March 2000 - Current
Index Complete
Index This Month
MiddleEast.Org
3/21 |
|
|
To receive MER regularly email to INFOMER@MiddleEast.Org |
NUKS IN SUBCONTINENT AND MID-EAST
NUCLEAR WAR BREWING?
THE INTERCONNECTIONS BETWEEN MIDDLE EAST AND SUBCONTINENT
MiD-EasT RealitieS (MER) - WASHINGTON - 21 March 2000:
Clinton is in the subcontinent taking his "peace-making"
pretensions on the road. The problem is, neither he nor the country
he represents have much credibility, especially when it comes to the subject
of militarism and nuclear weapons.
Clinton comes to the subcontinent representing a country
that in recent years has destroyed Iraq, bombed Yugoslavia, occupied Arabia
and watched on the sidelines while the Russians pulverized Chechnya.
No wonder the Chinese have said in actual words, "We are not Iraq or Yugoslavia",
and publicly warned the U.S. regarding Taiwan that they too have a nuclear
arsenal which they are understandably rushing to enlarge.
When it comes to the subcontinent, the undiscussed backdrop
to this visit by an American President is that the Israelis helped the
Indians develop their nuclear weapons during the past two decades while
the Americans have greatly furthered nuclear proliferation in our world
by helping the Israelis develop theirs.
Moreover, this same American President has given the Israelis
a secret letter essentially exempting them from the same nuclear non-proliferation
standards applied to every other country in the world because of their
"special circumstances" -- one of many pay-offs the Israelis have managed
to extract from an Administration they helped bring to power and whose
affairs they dominate.
It was only a few years ago in fact that the Indians,
again with Israeli help and American awareness, were attempting to secretly
attack Pakistani nuclear targets, including the Kahuta reactor, in an attempt
to do to Pakistan what was done to Iraq. Still top secret reports
indicate they may have made one, maybe two, actual tries to bomb Kahuta
but in each case were detected
by Pakistan and retreated quickly back across their own border.
Now the Americans, with this track record and with their
own Congress refusing to even ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
they themselves championed, come calling in the subcontinent with sage
advice and the usual litany of threats and bribes. This recent article
by columnist Eric Margolis is abit dated since Clinton is after all making
a short stop in Islamabad, but even so the analysis is quite important.
We add to it these considerable interconnections with Israel and the Middle
East situation, which of course are all too often and oh so conveniently
overlooked.
The weapons of mass destruction situation in both the
subcontinent and the neighboring Middle East is likely to fester and threaten
for some time to come.
It's a dangerous situation, true enough, and in all likelihood
it will get worse.
In the Middle East, while the headlines speak of "peace
process" the military budgets remain growing, the weapons systems continue
to expand, and literally as the diplomats talk missile proliferation and
a combination of nuk, bio, and chem weapons are spreading. Need we
add that Americans arms salesman are at the top of the list of those shoveling
in the money while Israelis arms sales around the world, including to China,
are also considerable and rising all the time.
In the subcontinent, it's a terrible shame these two poor
countries continue to squander their resources and threaten each other
with oblivion. But the notion that the USA, with its own miserable
and hypocritical track record, is going to be able to do much about it
as a credible intermediary is just not in the cards.
Whatever happened to the idea of an independent international
community and a viable, serious, credible United Nations anyway?
Good questions of course, but the answers aren't very pretty either.
Meanwhile, let's not forget that it is the Anglo-Saxons
who left both the subcontinent and the Middle East the legacy that is today's
divisions, today's conflicts, and today's escalating arms race. The
Kashmir issue and the partition of the subcontinent, as well as the partition
of Palestine, were brought to us originally compliments of the British
Empire. Israel's birth in 1948, it's expansion in 1967, it's settlement
policies, it's defiance of world law and international human rights, and
yes, it's nuclear arsenal -- these come from the policies of the American
Empire.
