American mediation on Kashmir

[Capt.Popeye]

Z. A. Bhutto in my young first hand experience was a corrupt, arrogant, and self assured fellow who thought the Indian military of the 1965 era would be a "push over." Z. A. Butto had a now deceased dear friend of mine (much older), now deceased, retired RAF Air Vice Marshal P. G. K. Williamson, then Group Captain P. G. K. (Pete) Williamson, the RAF Advisor to the Government of Pakistan at the British High Commissioner's Office in Karachi...had Pete declared Persona Non Grata for daring to tell Bhutto to lay off his plans to attack in Kashmir and elsewhere, that no useful purpose could be served and that the people of Pakistan needed basics, not the propaganda distractions which Kashmir has been used for among the poorest, least educated, most needy of the national population throughout all parts of Pakistan.

But, not to be self-contradictory, I favored his daughter, Mrs. Bhutto, who I think could have done some real good as the PPP President had she lived to be elected...and she surely would have been elected. Her husband, the stand in for her after her murder, now the President of Pakistan, does the best he can and the PPP among all political parties seems still to me the most moderate and future oriented...but Pakistani elitists, which includes some elements inside the Pak military, particularly in the ISI, still use Kashmir as a distraction from the real needs of all the people.

It is easy to be an after the fact, arm chair quarterback, but in my humble view religion has been the curse, not the salvation of the nation of Pakistan. Jinnah meant to keep an objective nation with freedom for and representation of all sects, ethnicities, and religions in the Pakistani Parliament. The 1950 Constitution of Pakistan was about as good as Pakistan has ever had. Amendments to and changes to it in the early 1970s, particularly by Z. A. Bhutto, now by the current Parliament of Paksitan regarding the Blasphemy Laws, are an abomination to and further destruction of any hope of a sane governance system for Paksitan, and another major nail in the coffin of democratcy and free speech inside Pakistan.

@ American Eagle,
Thank you again for your post.
About your reading of Mr. Bhutto; its interesting. I had an opportunity to speak with two persons (now sadly deceased) who had some very close exposure to Mr. Bhutto. One was a teacher in the Cathedral and John Connon School in Bombay (where Bhutto schooled as a boy) and a school mate of his (who happened to be known to my father). And I can see many areas of overlap.

About the second point, I tend to agree with that assessment. Tinkering about with democracy and especially with the first Constitution did not help in setting up the 'pillars of democracy' in Pakistan.

 

[Leader]

its about making india come to table for some fruitful discussion on the issue. for example right of self determination, moreover there is a history of armed struggle in Kashmir against Indian occupation and on and off its linked with LeT, so to counter America's demand to curtail so called terrorism in Kashmir, Pakistan asks 'If you got any better ideas to bring the elephant down on its knees?No ? here is a one...mediate between us we both are your allies'

 

[toxic_pus]

The United States of America (being one of the oldest and the most powerful democracies in the world) will most likely support the idea of having a referendum in Kashmir [wrong] and thats what Pakistan wants [wrong]. A referendum that even India's first prime minister promised to the people of Kashmir [subject to certain conditions], but India never fulfilled their first prime minister's promise [because those conditions remain unfulfilled] to the people of Kashmir. We Pakistanis want the people of Kashmir to chose which country they want to be part of [but Kashmiris want neither].

During the Cold War era it made sense that Paks wanted US involvement. Today, it doesn't make any sense. But then again, US has always been the backroom player.

 

[American Eagle]

You overlooked that the US and Europe suffered attacks from the same terrorists groups now headquartered in Pakistan. So of course the War on Terrorism is about both Afghanistan and Pakistan terrorists being subdued and ended.

 

[American Eagle]

A retired Pakistani diplomat who was the @x Great Grandson of a former King of Afghanistan was a protege of Z. A. Bhutto...and his retired Paksitani diplomat initiated e-mail dialogue with me, which I appreciated and enjoyed, from end of 2001 until around 2003 when he "went silent." He had intimated he had a terminal illness during some of our conversations but never said "what" his exact medical diagnosis was. I think (from memory only) he lived, in retirement, in the Rawalpindi area, but I could be mistaken. He was "up country" in his retirement in any event.

 

[American Eagle]

As repeatedly stated defacto the Andorran Model is being applied starting during the Musharraf era and continues as it makes sense both to India and Pakistan today. Confidence Building Measures are the keystone of the Andorran Model in it's incubation stage. ISI supported Taliban terrorists are episocially still trying to cause trouble disguised as insurgent Kashmiris, etc.

 

[toxic_pus]

It will be pertinent to remember that USA always was conscious of the fact that post 1947 (independence) that India was always destined to be the larger (actually largest) player in the sub-continent.

Actually if you pick up American newspapers from that era, e.g. Times, you will see that whenever India was mentioned, it was mentioned with a charitable dose of contempt. Pakistan, on the other hand, was always US's blue eyed boy, always willing to serve. Strange as it may sound today, but it was Pakistan which was destined to be the Asian giant; India, a failed state. Funny, how tables turn.

The fact of the matter was that when CENTO and SEATO were set up, USA first sent feelers to India to join that 'band-wagon'. When India rebuffed them, the US turned to Pakistan.

It was just to woo India away from NAM.

