Professor Fair wrote that a US conditions-based, civilian-nuclear agreement backstopped by disincentives could compel Pakistan to crack down on militants and help further secure the command and control architecture of the country’s expanding nuclear arsenal.
Perhaps, but her proposal detracts from a more reasoned argument written last November. At that time, Professor Fair correctly named Kashmir, the disputed territory between Pakistan and India, as the primary step to resolving the larger issue of “asymmetric warfare under a nuclear umbrella”.
Writing in TIME, Professor Fair takes a carrot-and-stick approach to ending what she now calls “nuclearised jihad”. She instead uses the territorial issue as a coercive tool and negative inducement to achieve the goals of her civilian-nuclear deal.
It is difficult to understand how, in Fair’s estimation, the primacy of Kashmir changed when its status has not.
Additionally, Fair also overlooks two facts that undermine her proposal: China is a willing former and future source of nuclear technology and, therefore, deleverages US bargaining power from the start. And, by her own admission, the US nuclear deal with India has not reaped its expected benefits.
Pakistan, like India, could fail to live up to its end of her proposal. In which case, Fair’s list of targeted negative inducements could kick in, leading to the disintegration of US-Pakistan relations. For Pakistan, this would necessitate closer strategic relations with China, greater economic ties with Iran, and empower India’s more hawkish factions as Pakistan and China ramp up strategic cooperation.
In the final analysis of this scenario, the US would be faced with a southern Eurasian landscape, from the Persian Gulf to the East Sea/Sea of Japan, of nuclear-armed and arming states opposed to US interests. For Fair, an American academic concerned about US interests and relations in South Asia, this seems like an undesirable result both for the US and for Pakistan.
Rather, as Professor Fair once wrote, albeit in a different context, “the United States should instead focus its energies on persuading New Delhi to make right by the reasonable and constitutional demands of its Kashmiri citizenry. This will put India on the spot to follow through and consolidate a hard-won peace.”
The disputed territory of Kashmir has led to militancy in the region and the consequential development of India’s conventional warfare and nuclear triad. Facing an existential threat, Pakistan prioritises its own nuclear deterrent.
A conditional US civilian-nuclear agreement — a one-sided, transactional solution — fails to address the underlying problem Professor Fair identified previously and leaves stability on the subcontinent still wanting a long-term resolution.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 15th, 2013.
Correction: An earlier version of the article lacked the clarification that the Sea of Japan may also be referred to as the East Sea. The error is regretted.
COMMENTS (21)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ShanKhan:
Here is the first clause of the "Simla Agreement".
"(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries."
Instead of going into lengthy debates for trivia, you only need to refer to this clause.
@gp65 I was not talking about to what India agrees to & to what not. The fact is "any other peaceful means" includes UN resolutions. It may or may not be agreed by India. That is a separate question. And i am sure its not agreed by India as of now. ... But equally friend, look closely at these words "ANY OTHER peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them"! ( ANY OTHER PEACEFUL MEANS? Other than what? Other than bilateral means!!) You look at it in any angle it envisages 3rd party mediation. ... P.S: I am a great fan of friendship between the two countries. I want all issues to be resolved by any means (bilateral or any other peacefu) mutually agreed upon by both (so not necessary UN resolutions) so that we can live in a better world. Regards, A Kashmiri.
ET Mods: Someone has writen to me. lease allow me to respond. @ShanKhan: "It clearly mentions “any other peaceful means” also which includes UN resolutions. "
You will also see the term "mutually agreed". Since India does not agree on 3rd party intervention...
The USA isn't going to offer nuclear technology to a known nuclear proliferator nor is it going to use it as a carrot to fight terrorism as it's getting ready to depart Afghanistan. Further - mediation efforts on Kashmir is a thankless job and the USA has studiously avoided getting involved in that mess. C Christine Fair maybe an acknowledged expert on Asia but she apparently hasn't a clue about the USA.
@gp65
Plz write full. The full sentence of that simla article is here. (ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. +++++++++++++++++++++ It clearly mentions "any other peaceful means" also which includes UN resolutions.
@gp65:
"India has always claimed J&K to be part of India and hence J&K has a Chief Minister not a Prime Minister."
1- "Always claimed J&K to be part of India": Proving my point that all the repeated assurances of deciding by plebiscite were a total lie and deceit of India.
2- "J&K has a Chief Minister": Sheik Abdullah was in fact the elected Prime Minister of the Indian occupied Kashmir from March 17, 1948 till his government was dismissed on the orders of Indian Prime Minister Nehru on 9th August 1953, and put in Indian jail for 11 long years for demanding holding of the promised plebiscite - so much for the world's largest democracy. You can "read his bio on wikipedia" which fully exposes the shameful sinister manipulations of Kashmiris by Indian government.
@gp65:
"(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations"
Like you honor Simla Agreement, and occupied Sia-Chen (1984) by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations? Anyway, does the Simla Accord specifically prohibit resorting to mediation, or arbitration, or approaching to United Nations for dispute resolution, in case bilateral negotiations fail to produce results. NO. In all international disputes, you can anytime go to these forums for settlement, irrespective of the conditions of any agreement, like provision of 'Force Majure' in agreement, whether you mention it or not. Prohibiting recourse to these forums would be against international laws, and hence illegal in the first place.
Moreover, change in demographics is a total lie spread by Indians, as no Pakistani can buy any property or land in Pakistani side of Kashmir (including GB). However, perhaps more than half the Kashmiri population temporarily lives in Punjab and other provinces of Pakistan for various reasons including work.
