Posted on 11/05/2008 11:01:46 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
NEW YORK - US President-Elect Barack Obama might consider appointing former President Bill Clinton as special envoy on Jammu and Kashmir in an effort resolve the decades-old Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, according to media reports.
Obama indicated his intention to make such a move in a recent interview with Joe Klein of 'Time' magazine ahead of his election as president. He told the weekly magazine that he has sounded out Clinton, who has had first-hand experience dealing with the Subcontinent, having played a role in ending the Kargil issue in the summer of 1999.
When asked specifically about Clinton playing a role in redefining Pakistan’s relations with India, Obama was quoted as saying, “Might not be bad. I actually talked to Bill, I talked to President Clinton about this when we had lunch” at Harlem in New York recently.
In the interview, he also wondered why India wants to 'keep on messing' with the Kashmir issue which is a 'potential tar pit diplomatically'.
Working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve the Kashmir "crisis in a serious way are critical tasks" for the next administration, he said.
And in a television interview last Friday, Obama also said the United States should help resolve the Kashmir dispute as part of efforts to deal with the problem of militancy in the region.
"We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants." he told MSNBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.com.pk ...
While India would agree that a Pakistan secure within its own borders would be good for the region, “India’s problem with the Obama thesis is in the simplistic trade-off it sets up between Kashmir and Afghanistan,” he said. American activism could backfire by undermining the current bilateral peace process, convince the Pakistan Army to harden its stance on Kashmir, and give a fresh boost to militancy there.
In contrast, Obama’s comments were welcomed by Kashmiris, both inside the Kashmir Valley and among the Kashmiri expatriate community in the United States. “I welcome the growing interest of Barrack Obama in resolving the Kashmir dispute,” Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the separatist Hurriyat alliance, told the Greater Kashmir newspaper in Srinagar. ”The US and international community is gradually recognizing that resolution of Kashmir dispute was imperative for peace in South Asia.”
What? I thought he rejected the status quo?
Well, if that’s his first move, I approve. Clinton in Kashmir is a good idea.
Bubba just wants to get far away from the ol’ “ball and chain.”
This smacks of cowboy diplomacy.
Hopefully he won't get out in time.
Great we’ll have a sequel to ‘Black Hawk Down.’
Way to git ‘er done, Bill!
I approve. And Bill would go. Just for the fact he could say he went, and when He’s at some function afterward, (so long as he smoothed things over) he could make jokes about sweaters and Led zepplin analogys.
I couldnt think of a BETTER place to send old Blow*** than up to the Line of Control.
Send that Obama slut to tin buck two.
Are there girls in Kashmir for Bill?
But if he's thinking of sending Billy Boy to Kashmir, that's clearly going to be a rookie mistake. Tsk, tsk, tsk... You're supposed to keep your enemies close by so that you can keep an eye on them, Barack. You're not s'pozed to send them halfway around the world where they can hatch plots against you without your spies being able to keep track of them. What's the matter? Are you forgetting all of the Machiavelli that your Commie masters taught you? Be a good little Commie and get someone to read 'The Prince' (no, not The Little Prince) to you again as a bedtime story...
A special envoy on Astroturf would be more appropriate. Kashmir would be way to soft and comforting on his sorry butt.
More likely...Bubba will end up somewhere like the French Riviera.
I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that’s almost directly on the other side of the planet.
Old Bill shouldn’t forget to pack his dog-eared copy of the Kama Sutra.
Then he sends him to Kashmir.
Paybacks are a bee-otch.
Hillary wanted a Supreme court seat and he campaign debt paid off. Obama nixed both. He owes them nothing.
We may see Hillary try to pull a "Lazarus", but I do not see it working.
Pakistan has never held any elections in it’s part of Kashmir.
In Indian Kashmir, both pro and anti Indian and seperatist parties have competed in elections.
The Indians will wine and dine Clinton, but not budge from their stand of bilateral resolution to the issue.
The Pakistanis will do their double talk as usual, but they are about as interested in an independent Kashmir as the Indians. Pakistan will score points with the USA.
The Indians will get the short end of the stick and be tarred with being obstructionsistic.
The US will then threaten to torpedo the nuclear deal.
India then calls Obama’s bluff.
Companies in the UK, Germany, Japan, Russia,Australia and France will clean up on Indian nuke power contracts.
Prior to this election, unlike Araby and Europa, India had some of the most positive views of both the USA and even Bush. They didn’t need Obama to make it cool to like the USA.
Democrats would like the Indians to go back to their plantation status, get a pat every now and then from the Democrats.
But Bush has cemented ties with India in an unprecedented way, and it’s too sad that many, many Americans of Indian descent, jumped on the Obama bandwagon with accurately knowing the true achievements of President Bush in bringing India to a position heretofore unseen since the early days of the Eisenhower administration.
This is actually a good idea
You wanna pull the rug out from underneath the ISI and its Taliban backers?
Solve Kashmir. Poof, the money and incentive goes away in Pakistan to keep these jackasses around
>>Solve Kashmir.
Before or after Palestine.
Poof, away go the jihadis.
This is going to pull the rug out from as you say, the ISI and the Talibs.
More sparkling conventional wisdom.
You support Obama in this effort, fine.
We’ll see how it turns out.
I really don’t believe this story. Obama isn’t going to pander to the Clinton’s.
I am just saying, all of us hope for solutions that avoid having to constantly fight wars.
This is the clearest path to a solution.
Take care of Kashmir and starts a domino effect.