Oddly enough, it was the (erstwhile) USSR that ended up actively mediating between India and Pakistan after the 1965 war, not USA! And that mediation was accepted by both countries then. That is the closest that any third party came to being an active mediator between India and Pakistan

So true. Many are probably not aware of the fact that USSR till 1965 had never vetoed any Kashmir related resolution. Also during voting, they merely abstained from voting when not voting was equal to voting against India. It was only during 1965 that they vetoed a critical Kashmir related resolution. Also remember Tashkhand agreement, which, according to many, left a bitter taste. Many critical mountain passes were returned to Pakistan under the agreement.

 

[American Eagle]

A historic fact that India having chosen to remain a secular nation was destined, bound to succeed, as a democracy.

In spite of geographic, ethnic, racial, religious and other differences, democracy and being part of the free enterprise system, which creates jobs and builds economic opportunity for one and all in any nation, still in the long run, democracy, is the stronger way to go.

People mocked President Bush who supported/supports emerging democracies worldwide. His vision is being played out in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East, SW Asia, and in Africa.

Iran once had hope of becoming a true, real democracy in every sense of the word but their efforts were overthrown and taken over by the ruling minority, the religious thugs in Iran who still control and pull the strings behind the curtain today. A chance lost and wasted for Iran to be free.

 

[rockstarIN]

The United States of America (being one of the oldest and the most powerful democracies in the world) will most likely support the idea of having a referendum in Kashmir and thats what Pakistan wants. A referendum that even India's first prime minister promised to the people of Kashmir, but India never fulfilled their first prime minister's promise to the people of Kashmir. We Pakistanis want the people of Kashmir to chose which country they want to be part of.

First time I'm hearing that you are praising United States..

 

[Leader]

A historic fact that India having chosen to remain a secular nation was destined, bound to succeed, as a democracy.

In spite of geographic, ethnic, racial, religious and other differences, democracy and being part of the free enterprise system, which creates jobs and builds economic opportunity for one and all in any nation, still in the long run, democracy, is the stronger way to go.

People mocked President Bush who supported/supports emerging democracies worldwide. His vision is being played out in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East, SW Asia, and in Africa.

Iran once had hope of becoming a true, real democracy in every sense of the word but their efforts were overthrown and taken over by the ruling minority, the religious thugs in Iran who still control and pull the strings behind the curtain today. A chance lost and wasted for Iran to be free.

yup people are motivated by his vision

 

[Rig Vedic]

deleted .............

 

[clmeta]

Just listen. America, India, Israel and in some cases England are just trying to destabalise us Muslim Countries. They came out of Iraq after it all was destroyed by their forces and now eventually they will leave Afghanistan. BUT LET ME TELL U SOMETHING V R NOT ASKIN FOR AMERICA'S HElP ON THE KASHMIR ISSUE BECAUSE V KNOW ALLAH WLL HELP US AS KASHMIR IS PAKISTAN'S 5TH PROVINCE & y does evry1 think v need non muslim help. U ALL R JUST JEALOUS OF muslims AND PAKISTAN SO PLZZZZ IF U R NOT MUSLIM OR PAKISTANI THEN MIND UR OWN BUISNESS!!!!!1

America, India, Israel??? Add Pakistan to that list. They created half the jihadis of this world including Talibans and umpteen Lashkars, Jaishs and what not. It is these forces that are destabilizing at least two countries....Pak and AF.
So please....Pakistan is equally responsible. Its theory of fighting proxy wars has failed.

 

[jdme]

All this talk makes me wonder if Pakistani now believes they will never "win" in Kashmir unless India says so. You know, it's been like 22 years! After "beating" Russia, they truly believed azadi was around the corner. Ah, how time teaches lesson again and again and fools fail to learn it every time!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Actually if you pick up American newspapers from that era, e.g. Times, you will see that whenever India was mentioned, it was mentioned with a charitable dose of contempt. Pakistan, on the other hand, was always US's blue eyed boy, always willing to serve. Strange as it may sound today, but it was Pakistan which was destined to be the Asian giant; India, a failed state. Funny, how tables turn.

Leaving that aside, from the time of Roosevelt, there was a clear understanding (and even a certain amount of sympathy) to the fact that India had a more physically important position in South Asia. Then the USA got so deeply enmeshed in the cold-war doctrine of attempting to contain Communism, thanks to people like the Foster Dulles brothers. That obsession, IMO; did the American in. But that is a different matter.
About Pakistan, the American stance was very clear: the Pakistani involvement in the blocs was a means to an end.

It was just to woo India away from NAM.

Not quite, it was serious and actually they had roped in the British too into the efforts. Don't forget that the Commonwealth in its earliest form was intended to take over and preserve British Imperial interests in the area. And that had something to with India's acquisition of the first aircraft carrier (actually the original plan was for the RN to transfer 2/3 aircraft carriers). Just Indian obstinacy (and British coolness, thanks to their Socialist Govts.) ended any hopes of Indian involvement in the blocs.
Just to clarify, IMO; India was a potential member of SEATO, because India was geographically located in SEATO's sphere of influence.
But American Eagle is better placed to comment on this.

 

[nForce]

Why does Pakistan keep asking for American mediation on Kashmir?
Given the extant of anti- Americanism in Pakistan?
don't the pakistanis suspect of a raw cia mossad conspiracy?

Please we are not discussing the arguments about Kashmir issue. Just about a possible American role that India always opposes

The issue will be kinda a bit too much hot for any third party to handle and cannot be done without enraging any one party,and then at some other point of time,enraging the other.
The business and other relations are a bit too deep rooted for US with both the countries to try that kind of venture.Status quo is best suited for both the countries,just to be practical.