Also to be remembered is that Pakistan's original nuclear
weapons program began in the 1970s, partly fueled by the 1967 and 1973
Middle East wars, and was aided by Libya (and later Saudi Arabia) which
provided considerable funding to the then government of Zia al-Huq for
what was at the time called by some the "Islamic bomb" and understood to
be a counterweight to the Israeli bomb.
OLD FOES SPOILING FOR A FIGHT
By Eric Margolis
RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN - 5 March 2000:
India and Pakistan are engaged in an increasingly dangerous confrontation
over the divided Himalayan mountain state of Kashmir which they have
disputed for the past 53 years. For the first time since the 1962 Cuban
missile crisis, the armed forces of two nuclear-armed powers are
clashing directly.
This week, Indian troops crossed the Line of Contro1 (LOC) that divides
Kashmir and slaughtered 14 Muslim villagers, beheading some of the
victims.
Pakistani troops killed seven Indian soldiers. Inside the two-thirds
of
Kashmir controlled by India, Muslim guerrillas fighting for independence
killed ten Hindu civilians and Indian troops. As the decade-old rebellion
by
Kashmir's 80% Muslim majority against often brutal Indian rule grows,
10-20
people are dying daily in Kashmir. Indian and Pakistani artillery trade
heavy fire along the entire LOC and are on high alert. According to
CIA, the
Kashmir LOC is the world's most dangerous border and the likeliest
place for
a nuclear war to occur.
India just announced a staggering 38% increase in its defense budget.
In
Delhi, PM Atal Vajpayee threatened Pakistan with nuclear attack if
Islamabad
dared use its own strategic arsenal and proclaimed there would be no
further
negotiations with Pakistan until it handed its third of Kashmir over
to
India.
Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Abdus Sattar, says he has never heard such
threats from India, calling Vajpayee "shrill" and irrational. Hindu
extremists may be driving government policy, Sattar suggests. India
is
violently frustrated and enraged over Kashmir and ready to lash out.
Here in Rawalpindi, the former headquarters of the British Indian Army
on
the wild northwest frontier, I met with Lt. Gen. Muhammed Aziz Khan,
chief
of the general staff of Pakistan's 587,000 armed forces. Though guarded
and
soft spoken, Aziz Khan is tough, highly intelligent and fiercely determined.
He is one of the three strongmen of the new military regime, along
with his
superior, Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and the redoubtable
Lt.
Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, Director General of Inter-Service Intelligence.
I asked Gen. Aziz if India's 700,000 regular and paramilitary troops
now
crammed into Kashmir - including three overstrength corps, 250 warplanes,
and 300 heavy - were not poised to attack Pakistani Kashmir. "India
has the
capability to undertake tactical action," replied Aziz. "On the Kashmir
front they outnumber us five to one. But our troops are prepared to
fight at
a moments notice."
Regarding the strategic arms race between Pakistan and seven-times larger
India, whose population just reached 1 billion, Aziz says his nation
can
still keep up with India's growing military power. "But, if the relative
strategic balance keeps shifting against us, I am concerned."
India has embarked on a massive arms buildup, including new aircraft
from
Russia and France, an aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine, ballistic
and cruise missiles, space warfare systems, and a large nuclear arsenal
developed with covert aid from Israel and France.
The US Congress cut off all military and financial aid to Pakistan a
decade
ago to pressure Islamabad to give up its nuclear program, which Israel's
friends on Capitol Hill saw as a possible threat to the Jewish state
-
though Pakistan has never shared any of its nuclear technology. Meanwhile,
Washington winked at India's far larger, older nuclear program, which
was
seen as a useful counter to China.
Ironically, due to the US embargo, Pakistan has had to rely increasingly
on
its nuclear forces to offset India's growing superiority in men and
material. India is now trying to spend Pakistan, which is almost bankrupt,
into the ground by developing new high-tech weapons systems, such as
anti-missile defenses and satellite surveillance.
