miscalculation, the dangerous game of brinkmanship could at any moment bring on war.
In the two weeks since suspected Islamic militants killed 34 people in an attack on an Indian army camp, both sides have traded inflammatory rhetoric, trying to meet domestic demands while giving each other room to step away from the fight. Even Pakistan's four days of missile tests were dismissed as rhetorical bluster: Pakistan said the tests were "routine," while India said they were aimed at trying to boost Pakistan's domestic morale.
The rhetoric is growing increasingly dangerous, not least because the medium-range and short-range missiles tested recently are capable of being armed with nuclear weapons. Only massive international pressure can now lower tensions and give each side a face-saving excuse to de-escalate their forces on the border.
"We're deeply concerned about the rhetoric," said United States President George W. Bush in St. Petersburg on May 25, with Russian President Vladimir Putin by his side. "It is very important for President Musharraf to stop--do what he said he's going to do in his speech on terror, and that is stop the incursions across the Line of Control" which divides Kashmir. Two days later Bush repeated his statement in Paris, adding that Pakistan's missile tests were not as important as stopping the flow of militants.
The next diplomatic strike on Pakistan would be to threaten Musharraf with a United Nations Security Council debate on Pakistan's commitment to fight terrorism.
Musharraf, in a nationally broadcast speech on May 27, refuted the international consensus that Pakistan is aiding and abetting militants in Indian Kashmir. "Let me also assure the world community that Pakistan is doing nothing across the Line of Control and Pakistan will never allow the export of terrorism anywhere in the world from within Pakistan," he said.
Dressed in his army uniform, mixing defiance with conciliation, Musharraf said that though he was not seeking war with India, "the entire nation is with us and we will shed the last drop of our blood to protect the motherland. The danger of war is still there."
The danger is very real. Both armies continue to trade intense artillery and small arms fire on the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan, causing dozens of civilian casualties every day, while tens of thousands of villagers on both side evacuate the borders.
Musharraf's tough talk may be intended to prepare domestic public opinion for halting the flow of militants, but Western diplomats fear that his brinkmanship is only worsening the crisis. To pacify India, Musharraf must match his public words with action to clamp down on Islamic militancy.
Pakistan can "largely" stop infiltration, says Dennis Kux, a former diplomat and author of a history of U.S.-Pakistan relations. "What is not in Pakistan's power are the Al Qaeda types and the fanatics who are on their own," he says. Any major attack at this volatile juncture, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere in India, could tip the situation into war.
India, too, is engaging in what it calls "coercive diplomacy"--using the threat of war in an attempt to extract concessions from Pakistan. Nevertheless, the threat is genuine. Successive militant attacks have crossed a threshold with the Indian government and public. The frustration is compounded by the fact that Musharraf all but reneged on his promise, made in a far-reaching speech more than five months ago, to rein in the militants.
India's bottom line is that Musharraf must stop militants from crossing into its side of Kashmir and shut down their training camps in Pakistan-controlled Azad Kashmir. The issue of "infiltrations," as such crossings are known, has long been a sore point for India. Despite its best efforts to seal the border, militants continue to trickle through the high mountain passes and down into populated areas. According to India, Pakistan's army not only allows them free passage but assists them on their journey, for example by distracting Indian security forces in a given area.
Indian officials have scoffed at Musharraf's repeated assertion that no infiltration is taking place. Such denials are "untenable, for they run against facts on the ground," said Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh.
Analysts speculate that Western diplomats may try to hammer out a rough quid pro quo: If Pakistan starts by taking steps against militants, then India in turn should restart dialogue on the status of Kashmir. But given the levels of distrust and animosity on both sides, any kind of talks seem a long way off at this point.
Earlier this month it appeared that Musharraf was prepared to halt the flow of militants and break up the camps that house them in Azad Kashmir. Musharraf, who is also head of the army, received support for this U-turn from his civilian cabinet, but his powerful army corps commanders urged him to demand concessions from India in return.
India acknowledges that some militant camps were shut down earlier this year, but only to later reopen or spring up elsewhere. "Musharraf has to put the gun down," says C. Raja Mohan, a strategic affairs analyst. "If he's only hiding the gun then India will not relent."
Hopes that tensions might begin to dissipate after Musharraf's speech to the nation quickly evaporated. Singh responded with an hour-long press conference in which he described Musharraf's remarks as "disappointing and dangerous."
New Delhi has mustered sufficient international support for its demand of stopping the flow of militants to continue its threats and refuse to yield to Pakistani demands. Singh evaded questions on how long India was willing to wait for a gesture from Pakistan. He stated that India would "reciprocate" should Pakistan crack down on the militants, but declined to provide details.
Pakistan says it is only willing to talk if India drops its coercive policies. "India has adopted a policy of intimidation and coercion towards Pakistan on the assumption that this can pay better dividends than a policy of engagement," says Ashraf Qazi, Pakistan's ambassador to India, who was expelled from Delhi on May 18 and has arrived back in Pakistan.
Pakistan appears to be willing to raise the stakes in order to force the international community to intervene to end the crisis. But international efforts have made little progress. Putin tried to ease the tension by inviting Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to meet at a regional summit in Kazakhstan in early June. Pakistan agreed, but India said that Vajpayee would not meet Musharraf, though he would attend the summit.
Chris Patten, European Union commissioner for external relations, left a meeting with Musharraf on May 22 "angry and frustrated," according to a Western diplomat in Islamabad. After Patten met with Vajpayee, he told reporters that "India's patience is close to the breaking point."
Patten was followed in Islamabad by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who was also blunt about what Musharraf needed to do. "The test of his assurances is how they work out on the ground," Straw told reporters after a lengthy meeting with Musharraf on May 28.
With U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage arriving in Pakistan on June 6, there is still room for diplomacy. The most potent weapon in Armitage's arsenal would be to threaten Musharraf with going to the UN Security Council with the charge that Pakistan is not implementing UN Resolution 1373. Signed by 144 countries including Pakistan after September 11, the resolution commits each country to fight terrorism. A Security Council debate would amount to a global condemnation of Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism. "The only way forward is for Pakistan to make it unequivocally clear, not just rhetorically but by taking action . . . to implement UN Resolution 1373," Patten said in New Delhi.
But there is a limit as to how far the U.S. may be prepared to push Pakistan. Pakistan is a key ally in the war against Al Qaeda, who have now crossed over from Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal areas. That dilemma became acute on May 26 when the U.S. army's vice-chief of staff, Gen. John Keane, said the U.S. would go after Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan.
Whatever the diplomats accomplish, Western military experts say that India is not likely to launch an attack until September because of the summer heat and monsoon. But India can squeeze Pakistan by sustaining a long-term military presence on the border. If the present crisis continues through the summer, Pakistan's economy, and social and political structure could come apart at the seams.
The danger of war is not the only destabilizing factor in the region; the other is a threat to Musharraf's leadership, as he faces a growing lack of political support. Musharraf came to power in an army coup in 1999 and declared himself president last June.
Recently, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has urged the army officer corps to overthrow him. At the other end of the political spectrum, the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami party has asked him to resign and called for the creation of a caretaker government.
In a bid to appease those calling for his resignation, Musharraf in his May 27 address announced dates for elections in October. "I would like to assure all the politicians that in October democracy will come in practice in Pakistan. I promise these elections will be fair and transparent," he said.
There is now widespread public speculation in Pakistan that if the crisis worsens and Indian and Pakistani politicians refuse to talk to Musharraf, the army may find him an increasing liability and ask him to resign before then. But there is no certainty that either India or the politicians would be prepared to deal with the next general.