Comments on: Brzezinski on U.S.-India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China Perspectives on Pakistan Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: BK_PAT Sat, 01 May 2010 03:01:54 +0000 I think India has no interest in 1947 Pakistan territory. But at the same time the continued hate towards India keeps Pakistan united. For India, China is not a trusted friend and the mistrust will continue until China has a more open and democratic government.
Which is not possible for a long time.
China is using Pakistan to pressure India but I do not think it will make much difference.
Western Capitalists have created a giant china out of poor communists for the short term profit. Now the same giant is getting ready to eat them.
India can not count for any military help from US or Briton because they have more vested military interests in Pakistan and financial interests in China. Indian has learned that lessons in past. India is more closer to Russia than NATO on national security issue.
Look for a drastic cutback in US Afghan war activity after 2011. I think Afghan and Pakistan terrorists’ activity will continue for a long time. US may declare virtual win and will get out quick.
So I see more fanatic Pakistan and Afghanistan after US leaves.
Pakistani and Afghan fundamentalists want a new war or large scale army conflicts between India and Pakistan by creating Mumbai like event. Do not think Congress can afford to continue their peace posture to help USA after one more major incidence.

By: pcasinelli Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:01:20 +0000 While Afghanistan is surely important, with regard to Pakistan’s stability, the most important relationship in South Asia is between India and China. However, China does not have the means to project power directly into South Asia (one word: Himalayas) Thus, to balance Indian power China has its alliance with Pakistan. Indian troubles with China are in response to the perceived weakness of China’s ally in the region, Pakistan. I don’t think anyone will disagree that current trends make Pakistan look very weak, almost to the point of collapse. China will continue with an aggressive stance against India as a deterrent from any ambitions they may have in Pakistan. This is summed up well here: china-and-pakistan/

By: JRiss Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:01:21 +0000 Myra,

Coincidentally, back in October I used a column of yours as a vehicle to draw attention to the increasing India/China tension, see “Driving That Af/Pak Train” if you’re interested, iding-that-afpak-train/

By: axindi Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:43:23 +0000 Very interesting discussion here. In my personal view this problem had been created in 1947 with partition and the only way it can be solved is by the re-integration of the sub-continent, through a fast track SAARC union, with Myanmar in it if possible. India is the biggest player and the biggest looser in the region if it does not make this happen. Can the Hindu elite share ruling power with Muslims and Buddhists, that is the big question that broke things down in 1947 and is still haunting the region. Now things are spiraling down to ever more complications, but there is no alternative but to go back where it all started, albeit through a different vehicle like SAARC union. British strategic shortsight and Russian treachery also played in handing over Xinjiang and Tibet to PRC and finally the breaking of the subcontinent created this cauldron of trouble. Xinjiang and Tibet has been lost forever. Pakistan has been pushed to a corner to have no choice but to deal with the devil that is China, so it is India and only India’s responsibility to change that reality and bring wayward Pakistan back to homeward bound, this must sink in Indian leadership and only then through unilateral moves from the Indian side we may see some change. Blaming Pakistan for India’s travails will not help one bit, if India wants to secure its own and its regions future then it must take matters in its own hand, not by force, but with tact, diplomacy and charm offensive. And the global powers such as the US and EU must make it their priority as well, to stabilize the region. This will be much cheaper than sending half of US Army in Afghanistan, which only further complicates the situation on the ground.

By: Mekeritrig Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:06:05 +0000 @Myra

“I am not sure whether Brzezinski’s view of the world was necessarily a good thing. There are many historians who argue that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway without the U.S. bleeding them dry in Afghanistan (and in doing so, encouraging today’s mujahideen).”

Oh definitely. And further the collapse of the Soviet Union convinced two groups that they were the cause.

The first group was the mujahideen. The vast majority were Pashtuns and other Afghans. But there were also a few thousand Arabs. Fed an Islamist diet by the Pakistanis, these Arabs decided they could do the same thing to the despotic regimes back home in the middle east. When that failed, they decided to go after those regimes’s patron and protector, the US.

The second group were the Neocons. They were in power during Reagan’s time and the fall of the Soviet Union convinced them that the only way to fight “evil” was to confront it, not to compromise as Nixon and Kissinger did. And when the first Bush allowed Saddam to stay in power, they were furious. Thus by a long and twisted road we came to 9/11 and Iraq.

By: Myra.MacDonald Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:03:07 +0000 @ Rajeev,

“No one knows the answer”

Do watch the video. I was struck by how Brzezinski was able to articulate how it all did fit together, whereas now, as one analyst said to me this week, we seem to be jumping from one crisis to another.

I am not sure whether Brzezinski’s view of the world was necessarily a good thing. There are many historians who argue that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway without the U.S. bleeding them dry in Afghanistan (and in doing so, encouraging today’s mujahideen).

If you watch the video, you’ll also see that he justified the U.S. Afghan involvement on the grounds that the Soviet Union at the time was supporting Palestinian groups against Israel – which perhaps suggests that we will all be condemned to an endless repetition of history until the events of 1947/48 (Israel, India-Pakistan, Kashmir) are resolved.