Pakistan's tough new military leaders refuse to be cowed. Gen. Aziz
is said
to be the main planner for Pakistan’s incursion across the LOC last
spring.
In May, Pakistani special forces and Kashmiri guerrillas crossed the
LOC and
seized commanding positions atop the towering mountains above the
Indian-held city of Kargil. Pakistan staged the operation to
internationalize the Kashmir issue, which was fading into obscurity
at a
time when brutal Indian repression was threatening to extinguish the
uprising.
Two months of fierce combat ensued, costing India 400 lives and a huge
amount of money. The fighting ended when Pakistan's then prime minister,
the
inept and despotic Nawaz Sharif, was ordered to Washington for a humiliating
public dressing down by President Clinton. Nawaz, who had approved
the
operation, denied prior knowledge and blamed it all on his generals.
He then
tried to split the army and dismiss its professional leadership. The
military struck back, deposing Nawaz, to great public delight, and
named
Gen. Musharraf as Pakistan's new leader.
Pakistan is now waging a war of nerves against India, convinced the
rebellion in Kashmir, discreetly supported by ISI, and growing regional
rebellions inside India in Assam and the eastern hill states will eventually
force India to withdraw. India is retaliating by upping military pressure
against Pakistan and using its intelligence agency, RAW, to stage bombings
and sabotage designed to destabilize Pakistan. At the same time, the
800,000
Indians living in the US have formed a powerful lobby that has teamed
up
with the influential Israel lobby to militate against Pakistan and
get it
branded a "terrorist state."
President Clinton, who is due to shortly visit the subcontinent, may
skip
Pakistan because of charges it backs "terrorists" in Kashmir, the Taliban
in
Afghanistan, and was involved in the hijacking of an Indian airliner.
Pakistan considers Kashmiri insurgents "freedom fighters," not terrorists.
Islamabad has little influence over the fiercely independent Taliban,
nor
was it involved in the recent hijacking. Little matter. Any state or
person
accused these days of being involved in "Islamic terrorism" is guilty
until
proven innocent.
But, as usual, Clinton is driven primarily by domestic politics, and
may bow
to lobby pressure by avoiding Pakistan or merely making a "refueling"
stop.
This would be a grave mistake. Only the United States has the diplomatic
clout to prevent the drift to war now underway between India and Pakistan,
who have already fought three wars since 1947. American diplomatic
intervention is urgently required, as is outside mediation of the explosive
Kashmir dispute.
Clinton's failure to visit Pakistan, and increasing US hostility to
old ally
Pakistan could be taken by Delhi as a green light to launch an offensive
against Pakistani Kashmir. The huge number of Indian troops being maintained
in constricted Kashmir, where they have no operational room, suggests
a sort
of counter-Kargil offensive is in the works. India is seething with
revenge
for being humiliated last spring by Pakistan. An Indian attack would
not
cross the international border between the two foes, but penetrate
only into
Pakistani Kashmir. By seizing parts of Pakistani Kashmir - possible
the Lipa
or Nilum valleys or Kotli - India would restore face, weaken Pakistan,
and
undermine the military leadership in Islamabad.
Wars too often begin because of miscalculation or over-estimation of
one's
power. This is precisely the case between India and Pakistan. Neither
wants
a general war, but both believe they can keep up the war of nerves
and
limited military operations under security of their nuclear umbrellas.
This week India gave its commanders the right of hot pursuit of Kashmiri
militants across the LOC. CIA analysts have long said that just such
an
event may trigger a large battle that risks escalating into a full-sca1e
war
that might end with a nuclear exchange. According to Rand Corp, a nuclear
conflict between India and Pakistan would kill 2 million people at
once, and
100 million subsequently as well as polluting the entire globe.
If ever real diplomacy was needed, it is now.
Copyright: E. Margolis, March 2000
Note: "War at the Top of the World" by Eric Margolis - the struggle
for
Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet will be published in March by Routledge.
|
|
Copyright © Mid-East Realities
& The Committee On The Middle East.
|