Home | About | Donate

India, Pakistan, and a Planet in Peril

India, Pakistan, and a Planet in Peril

Dilip Hiro

It’s still the most dangerous border on Earth. Yet compared to the recent tweets of President Donald Trump, it remains a marginal news story. That doesn’t for a moment diminish the chance that the globe’s first (and possibly ultimate) nuclear conflagration could break out along that 480-mile border known as the Line of Control (and, given the history that surrounds it, that phrase should indeed be capitalized). The casus belli would undoubtedly be the more than seven-decades-old clash between India and Pakistan over the contested territory of Kashmir.

“anti-semitic” sets off my alarm bells these days, but could someone summarize what’s in this article? (can’t do another subscription) https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-how-china-became-pakistan-s-partner-in-jihadist-terror-1.6940053

I can think of two nations (not US this time) claiming to oppose terror orgs, but seemingly just taking sides re which ones.

It’s good to see some consideration of these matters, which so often slip by Americans and American media.

But it is still good to winnow some of the mythology out of this. It is not as though there is simply a conflict and the United States wanders in to intervene one day because, as a nation that once made a pass at democracy, it does not wish to see people blow themselves up.

There is certainly plenty of history of conflict in and around Kashmir, and I don’t doubt that Hiro could continue to inform us of this. But this has taken place in the context of Western intervention since at least 1858, when the British came to rule India/ And Americans specifically have been bombing in Pakistan since at least 2001 or 2002, in relation to establishing its opium trade in Afghanistan and encircling the Middle East and central Asian oil and gas fields.

People go to war to work out their own lives. These lives are impinged upon by the ambitions of the rich, and the responses of the population are distorted by propaganda that eventually gets called history, but residents of India and Pakistan have the improbable idea that they are thereby solving something, much as successive generations of Americans imagine that we are to get something in war after war after war.

The major propellant for all this is the violence and trauma called “intervention,” and the major contributor this seventy-five or eighty years or so, far and away and bar none, is the United States.

If there is to be a solution to the historical difficulties between India and Pakistan, it is not to be solved by the influence of warlike Westerners with vested interests elsewhere. It is to be resolved with less intervention by the US, not just in the border dispute, but in Pakistan and in India generally.

Stakes are too high this time. If the West can pressure for peace anywhere, right on. Of course, the West should take its own advice. Guess it’s the advantage of a big world. From a distance you can see where far off nations are a’court’n nuclear winter. Harder, though, to do ones own chores.

Only when pressure continued to build, bolstered by fresh urging from Washington, London, and Paris, was a critical mass reached that made those generals finally fall in line with recently elected Prime Minister Khan’s more conciliatory stance toward India.

Here are two links I’ll cite to back up my orginal “seems like” conjecture up there (the 2nd already cited; few it seems here at CD have anything to say about the first one below though…guess Seymour Hersh has to write an article before anyone thinks it’s an issue)

Pakistan just became Saudi Arabia’s client state and turned its back on Tehran
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-pakistan-just-became-saudi-arabia-s-client-state-and-turned-its-back-on-tehran-1.6956726

already cited above https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-how-china-became-pakistan-s-partner-in-jihadist-terror-1.6940053 1

turned its back on Tehran

Beantime, I am fine that the West should pressure for peace, however hypocritically it might do so.

I am extremely doubtful at the idea that this is what happens, and at the idea that this has happened in this instance. Closer ties with Washington and with Saudi Arabia are all the more reasons to imagine that intentions are not peaceful.

Your point as to the importance of the event is well taken, but it seems to me to be a strong reason to keep American and Western interference out.

Even DC knows enough to oppose the over-the-border-bombers. Pakistan willl cool it with India, and (maybe) join the group against Iran. The crap equilibrium may be maintained…looks possible. In prior days the interventionism was pretty solid in congress. Now possibly the thing may be becoming understood for what it is. Now it looks like the nation’s path is more along sort of a razor’s edge…strong rope bridge up ahead, though, fashioned by Naomi Klein (who has explained the whole kit & kabodle…thank you, Canada).

Thoughts on the thing (current version)…

“I’m really curious what Mueller has to say in that report, if anything, about the August 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Israelis, Erik Prince, George Nader, people from the Emirates, where they were talking about Iran. You know, all of these people that were at that meeting and in one way or another desire regime change in Iran or war with Iran. And that’s like almost never talked about anymore, but it really does seem as though some of the most criminal activities or the actual collusion centered around trying to go to war with Iran or support Israel’s agenda.” Jeremy Scahill, Intercepted podcast before last; Klein on this one too; did you hear it?

I doubt that Washington’s open statements, even those made to the Pakistanis, have much to do with Washington’s influence.

I look forward to any signs of improved understanding on the part of governmental policy wonks and government actors, but I have seen nothing of the sort as yet beyond some improvements in the craft of disinformation. It is not that the people involved are not clever, and I am sorry to sound as dismissive as I must. It is that the dominant theories of these things are rotten with ill-examined assumption.

So as not to be too mysterious about it all, since your responses are thoughtful and interesting, what I mean very broadly is that this and other governments and ruling classes have way too much faith in the long-term efficacy of coercive violence and way too little appreciation of the chain of events that they engender by engaging in it.

The relationship of the US in particular to this sort of error is not altogether unique, but it is exceptionally extensive, likely because of its unprecedented capacity to inflict damage and because of the really extensive play of propaganda, done less by direct oppression of opposition and more by usurping and bombarding channels of knowledge with multiple half-truths.

I have not heard or read Scahill or Klein on this recent matter, though I am familiar with their similar opinions in the recent past, or most of them.

I do think that control over Iran and Syria are both clearly part of the Western agenda, with its military hub in Washington and its financial hub probably corporate and suspended between Washington and the NATO countries of the EU–and, I suppose, we must name England separately, at least for the moment. I would say that this has been the case for decades, though it may currently be closer to critical action.

Assuming there is some large consistency in these sorts of governmental actions that get carried forth between administrations and generations leads me to believe that there is still something like Brzezinski’s old ideas of a “grand chessboard” that are very active among the ruling class, and that they assume that the Other (whichever Other) will respond well to threat and poorly to cooperation, communication, the withdrawal of threat, and so forth.

Altogether, this makes for a strategy of burning the rest of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves to maintain a relative monopoly and a control that is mostly illusory, and likely just as well.

It’s short-sighted, drenched in hubris, and makes their influence clumsy and dangerous.

I’m outta time at the moment.

I do think that control over Iran and Syria are both clearly part of the Western agenda, with its military hub in Washington and its financial hub probably corporate and suspended between Washington and the NATO countries of the EU…

Some contingent seems to have won out to, for the moment, shift focus to the “threat” of Venezuela. People are opposing the Iran thing because people realize losing along the way could cost untold treasure, and at some point might give way to the use of NSNWs (tactical)…some I think are weighing the latter. Russia’s tight with Iran, and China’s friendly with Iran.

The interconnectedness of regional disputes has had the capacity to escalate into global conflict for more than a hundred years: two world wars already, and all the signs we are moving towards a third. It could start along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. Like the metaphoric volcano the ‘white-hot lava’ will spread far. The Kashmir dispute is connected with international rivalries. The exchange of nuclear weapons would most likely not happen in isolation, nor would the repercussions be isolated. Would New Delhi also fire some of its nuclear arsenal at China? Would Beijing retaliate against the US as well as India? Washington would have to respond against China – and Russia. Moscow would launch its missiles; a regional nuclear war has become a global one. Whatever the scenario, the pattern of history tells us humanity is heading for world war.

https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/