More Delicate Than We Think

Discuss this on our boards!

More Delicate Than We Think
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief

May 31, 2002

"Candidly Yours"

Linda A. Prussen-Razzano If your daily dose of news is suddenly brimming with reports about escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, there is a good reason. This contentious hotbed, like Israel and the Palestinian territories, is beset with inbred animosity, religious conflict, and border disputes. Unlike Israel and the Palestinian territories, this imbroglio has the potential to go nuclear. Include in this scenario American troops fighting the War on Terror, and suddenly all eyes in Washington are sharply fixed on distant shores.

Until 1947, both countries were part of British India. After achieving independence from Britain, the Hindu-dominated India and Muslim-dominated Pakistan have gone to war three times. Each time, nationalists groups urged their respective leaders to increase military might.

India was the first to achieve atomic success, detonating a 12-kiloton bomb on May 11, 1974. Ironically, under the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India launched their ballistic missile program. Some of their military prowess was achieved with direct assistance from the United States and other countries "friendly" to America. When they couldn’t obtain the necessary materials through direct purchase, they used universities and private firms as front companies to subvert nonproliferation agreements. By 1988, they successfully tested their first short-range missile. On May 11, 1998, they detonated three nuclear bombs. By 1999, they successfully tested their first long-range missile. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which came to power in 1998, has accelerated production and stockpiling.

Pakistan was slower to achieve success, but once achieved, they did not stop their momentum. Their first successful test was conducted in 1979; however, they were able to detonate five nuclear bombs on May 28, 1998, only 17 days after India. The bulk of Pakistan’s nuclear program was obtained through purchases from China. Almost all of these purchases violated China’s pledge to recognize various nonproliferation treaties. Not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan for detonating their bombs; however, despite mountains of evidence that China was proliferating weapons of mass destruction to countries that support and sympathize with terrorists, President Clinton refused to impose sanctions on China.

General Pervez Musharraf, President and Executive Director of Pakistan, assumed power in 1999 after a bloodless coup. He suspended civilian rule and will not allow elections to occur until October of 2002. He acknowledged ties to Islamic militant activity prior to his assumption of power; however, with the exception of those forces fighting in the Kashmir Region, he has since distanced himself from the more radical militant elements. Although presently counted as an ally, Musharraf does not have firm control over all the factions operating in his country. Finally, while India readily offered its assistance in the War on Terror, Musharraf waffled until America offered a cool $1 Billion for his aid.

Kashmir stands at the epicenter of the dispute. Islamic militants have used it, and the surrounding areas, as launch pads for terrorist attacks against India. India has responded by returning heavy gunfire. In May of 1999, a sizable exchange took place near Kargil, with an estimated 1,500 soldiers killed. When militants, who Musharraf calls freedom fighters, continued their attacks against India, India announced it would no longer withstand such bloodshed.

Tensions in the area are reaching a fever pitch. Pakistan officials have already stated to the United Nations that they will not rule out the use of nuclear weapons. Indian officials have already stated that they will give no quarter on Kashmir. While neither country has resorted to nuclear weapons in the past, this level of rhetoric is new and alarming. How alarming? So alarming, it prompted the White House to dispatch Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to the area to talk specifically about the devastating effects of a nuclear exchange.

Pakistan’s cooperation in the War on Terror places numerous American soldiers into the mix. With both countries amassing troops along the border, conflict is not inevitable, it is already happening. The Bush Administration is reportedly making plans to airlift troops out if the situation cannot be defused.

How serious is this? From a political standpoint, a lean towards either country could cause the other to withdraw support and cause a ripple effect. At present, Pakistan and Turkey are the only two predominantly Muslim countries actively supporting America. Siding with India would fuel the anti-American lie that our present engagement is an attack on Islam. Siding with Pakistan will undermine our credibility in the World Theater, given the nature of the attacks against India.

From a physical standpoint, the close proximity of these two countries leaves no room whatsoever for error. An accidental launch, or purposeful launch by a terrorist group, of a short-range missile means impact in just a few minutes. Since neither country possesses an adequate early detection or missile defense system, a retaliatory attack would ensue. Several studies suggest that even a minor nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could result in 850,000 to 3,000,000 deaths.

These horrific figures are just the preliminary ramifications. If our soldiers are trapped in the melee, they will be counted as casualties, too. The area would undoubtedly destabilize, extreme forces would emerge emboldened, resources and commodities would skyrocket, and our recovering economy would slump.

Let us pray that wisdom and progress triumph over foolishness and destruction. ***

Photo of Linda Prussen-Razzano courtesy of staff files