Posted on 24-5-2002
War
Without End?
by Alan Marston
India and Pakistan moved even closer to open war Thursday with
the Indian
Prime Minister touring the Kashmiri front lines and Pakistan
reporting
multiple deaths from artillery fire overnight. Twenty-four people
are
reported dead after a week of heavy shellfire across the disputed
border,
or "line-of-control", running through the predominantly Muslim
region of
Kashmir. The current crisis between the subcontinental neighbours
began on
May 14 when Islamic separatist gunmen killed 35 Indians near
Jammu.
The roots of the dispute, the karmic traces, run deep, stretching
back
beyond even the division of British India into mainly Hindu
India and
Muslim Pakistan in 1947. Since that time, two wars have been
fought between
the neighbours over Kashmir. Like the Balkans, Africa, South
America, there
is a complex of festering nationalism amoungst a plethora of
religious/ethnic/racial groupings, not just in the India sub-continent
but
also in the whole of Asia. Kashmir is the most obvious sign
of trouble, it
is however only that, a sign, not a source. Unless and until
the problem of
globalisation homogenisation versus local inequality is made
workable or is
moved past, world politics will continue to be dominated by
wars of people
seeking political and economic independence and control over
their destiny.
After the recent attack, which India indirectly blames on Pakistan,
at
least a million soldiers from both sides have been moved to
the border.
Several hundred thousand more Indian troops are stationed in
states in the
region, and both antagonists have a nuclear capability. It is
that nuclear
shadow which galvanises the West into action, otherwise the
US, UK and
Europe would probably be happy to let the sides fight it out.
As they do
for other localised conflicts, that is, unless there is a possiblity
of
manipulating the situation for commercial advantage.
If full-scale conventional erupts between Indian and Pakistan,
the outcome
is easily predicted in the short term. In the first couple of
days Pakistan
would probably be able to blunt a full-scale Indian attack,
but over a week
or so, the scale of Indian forces would overcome Pakistan's
defences. The
real question then is would the conventional exchange translate
into a
nuclear exchange.
Western politicians and business leaders want to avoid nuclear
weapons use,
that is not controllable. Yet there is not much they can do
to intervene
between the old enemies. Hence the high profile of this conflict.
Pakistan
already feels that it's given a lot of ground in the face of
Indian
demands, but India says it's not enough. India is using very
much the same
rhetoric, and same line of reasoning in its campaign that the
US and
coalition have used in their campaign against terror in Afghanistan,
so
it's quite difficult for the Americans to criticise Delhi. There's
no goody
and bady here and despite the presence of US troops in Pakistan,
and the
support given to Washington by Pakistani President Musharraf,
there exists
no formal alliance between the two countries.
Bad scene. Outcome unpredictable. Such is the legacy of the
placing of
nuclear weapons on the war-room table. The US and Russia are
trying to
reach an oligopoly over nuclear weapons, the latest 3 page agreement
is a
big step in that direction - its too late though, nukes are
in the hands of
up to 10 other states and an unknown number of stateless military
groupings. The US as Global Policeman isn't going to work.
NOTE: PTV programme in Early June on the state of the (nuclear)
world.
|