Mumbai attacks:
South Asian community can help
By Rana Fawad
Posted: December 04,
2008
WASHINGTON: The Mumbai attacks have the potential
of derailing the ongoing Indo-Pak confidence building measures and
consequently destabilizing Pak-Afghan border, whereas the South Asian
community in the US could help bridge the gap between the two
archrivals.
These possibilities
were enumerated by the Brookings Institution’s senior fellows including
Bruce Riedel, Dr. Stephen Cohen, and Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown during a
discussion on ‘Mumbai Terrorist Attacks: A Challenge for India and the
World’ on Wednesday. Daniel Benjamin, senior fellow and director at the
Institution, was the moderator on this occasion.
Bruce Riedel, who is Senior Fellow for Political
Transitions in the Middle East and South Asia at the Saban Center in the
Brookings Institution, “has served as a senior advisor at the National
Security Council to the last three presidents of the United States. He
retired in 2006 after nearly 30 years in the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).”
He has also authored a book The Search for al
Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future.
Another speaker, Dr. Stephen Cohen, “has been
Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution
since 1998. In 2004, he was named as one of the five hundred most
influential people in the field of foreign policy by the World Affairs
Councils of America.”
Dr. Cohen has 10 books (including The Idea of
Pakistan) to his credit as author, co-author, or editor.
The third discussant, Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown, is “a
security studies professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign
Policy.” She “is also a Non-resident Research Fellow with the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.”
Analyzing the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks,
Bruce Riedel remarked that the attacks were carried out in a
professional manner and were meant to get international attention apart
from inflicting economic damage.
He said though one should be careful in judging who
did it due to insufficient information at this point, a Pakistan-based
organization Lashkr-e-Tayiba (LeT) seems to be the prime suspect. He
added that the LeT was banned by Musharraf in 2002 “but continues to
operate under a number of cover names including Jamaat ud Dawah.”
He told the audience that the LeT’s “operatives
have worked closely with al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and
there are reports of LeT volunteers fighting in Iraq.”
He also remarked that the attacks remind the world
that the ideology and narrative of al Qaeda are still potent.
Commenting on the situation, Dr. Stephen Cohen was
of the view that the United States along with China, Saudi Arabia, and
Europe should influence Pakistan. He also commented that India can play
an important role in helping Pakistan.
Referring to the Indo-Pak relationship, Dr. Cohen
remarked that in his view three puzzles make things complicated in that
region.
He said Pakistan military’s reluctance to give up
support to the radical groups is one of those enigmas. He suggested that
the Pakistan army uses this support as a strategic tool in dealing with
India.
Second puzzles, he enumerated, relates to the
struggle of power in Pakistan between politicians and the country’s
military. Dr. quipped that in this situation they can’t govern Pakistan
but they won’t let anybody else govern either.
As for the third puzzle, Dr. Cohen thinks India has
a very ambiguous policy towards Pakistan. He commented that some Indians
think they should have normal
relations with Pakistan whereas some take a very hard line and believe
in breaking Pakistan.
Dissecting the US policy under the Bush
administration, Dr. Cohen mentioned that this administration made a
strategic partnership with India a high priority that emboldened
Pakistan’s suspicions.
Dr. Cohen also criticized the US policy in Pakistan
and said that the Bush administration’s decision to contract Pakistan’s
policy to Musharraf was wrong. He added that after Musharraf failed we
tried to sub-contract that policy to Benazir Bhutto that proved to be a
death knell for her.
He said actually hope was the US policy in that
region and referred to George Shultz’s remark that hope is not a policy.
Dr. Cohen warned that if Pakistan keeps unraveling
the world will face a serious threat of securing Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons five to six years down the lane. Responding to a question, he said other than
Kashmir India could resolve other smaller issues including Sir Creek,
Siachen, etc., with Pakistan.
Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown suggested that the US should
not allow the situation between Pakistan and India to go out of control
because it will “result in the redeployment of the Pakistani military
away from its border with Afghanistan towards its eastern border.”
She commented that although the Taliban insurgency
is self-sustaining at this point and has developed substantial internal
base, any let up in continuing pressure on the Taliban and other
jihadi networks along the Pak-Afghan border will strengthen their
insurgency.
She said the escalation would also lead to a proxy
war between the archrivals and Afghanistan has seen this playing out on
its soil. “During the 1980s, while Pakistan and the United States
supported the mujahedeen, India backed the pro-Soviet regime of
President Mohammad Najibullah. During the 1990s, while Pakistan
supported the Taliban, India provided assistance to the Northern
Alliance.”
She pointed out that
after the Taliban were dethroned in 2001, President of Afghanistan
Karazai’s close ties with India were unwelcome for Pakistan. “Indian
consulates in Afghanistan are regarded by Pakistan as spying outfits and
sources of aid to the separatist movement in Pakistan’s province of
Baluchistan while Indian aid in dam construction in the Afghan province
of Kunar is interpreted by Islamabad as a way to divert water resources
from Pakistan,” she added.
[Top]
