Questions Michael Krepon did not answer
This is a verbatim, unedited transcript.
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:2 IST)
I'd like to know why the US is stubbornly insisting that India immediately go back to negotiating with the country that killed hundreds of our people in the past few weeks. We haven't even buried our dead yet, for God's sake! And now we're immediately being pushed into negotiating with those who killed our people! Talk about a shotgun wedding!
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:6 IST)
"King": Has India really won the battle on the LoC? It seems that we have allowed Pakistan the chance to withdraw its killers from the mountains, so that it can send them all back into Kashmir again in smaller-sized groups. Then they can return to killing our people in the same large numbers as in the Kargil episode, but this time in the interior of Kashmir. Only then Pakistan will not feel any diplomatic heat from it.
King (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:13 IST)
Sanjay well we did win, the politicians made a deal to create another Kargil that's all.
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:18 IST)
King: But it's not all politicians who were equally involved in selling out our interests to make such a deal. It seems to me that certain types of politicians were particularly clamoring for capitulation to Pakistan. I am specifically talking about the Congress and their other fellow Left-wing political parties. Sensible people were stereotyped as "hardliners", while corrupt politicians who wanted a quick surrender to Pakistan were called "moderates". Is that fair? Is that a victory?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:38 IST)
Hari makes a good point. Why is the United States alternately blowing hot and cold, when it comes to Islamic militants in Southern Asia? When such militants are attacking US military bases in Saudi Arabia, then they're called terrorists. But when they're massacring civilians in India, then they're suddenly called people who have to be engaged in dialogue. And when both the Middle Eastern terrorist and the South Asian terrorist meet -- such as with the Taliban in Afghanistan -- then they're called "terrorists who have to be engaged in dialogue", or some other similarly bizarre hybrid term.
asha (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:49 IST)
Does anyone reslly think it has been a diplomatic win for India? Pakistan in one way has achieved what they wanted. They have internationalised the Kashmir issue.
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 5:58 IST)
Harish: And yet Pakistan managed to get sympathy from Indian Leftist parties. They seem to have firmed up their ties with each other, at least, eh?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:1 IST)
Hello, Mr Krepon. I'd like to ask why the USA is so stubbornly pushing India into negotiating with a Pakistan whose forces have killed hundreds of Indians over the past few weeks. Would the US do the same, were it to have suffered similar aggression? Why the callous double-standard?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:3 IST)
Mr Krepon: Why are India's voices being morally equated with Pakistan's voices, when India was not the one which belligerently crossed the LoC? Isn't there a qualitative difference between the spectrum of Indian voices, as contrasted with Pakistani voices? Aren't the Pakistanis the clear belligerents here?
Kirti Verma (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:6 IST)
Agreed that the Wasshington Agreement helped in reducing tension, but Sharief only went there when he knew that there was no way out for Pak. India had won Tololing Heights and Tiger Hill -- Pak was already losing by then. Don't u think this was his last option?
Karim (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:6 IST)
Hello Mr Krepon, do you think that the US realises the the biggest potential danger to world peace now comes from the Middle East and China?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:6 IST)
Michael Krepon: If the goal of Pakistan's invasion of Kargil was to get the US to increase its involvement in Kashmir, then hasn't the US rewarded Pakistan's aggression, by promising Pakistan just that, even if informally or covertly? Hasn't the end result of Pakistan's aggression in Kargil been an increase in US involvement in the Kashmir issue? Aren't hardliners in Pakistan encouraged by even the slightest move in this direction?
Hussain (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:7 IST)
Mr Krepon: Don't you think religion is the prime cause of this long-drawn out dispute between India and Pakistan. So let the Muslim and Hindu leaders from across the bordes meet and settle the problem...what do you suggest?
Ali Maqbool (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:9 IST)
Hullo, Mr Krepon. I am a Pakistani currently residing in the United States. I am amazed that the Clinton administration let India -- which has ignored international appeals for mediation in Kashmir and killed, maimed and raped thousands -- get away with this charade in Kargil? Why? Why?
