Indian Summons

Very trenchant comment about the European colonialists. It is also to be noted that the US is responsible for NONE of those borders. Hence the futility of the US trying to repair these situations on our own, and primarily in a military manner. Funny but the culprits are almost always the Brits, and is that not one reason that Blair was so eager to do whatever W. deluded himself into? The rest seem to be Turkish in origin. It says here the UK and Turkey need their feet held to the fire, by the UN, the US and the international community, and they need to get some skin in the game, especially in Israel/Palestine where they are both clearly to blame. In Kashmir, of course, not only the Brits need to be brought in, but China as well, given that their policy interests are at stake. If the Obama method is to find some way to get the people who need to be there around the table, and pay some attention to how things got the way they are, that could lead somewhere good.

The criticism of borders badly drawn by Europeans is a valid one. The question is: what to do now? The Europeans are not preventing these borders from being redrawn, are they.

Borders aside -- and this is a big aside -- having a broader regional focus can yield much bigger benefits in the region for everyone. For there is more at stake than terrorism.

Joe, could you comment on the Mexico situation?
.
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Indiscriminate kidnappings. Nearly daily beheadings. Gangs that mock and kill government agents.
.
This isn't Iraq or Pakistan. It's Mexico, which the U.S. government and a growing number of experts say is becoming one of the world's biggest security risks.
.
The prospect that America's southern neighbor could melt into lawlessness provides an unexpected challenge to Barack Obama's new government. In its latest report anticipating possible global security risks, the U.S. Joint Forces Command lumps Mexico and Pakistan together as being at risk of a "rapid and sudden collapse."
.
I've heard almost nothing about Mexico in a national security context, except on immigration of course. Is this as serious as it sounds?

Sorry, here's the link for the AP article: http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/sns-ap-lt-mexico-besieged,0,5698370.story?track=rss-topicgallery

"It was the original "k" in the acronym that accounts for Pakistan's name (the "P" stood for Punjab and the "A" for the Afghan-border northwest tribal areas), but was grabbed by India in a dodgy bit of business during the partition mayhem of 1947."

Joe, your attempt to sum up the sixty-year-old Kashmir dispute in terms of an acronym and a 'dodgy bit of business' is a bit cavalier. I'm sure you're better informed than that, but some of your readers might be misled.

Nice, meaty piece, Joe.
.
I don't know enough to even ask this, but I will anyway. Could Kashmir be an independent state? Would that be a viable compromise?

pneogy--
.
Can you enlighten us (and Joe) further?

jackroyd, you might like to take a look at http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?SN=SA2001112045

jayackroyd, sorry I misspelled your name.

thanks. And don't worry about it. Everybody misspells my name.

Hey! Joe! That link of pneogy's is worth putting into an update.

This thread almost defines the ability of blogs to create substantive and expanding conversations. Please keep it going!

This thread also highlights the growing need for U.S.-based media (blogs included) to include the voices of foreign journalists, not just Americans. No offense to Joe Klein; it's a matter of perspective, not expertise.

jay and pneogy - Joe added your link midway in his post.
.
OT, but anyone else notice how nice it is to say and hear and type President Obama? And to hear and watch him speak from the White House in his first weekly address: 01/24/09: President Obama's Weekly Address

Thanks Joe.

Kashmir can make a good case for being treated as a "nation" or a "state". Having Hindus and Muslims gave India and Pakistan an excuse to grab themselves a part. But Kashmiris think of themselves as "distinct". Well the Sikhs in Punjap do. So if we allow everyone to claim a certain distinctiveness then we will never settle the Ag-Pak-Kash-Hind problem. Another problem for Kashmire: no access to the the sea.

Maybe we should push to get everyone to agree that, in spite of history, let's go with the borders we have and work out resolutions. (I don't think the Palestinians will buy that because Israel has messed up that issue with its settlements.

The curse is regional, ethnic and religious politics. Blaming the Brits just detracts of the problem at hand.

Sorry for errors

bitter: here's my take:

India: democratic elections since 1949; peaceful change of government but two emergencies. But Parliamentary govt continuous.

Pakistan: Democratic elections, army coups, disctatorships; financial basket case; unwritten by US$.

Afghanistan: Wow, where to begin. Major revenue source: drugs; major govt actors: warlords and chiefs plus Russian occupation.

Now I can see why india does not want to play in the Holbrooke Symphony.

the idea of an independent Kashmir has been out there for a while. the problem is the the people of Kashmir (Kashmiri?) themselves can't agree on what they want, there are three separate factions in Kashmir itself as well, some want to join India others Pakistan and some are for an independent Kashmir, its an unholy mess.

Bitter-
.
Understanding history is not necessarily an exercise in blaming. It's a way to untangle unpleasant legacies (colonialism, slavery, genocide) in order to (1) set things right and (2) prevent future recurrence. It would seem to me that involving the original actors in devising solutions would be more productive in the long run than excluding them.

for Afghanistan to settle down on a long-term basis, Pakistan is going to have to turn away from sponsoring Islamic extremist groups...which won't happen until there is some resolution of the historic Kashmir mess. For the moment, though, that will have to be done surreptitiously, if at all. One wonders how many more decades it takes before the world sorts out the problems caused by the feckless drawing of borders by European colonialists.
-
Two points: first, it's not clear that the US can work to "resolve" the Kashmir situation, if the facts on the ground and political will and leadership isn't there. Nor is it clear that the US should have such a role.
-
Second, I read that last sentence to imply that the natural state of things is peace and prosperity, which is where we'd be but for European misadventures. I'm not so sure that's the case.
-
Now, obviously, we can make progress over time. Europe 2009 is quite a bit more congenial than Europe 1968 or 1938 or 1918. But it's not clear that US diplomatic inducements are the way to provide a "resolution of the historic Kashmir mess."
-
India has a rapidly growing economy and is a rising military power with a very shrewd and capable diplomatic corps. And it's the world's largest democracy. I don't understand why the Rise of India doesn't get nearly the attention of the Rise of China. (I don't mean to slight Pakistan vs. India-- just saying, India is, like, really big).

wl,j and ee: thanks for some very helpful comments. I think India does not command our attention because Pakistan and Afghanistan take up all the time. The Mumbai Massacre, in a sad way, made many Americans aware of that part of the world.

But I agree: we need all the players, past and present to be helpful and work out a modus vivendi. Now I get down on my knees and pray. That's about all that is left.

Very informative post, Joe - thanks. It's well time that Americans (leaders and ordinary citizens alike) starting learning about the regions of our various conflicts.
-
And thanks everyone for the informative comments!

From a purely strategic perspective, it seems like we could effectively cut the legs out from under both the Mexican & Taliban/extremist issues in one stroke by legalizing drugs, thereby depriving the respective groups of their funding sources. The more countries legalize, the greater the effect.
.
There'd still be plenty of underlying issues to address -- cultures of corruption, lack of education, fundamentalism, addiction -- but without funds to buy the guns & support followers the impact would be limited. Plus we'd free up a bunch of 'War on Drugs' money for more productive uses.

As far as Kashmir is concerned, we do have a big lever use towards -- and a vested interest in -- stability in that region, thanks to the tremendous involvement of Western companies there, particularly in India.
.
The last thing financial and retail companies need is their customer service & technology operations hit with a Mumbai-type operation. And the last thing the governments need is for Western companies to pull their operations due to a perceived risk of that happening.
.
One small benefit of outsourcing....