Pakistani’s are prideful people (hey I know, my parents are from Pakistan). Hence why the gov’t of Pakistan always “denounces” missile strikes, yet they have a wink wink agreement with our boys to do it
You give them something to salvage for ego, and they’ll play nice
So if Kashmir gets solved in a way that the Pakistani gov’t can sell to the people as a victory, the whole game changes in Pakistan. And you strike a huge blow against the jihadists in Pakistan and the border area, because they’ll have no support amongst moderates
This is just Paki news propaganda. OB may end up appointing Clinton on Kashmir but even Clinton knows too well thats its a bad idea to push India too far on Kashmir. With Russia wanting to aim nukes at Europe, he sure doesnt want India to go back to the good old days of cold war.
Depends on what you mean by solving the Kashmir problem. India cannot “solve” the Kashmir problem the way Pakistanis would want it to be solved. And personally I believe Kashmir problem cannot be “solved” ......unless Pakistan itself goes out of existence ......which actually may not be too far away. The real problem was never Kashmir but Pakistan.
Pakistan wants peace, all they have to do is accept the LOC as the Intl border.
India doesn’t want the rest, they are reconciled to having only half the territory.
Point is, apart from Zardari’s recent statements, Pakistan has never wanted peace, it wants all of Kashmir. It’s a prime raison d’etre not only of the military but also the “secular” “moderates”, all of whom would be adrift and at loose ends of Kashmir as a convenient rallying cry can’t be used anymore for strategic and political ends, including like in 1949, inciting the tribes to attack Kashmir.
Complexity is overrated. Ego, ego, the world always has to worry about the Pakis ego.
Plus, your reasoning is wrong, if Pakistan signs a deal with India, it will not have the effect of stopping attacks on the ISAF in Afghanistan.
It’s always one thing or the other, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir.
Sometimes, as history has shown, a decisive conflict is the only viable answer.
But, have to give credit to the Pakistanis, smart, savvy and wily and know how to play Americans like the proverbial violin.
Second move appoint Hillary! special envoy to Mozambique.
Here’s another take on the whole mess to be....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers30/paper2917.html
>>7. Our Indian sources say that in the history of Indo-American relations since India became independent in 1947, there have been more instances of meddling by Democrats than by Republicans. They feel that Democrats seem to think that they understand sub-continental affairs better than anybody in the US and find it difficult to resist the urge to meddle. According to them, that is why Indian security agencies feel uncomfortable when the White House has a Democrat as incumbent. They say that if one draws a graph of terrorism in J&K, one would find that it tends to go up when a Democrat is the President.
Dumbass IndoAms who voted for Obie!
Indian Americans even though are an unfairly “hyphenated” ethnic group, they are finally Americans and vote like any other average American. Their vote has really nothing to do with Indian interests.
Yes, I do agree, but, and this may be arguable but I don’t believe so, Bush has done wonders for the relationship, decoupling it from the dreaded Indo-Pak hyphenation prevalent for decades, to not only stronger economic and commerical ties, but unparralleled cooperation and joint exercises between the two armed forces.
For that, I would expect some appreciation and sympathy for the Republican side, but most IndoAms have no clue about how much Dubya has done for the relationship, and when informed about it, brush it off, looking upon the speaker as some bozo mouthing arcane tangents.
That is pretty naive to think that Pakistan would be happy if India just gave them the Kashmir valley. Next, they would ask for all places whereMuslims live to be returned to Pakistan. Unfortunately, when Jinnah asked for a separate land forMuslims, India didn’t send ALL it’s M’s over to paki land.
Cue up your favorite LZ version of this song - as we watch Bubba landing under sniper fire - was actually watching a movie last night and in a bar scene Kashmir was playing in the background.
Why in God’s name would India give up Kashmir?
According to the process defined by the British in 1947, the choice was Kashmir’s. And Kashmir chose India.
Then Pakistan ATTACKED in 1949, using both regular army units and jihadi tribesmen (sound familiar).
And, since then, the Indians have, warts and all, conducted elections, like happened last week.
How many elections have the Pakistanis held in their territory? Answer: NONE.
And the claim that Kashmir is predominantly Muslim; yes, it is, because all the Hindus were systematically chased out, especially in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
And if Pakistan wants peace, which they don’t, the solution is not complex - establish the current demarcation, the LOC as the international border.
But Pakistan won’t, because it doesn’t want peace. The military loves the Kashmiri jihad, and the civilian leadership, like PMs Bhutto and Sharif, are incapable or unwilling to control the Army, and hence no agreement will be reached.
It’s sad that India will lose Chitral and Skardu, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
India offered it’s Muslim citizens the option of living in a modern leaning secular society, it is a testament to the desires of many Muslims that they took the chance of living in India, where despite the current media propagandizing, many have achieved notable success in all walks of life, from the Armed Forces, the Government and Commerce and Science.
What does Pakistan offer it’s Hindu citizens; total pariah status and the destruction of Hindu temples wholesale. Two years ago, two Hindu temples in Lahore were bulldozed. Nary a peep from the EU, UN or anyone.
India is not giving up the Vale of Kashmir.
The West can go do something impossible to itself as far as they are concerned.
Among the last things Obama should do,
is appoint a high-profile point-man on Kashmir.
Where’s Chritral and Skardu? One point to add in — if india gives Pak the Kashmir valley (note: Jammu is Hindu and ladakh is buddhist and both want to stay with India), do you think that would somehow stop the Pakis? No, they will want next every inch of land that has a Moo staying there — even the Bangladeshi slums in Bombay
POK. Chitral is @ the western end and Skardu is in the east.
In 1949, when Pakistan atacked, the Indian garrison at Skardu surrendered after a lengthy siege, and there was a slaughter of Indian prisoners by the paki irregulars countenanced by the regular Pakistani Army commander.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.