Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (15163)	12/31/2001 2:03:20 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

India can solve disagrement with Kashmiris without Pakistani help Thank you for the history lesson Arun; I was aware of only about half. I did not mean to suggest that Pakistan's big nose had to be stuck in Kashmir for it to be resolved in a way satisfactory to its residents. Obviously, Islamists there believe they do need to be involved, and I'm well aware that Musharaff's govt has supported that. What has gotten overlooked is that his options have broadened. In return for surrendering support for the Taliban and other Islamists, he has received debt concessions and other aid that benefits the economy. Presumably, the added stability to the economy is not just an incentive to his government, but to the Pakistani people, as well, as it should benefit businesses and people there. It matters not what it's called - incentive, agreement or bribe - it's a quid pro quo and it adds to his power to make further decisions in the interests of his nation. So if the business class and mainstream citizens feel that Pakistan has gained something for Musharraf's efforts, it is logical to presume they will grant him the the continued right to decide the best interests. 3 months ago, many outsiders feared his choices would provoke a coup or assassination, but indications now suggest that the gains grant him greater freedom to act, including acts against groups that he tiptoed around previously. Were I to compare his situation, in an odd way, I would use Gorbachev. Considered a hawk when he took power, Gorby moved his country to the middle with glasnost & perestroika. Few knew he was sitting on an economy set to collapse. Gorby could not move too far too fast without risking overthrow by party hardliners. But he saw the handwriting on the wall and had pragmatically moved his republic to a point where it could dissolve without the bloodshed common to such events. Though the reasons and specifics and ends differ, the view I take of Musharraf is possibly too optimistic because it does not bear all the weight of his own past problem-making. But I think he is a pragmatist who wants a stable peaceful country but must find the pace that the job can be done effectively. Outside pressure conveys to the Islamists and to the mainstream that such movement is necessary and that it must be expedited to preserve peace. If he moves too far too fast, he loses the strength to do so by looking too much like he is a puppet or a coward. As I said before, Rome cannot be rebuilt in a day. Ultimately, all the governments in the region can gain greater peace and have less to fear if extremists who commit terrorist acts are neutralized... I think Musharraf wants that too. One 1999 bio said about him: >>56, Pakistani general, ousted Pakistan's prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in an October coup and installed himself as de facto leader. Musharraf claimed Sharif failed to rescue the country sinking amid corruption and instability. He vowed to weed out corruption and arrest those, no matter how prominent, who owed back taxes or had defaulted on loans. He promised to restore democracy upon completing reform<< Restoring democracy is much easier with economic stability. It is easy to understand why Indians distrust him, however, based on his flipflopping on the Kashmir issue: search.biography.com Should India refuse to negotiate, it moves beyond an ultimatum to, essentially, a declaration of war. I can see nothing that can be gained by this, for Pakistan or India. Such an act would only bolster the extremists.... they would say "See the bully India, we must have jihad in defense of Islam." Twisted logic or not, many in the Islamist movements and perhaps some fence sitters will say "yes, yes, it is clear that this is just part of the international plot to eliminate all Muslims. Osama is right!" The extremists, Pakistan, and possibly other Islamic nations will be compelled towards unity against India. Sure, India is bigger and stronger and may 'win' but at what cost and at what risk? And can the desired peaceful border be achieved at lesser cost and risk? I think it can and think Musharraf wants this. But reaching a settlement with Kashmiri separatists, even if Pakistan's role is symbolic in such talks, can be a way to have peace and a just settlement without the blood and without the nuclear risk. I am only a small opinion and do not profess to know it all. But Arafat, in power for a quarter century, and Musharraf, trying to deliver much in a just 26 months so far, and 10 to go if he meets his goal, are not at all the same. Perhaps he needs to be herded somewhat, but if he keeps moving towards a positive direction, is it necessary or useful to chew off his legs? Does India benefit if the US or China or Russia or Iran comes barging in to try to force a solution that may not include terms of its own choosing?