Ronit (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:9 IST)
Mr Krepon I don't think that Nawaz Sharief helped in putting the conflict to an end, he saw that the Pakistani troops were no match for the Indians and this fiasco wasn't even getting Pakistani any world sympthy so he HAD to back out despite the stupid generals being adamant that they fight India.
suresh (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:13 IST)
The US and its other NATO partners hopped and cried out for the Kosovars butchered by Milosevic, but turns a blind eye on the to the brutal,inhuman, torture of six Indian soldiers by the Pakistanis. These soldiers had their genitals, tounges chopped off - the post-mortem was done in the presence of the Red Cross. Why is Nawaz Sharief not being charged as a war criminal ? Or does one set of rules apply for the Kosovars and another for the Indians ?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:17 IST)
Michael Krepon: It seems to me that India's nuclearisation was a response to China's and the USA's nuclearisation of Pakistan. China having provided the logistical and technological support, while the US provided the financial support. While China and the US may have served their own short-term interests vis-a-vis successfully prosecuting the Afghan War, they seem to have "GROSSLY COMPLICATED THE SECURITY SITUATION" to use your own words.
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:21 IST)
Mr Krepon: You claim that the US has zero interest in becoming the World Policeman, and yet US-led bombing of Serbs until they were provoked into committing ethnic cleansing seems to contrast with the image of a US that fights reluctantly. The Ulysses S Grant approach to human rights issues?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:24 IST)
Michael Krepon: If you say that Pakistani Prime Ministers are compelled to take order from the military GHQ, then why is the US asking India to sit across the table from the Pakistani Prime Minister? Isn't he about as much in charge as the head of the janitorial corps? Why shouldn't India be formally negotiating with the Pakistani military leadership instead? What is the use of obtaining commitments from the Pakistani Prime Minister, if he is not the one with the authority to deliver on them?
Mehnaaz (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:29 IST)
Hi Mr Krepon, the US attacks Kosovo forcefully under the guise of NATO, and yet they create a huge hue and cry about India having to show restraint in the face of oppression that to on OUR LAND? why this hypocrisy?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:31 IST)
Mr Krepon: To what extent has the US realized the changes it has introduced to the overall dynamics of SouthAsia, as a result of the Afghan War? To what extent has the US, even privately amongst its own policymakers, correlated the rise in violence and instability across SouthAsia with America's Afghan War involvement? To what extent is are the effects and the legacy of the Afghan War still being felt in the context of the Kashmir issue?
Vishal (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:32 IST)
Hi
Mehnaaz (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:35 IST)
Mr Krepon: The attack by the Pakistani soldiers and terrorists backed by them in Kargil validates India having to possess nuclear arms and secondly what moral right do the G-8 nations have when to protest when they all possess nuclear weapons?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:40 IST)
Michael Krepon: Do you deny that the US warned India away from crossing the LoC? And why should India accept any calls from international community for "ceasefire", if Pakistan disregarded international sentiment in its crossing the LoC? Seems to me that with the US having discarded the UN in Kosovo, that it would be hard-pressed to get it to impose a ceasefire in SouthAsia, in selective fashion. The international community clearly indicated that it had enough on its plate with Kosovo right now. And as I've said, what is so qualitatively worse about India crossing the LoC in defensive response, if Pakistan could cross it without military provocation?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:43 IST)
Michael Krepon: Why should Americans lose their lives trying to "prevent war between the Greeks and the Turks" (which was the initial pretext Clinton used, until he could provoke enough violence from the Serbs). If the US can involve itself in affairs not relating to its own territorial integrity, why would Indians be on moral low-ground protecting their own territory from invasion, and their own national highways from being shelled by Pakistani guns placed on the Indian side of the Line of Control?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:45 IST)
Michael Krepon: But where am I speaking in anger? I am simply attempting to ask specific questions? Your own responses, however, seem to indicate some hostility to viewpoints that don't conform with your own. Surely we can all discuss this situation as adults, rather than ducking the difficult questions? Isn't that a necessity for productive discussions?