@Lala Gee: Unlike the facade that Pakistan makes that 'Azad Kashmir s a free country' and has a Prime Minister, India has always claimed J&K to be part of India and hence J&K has a Chief Minister not a Prime Minister. As for Sheikh Abdullah's imprisonment - clearly you are more bothered than his grandson Omer Abdullah who is the CM of J&K now and his son Faroukh Abdulla who is a federal minister.
@Lala Gee: Glad you attached the text. Did you also read it? Here is what it says "(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations "
What does bilateral negotiations mean to you? You also did not address the points I raised about changing demography of Pakistanadmiistered Kashmir and removing solders from there as well.
@BruteForce:
"How many times should we remind you that Plebiscite cannot be held until Pakistan withdraws, per the very UN Resolution Pakistan wants to enforce?"
So, what you're essentially saying is that your Prime Minister and sundry all lie when they say "Kashmir is India's 'Atoot Angh' (integral part)", and article 370 of the Indian Constitution was illegally framed just to keep the lawmakers busy. And where did you get that only Pakistan was required to withdraw and India did not. In fact Pakistan withdrew, and only Azad Kashmir force comprising of Kashmiris remained in Azad Kashmir. However, India as early as 1949 passed article 370 declaring Kashmir an "Integral Part" of India, while deceiving Kashmiris and the world with false assurances of holding plebiscite. Would you bother to tell us why Sheikh Abdullah, the elected Prime Minister of Jammu & Kashmir was dismissed and kept in prison for 15 long years, and for what crime?
@Gp65:
"Speaking of promises, have you read the Simla agreement which our country is a signatory to?"
Here is a "complete text of Simla Agreement" available on wikipedia.org. Show me a single line in the accord saying UNSC resolutions over Kashmir are redundant. As for the territory swap with China to settle the borders, Pakistan gained some 750 sq miles of green pastures in lieu of 2000 sq miles of barren uninhabited mountains, so the question of demographic change does not arise. Moreover, the Article 6 of "The Sino-Pak Border Agreement" clearly states that the border demarcation is of temporary nature.
Article 6
"The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article. Two of the present agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided that in the event of the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be signed between the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
Sir, Now that Pakistan has tried covert and overt wars to get Kashmiri territory and failed, you want to fire off US shoulders claiming sovereignty all the while. Well news for you. India is truly sovereign and US has little leverage on India. When Obama went from being Presidential candidate to actually being President, he realized that pretty quickly when India resisted US plans of installing Hallbrooke as an envoy for Kashmir.
@Lala Gee: when will you actually read the UN resolution on Kashmir? There are any number of barriers to implementing it and most of them are on Pakistani side. This begins with not removing soldiers from Pakistan administered Kashmir to changing the demographics to handing over a portion of Kashmir to China.
Speaking of promises, have you read the Simla agreement which our country is a signatory to?
Ahh, here come the Americans, after messing up half of the world, they wish to take a moral high ground in Kashmir. FYI Kashmir is doing a lot better than Afghanistan, Af-Pak Drone Zones, Iraq and Syria. So kindly keep your hands off it.
@Lala Gee:
Canadians signed a deal with India. When they don't have a problem why do you?
How many times should we remind you that Plebiscite cannot be held until Pakistan withdraws, per the very UN Resolution Pakistan wants to enforce? First convince your countrymen to withdraw. Then, talk about the rest.
@MSS:
"when it comes to matters nuclear, Pakistanis have got their own minds and will not adhere to the conditions of the deal."
As if India has an immaculate record of adhering to the conditions of the deal. What about when she stole the fissile material from the Canadian reactor - given on the condition of using it for peaceful purposes only - and used it in nuclear detonation of 1974, aka "The Smiling Buddha", and in a shameful effort to deceive the world declared this explosion as "peaceful explosion". Now the whole world knows how "peaceful" that explosion was. I wonder if any other nation can even come close to the level of deceit as of our neighbor. Is it your short memory, or again the duplicitous deceitful nature that you so conveniently ignored India's own past acts of dishonorable behavior, including backing out from the repeated promises of holding plebiscite to the Kashmiri people and to the rest of the world.
"Rather, as Professor Fair once wrote, albeit in a different context, “the United States should instead focus its energies on persuading New Delhi to make right by the reasonable and constitutional demands of its Kashmiri citizenry. This will put India on the spot to follow through and consolidate a hard-won peace.”"
Ha. Different context is the right phrase. That article asked the US to declare that Pakistan has no claim on Kashmir. Google it and check.
Problems these injuns have brought upon themselves, the white men must come and solve peacefully and save the world in the process.
We don’t need expensive and unsafe nuclear technology. Coal and Hydro power plants are the way forward.
Americans tend to have solutions for whole world but none for themselves. Almost every weak there are shootings on pubic, school kids and what not. Leave the world to sort out its problem. Focus on your own problems which are multiplying by each passing day.
The author has erred in asserting that Kashmir is a territorial dispute. At least that is not Pakistan's official position. Pakistan means to acquire territory but is hiding behind the 'the right to self-determination' of Kashmiris hoping that Kashmiris will opt to join Pakistan. Primacy of an issue can change even though the status of it has not. Other compulsions can kick in and influence the official position. Pakistan yearns for a nuclear deal with US, even though she relies heavily on China for her nuclear needs. China, like India is still lagging behind the West in some advanced technologies and Pakistan like India wants access to those. In any case, a US Pak nuclear deal is a non starter, curtsy Dr AQ Khan. US knows fully well that when it comes to matters nuclear, Pakistanis have got their own minds and will not adhere to the conditions of the deal.
O jees thanks we didnot know that before.....