Anyway, food for thought.

By: RajeevK Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:30:35 +0000 @What we don’t know if how much that is a coincidence, and how much all these different relationships (ie Indo-U.S/India-Pakistan/China-Pakistan/I ndia-China/U.S.-China) influence the others.”

Myra: No ones knows the answer. My view is that this is not a coincidence. Chinese involvement in Indian Kashmir (paper visas) and a project in Pakistan Kashmir are of different nature than their other personal disputes with India. This noise, especially the paper visas, is meant to show their aggressiveness and support to Pakistan.

By: Myra.MacDonald Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:21:21 +0000 What interested me in the video was not what he said about the past but his description of the present and view of the future.

He is one of the first Americans I have heard articulate so clearly the possibility that in the event of closer U.S.-India ties in the region, tension between China and India could also rise. We’ve already seen tensions rising over the India-China border in recent years, coinciding with the improvement in U.S.-India relations and the nuclear deal. What we don’t know if how much that is a coincidence, and how much all these different relationships (ie Indo-U.S/India-Pakistan/China-Pakistan/I ndia-China/U.S.-China) influence the others.

By: RajeevK Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:59:29 +0000 @Brzezinski is a mafia guy who in the early 80s armed the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets. Charlie Wilson, Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski are the same group of people who had drawn the Soviet Union into the bear trap in Afghanistan and later said it is now the opportunity to give the Soviet Union their Vietnam.”

-Umair: If Brzezinski is a Mafia guy then Al-Qaida, LeT, JeM, Taliban are terrorists which endanger the life of each and every peaceful citizen in the ENTIRE world, including Pakistan. But this hypocrisy of calling some people as Mafia and only some as terrorists is mind boggling and unhealthy for a society.

In any case if all these Americans who sponsored anti-Russian mission are Mafia, what do you think of Pakistan. In Mafia language, Pakistan would be called “button”. “Button” in Mafia is a person who gets orders and presses the buttons without using his own gray matter.

In any case, Brzezinski is alive and America has moved on, but Pakistan, even though dumb Zia is dead, is stuck with the paranoia of foreigners scheming to bring down Pakistan empire.

Read Irfan Husain to see what are the focus of Pakistan other than what is on this blog. Nothing and that’s sad for a nuclear power country of 170 Million. -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/colu mnists/14-our-place-in-the-world-610-zj- 06

“”As a nation, we have become so intent in gazing at our own bellybuttons that we have forgotten that there is a world out there, and what happens beyond our borders does affect us. There was a time when Pakistan commanded a measure of respect in international gatherings. Our voice was heard, and our diplomats were seen as professionals who spoke for much of the Third World.”””

“”Under Ayub Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, our foreign policy projected our concerns and our views effectively and clearly. But gradually, since Zia’s hypocritical Islamising policies and their fallout began ringing alarm bells in foreign capitals, Pakistan has come to be seen as the source of many problems. We are no longer viewed as part of the solution to the dilemmas of the day.””

By: KPSingh01 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:54:37 +0000 I agree with Umair that the CIA and the American establishment used Afghanistan to trap the USSR and avenge their defeat in Vietnam.

However, Pakistan could have chosen not to get involved.The Soviets wouldn’t have had the guts to march into Pakistan after just taking over Afghanistan. It would have taken them enormous resources and manpower to subdue Afghanistan and then stage the next war on Pakistan. I don’t think that was their aim. They would have been fine with installing a Communist regime in Afghanistan, which would have been better than the Taliban. So Pakistan really was not in any danger. And China was sitting nearby and the Soviets would have thought twice before taking on Pakistan.

But Pakistan willfully got entangled into this grand global game and it fitted into Zia’s schemes – Islamization of Pakistan, getting military and financial aid, acceptance of the military coup that led to Bhutto’s hanging and then the development of the Islamic bomb. Zia planned for long term. He needed all these for his goal of cutting India up by inflicting internal bleeding. And he was a very crafty individual who worked patiently towards his goal. The Afghan conflict between the super powers worked to his advantage.

And Pakistan could perfect the art of proxy war using radicalized and fully trained militants. They had been tested and tried in Afghanistan and the ISI was sharpened further by CIA’s help. So Pakistan gained a lot by this cold war. Most of its refugee crisis was handled by the US through financing and support for Pakistan’s regional activities.

So Pakistan is not all that innocent regarding the outcome of the whole thing that has brought its own status to the brink. By allowing Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda to escape into Pakistan and providing them cover, Pakistan has made a long term mistake. They were valuable assets against India and unfortunately things have changed a lot. Pakistan still has a chance to come out of it. They will have to do away with Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda ties for good and work with the Americans to eliminate them. There is no “good Taliban.” If Pakistan fails to do that, it will run out of time and may face a situation much worse than what it is now.

There is no use looking at the past and blaming others. It is time to think of the present and see what can be done.