home > by publication type > backgrounder > INDIA-PAKISTAN: Peace Talks
Email
| Author: | Esther Pan |
|---|
February 20, 2004
Representatives of the two longtime adversaries, at meetings February 16-18, agreed to a timetable for a series of high-level meetings over the next several months. "We do have a basic road map for a Pakistan-India peace process to which we have both agreed," Riaz Khokhar, a senior Pakistani foreign ministry official, said February 18.
The greatest point of contention is Kashmir, the mountainous region between the two nations that is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed in its entirety by both. It has been disputed since India was partitioned by Britain in 1947 and was the cause of two of the three Indian-Pakistani wars. The ongoing dispute over the region brought the two countries to the brink of another war in 2002. Other issues to be addressed include nuclear security, terrorism, drug trafficking, trade, and economic development.
The foreign secretaries of the two nations will meet in May or June, after Indian parliamentary elections scheduled for April, according to a statement issued by both countries. Further high-level talks will follow in July and August.
Expert opinions differ. Some are wary because of the history of animosity. "There's an enormous river of mistrust to be overcome," says Rajan Menon, the Monroe J. Rathbone professor of international relations at Lehigh University. The two nations have held talks before--most recently in Agra, India, in 2001--with little result. Other experts, however, say that this time around might be different. Frank Wisner, former U.S. ambassador to India, told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting February 19 that he saw excellent chances for success in these talks.
Experts say there are many reasons for India and Pakistan to take steps toward peace. The primary one is that their two leaders are actively engaged in the process. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, 79, started the recent momentum by extending a "hand of friendship" to Pakistan in a speech in April 2003. Vajpayee, leader of the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) --which heads a strong governing coalition in India--is expected to win another term in April. Experts say he is considering his legacy and wants to leave behind a lasting peace. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf survived two assassination attempts in December; experts say the attacks shook Musharraf and convinced him that radical Islamists were, for the first time, a greater threat to Pakistan than India.
The Agra summit collapsed after India insisted that Pakistan stop supporting terrorists in Kashmir, and Pakistan insisted that India include final-status discussions on Kashmir as part of any future talks.
India and Pakistan have each claimed the majority-Muslim province since partition. India is a majority Hindu nation and Pakistan is majority Muslim. Kashmir's population is majority Muslim, but it had a Hindu ruling dynasty at the time of partition. Kashmir's maharajah, Hari Singh, sided with India after partition, angering many of his subjects and sparking the first Indo-Pakistani war. When the war ended in 1949, India controlled some 45 percent of Kashmir; the border separating the two sides is called the Line of Control. Until Musharraf declared a unilateral ceasefire in November 2003, Indian and Pakistani forces routinely traded fire across the Line of Control.
Pakistan has long demanded a U.N. referendum for the people of Kashmir, in accordance with 1948 Security Council Resolution 47, to choose if they want to join India, join Pakistan, or become independent. India has resisted calls for such a vote, saying the Kashmir issue is a bilateral one to be worked out between India and Pakistan only. India has also long accused Pakistan of supporting Islamist terrorists in Kashmir, an issue on which experts say the Pakistani leader has recently changed his position. "Musharraf came into power thinking that the radical Islamists in Pakistan [and Kashmir] were essentially freedom fighters," Menon says. "And he's learned that they're a real threat to him."
There are many, experts say. Hardliners in both countries oppose any kind of settlement on Kashmir, which some experts say has become central to each country's self-definition. India sees itself as a secular republic that can tolerate many ethnic groups; that would be confirmed if Kashmir, a majority Muslim state, stays part of India. Pakistan's founding vision is as the homeland for South Asian Muslims. If Kashmir stayed in India, that vision would be threatened, experts say. In addition, pressure for a deal could lead to "political suicide" if the two leaders set a deadline for progress and fail to meet it, says Kathy Gannon, longtime Associated Press bureau chief in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
On all of these issues, experts say, there needs to be what Menon calls "constructive reciprocity": each concession by one side has to be reciprocated by the other in a timely fashion in order to build enough trust to keep the process from falling apart.
It should be supportive but unobtrusive, some experts say, practicing what Wisner calls "quiet engagement" while building strong relationships with both countries. The best thing the United States can do, these experts say, is to offer economic aid to both countries, but especially Pakistan, to show the people there that aligning with U.S. interests against fellow Muslims in al Qaeda and the Taliban will yield tangible benefits. But these experts stress that all this needs to be done discreetly. "The last thing Musharraf needs is to be seen as playing to a script written by the Pentagon," Menon says.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.