Mr Michael Krepon (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:47 IST)
Kirti Verma: The advance of the Indian Army was probably the most important factor in influencing Pakistan's withdrawal. I believe there were other factors, as well: Pakistan's diplomatic isolation mattered, as did the visit by General Zinni. Pakistan's dire economic straits also was a big factor. -- MK
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:48 IST)
Michael Krepon: But when India went to Lahore, did it not recieve violence from Pakistan as a result, in the form of the Kargil invasion? Why does the US shoot first and ask questions later, when it comes to dealing with Belgrade? I didn't see guns being used a last resort there. Why was a different standard of arguments presented on the Kosovo issue? (ie. appeasement of belligerents will result in a repeat of events that led to World War 2)
Mir (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:48 IST)
Mr Krepon: Why isn't Pakistan declared a terrorist nation?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:53 IST)
Michael Krepon: Why would Pokhran have internationalized Kashmir? Wasn't Pokhran merely a demonstration of capabilities that already existed, rather than a change in India's capabilities? Is it implied that India's territorial integrity is contingent upon its acceptance of the idea of an elite club of 5 nuclear powers?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 6:57 IST)
Michael Krepon: Is the implication then, that Pakistan has an inherent right to resort to violence on Indian soil? It seems to me that India's complaints about Pakistani terrorism extend far beyond Kashmir (eg. NorthEast, etc). Didn't the Pakistani-sponsored terrorism in Punjab pre-date the terrorism in Kashmir? What is the legitimacy or credibility in US complaints on terrorism, or its calls to combat it, when it would ignore similar complaints made by other countries?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:0 IST)
I don't know what spending time in Pakistan has to do with a reply to Gaurav, but for what it is worth, Mr. Krepon, I know that country, I've done my time there and would answer your question wrt How much time spent in pakistan: plenty, and as a person speaking the local languages, I would call it "quality time" in your language!
Gaurav (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:1 IST)
Mr Krepon: How much time have u spent? And BTW, won't you agree that Pakistanis have backsatbeed us?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:2 IST)
Mere pyaare Gaurav: yeh usual goraa aadmi knows all hai, lagtaa hai, jab prashan kaa uttar nahee de paataa hai to ultaa prashan pooch ke chup karaa detaa hai!!
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:4 IST)
gone awfully quiet . . .???
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:4 IST)
chat over?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:4 IST)
To what extent can the US expect to succeed in gaining the requisite support for combatting terrorism against it, if it ignores similar complaints made by other countries? For instance, how successful would the US be in obtaining requisite support for the arrest of Osama bin Laden, if he resides in an area which is beyond the immediate sphere of American power-projection? Won't a country that relies solely on sphere of influence to combat terrorism, eventually be confronted with situations where its sphere of influence does not have the necessary reach? In which case, does this not make the case for relying more upon international standards where terrorism is universally discouraged as a taboo, regardless of where spheres of influence or legal jurisdictions begin and end?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:5 IST)
Hello???
Hemanth (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:6 IST)
I feel that the Global Policy of the US has failed miserably! If u see all the groups they have supported in the past have become global terrorists!
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:10 IST)
Mr Michael Krepon: You've said that nukes facilitate guerrilla warfare as an option. It seems to me that this was why India was so against the original passage of the Pressler Amendment, and the Bush admin's repeated myopia on turning a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear program. India's nucleariziation never encouraged it to pursue any aggression or terrorism against Pakistan. Can you point to any Indian offensives that have resulted from its nuclearization? It seems to me that Pakistan's nuclearization by contrast, has indeed encouraged it to pursue proxy war options, as you've said. So how then would the idea of a nuclear India and a non-nuclear Pakistan then have encouraged proxy war? Seems to me, then, that this would have been the optimal configuration for discouraging proxy war, or any other kind of war in SouthAsia. Why would you disagree with that?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:15 IST)
Gaurav, iskaa ek aur chakka yeh hai kee prashan aap ek kare aur zawab iska kuch aur hai! Isko kahte hain: perception managing the native . . .
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:16 IST)
Michael Krepon: I can see how Pakistan's nuclearization encourages its use of guerrilla war against India. But why would India's nuclearization encourage Indian use of guerrilla war against Pakistan? I've never seen any precedent for this. So shouldn't the emphasis have been on blocking Pakistan's nuclearization rather than India's? Why block both, if India needs a deterrent against an aggressive China?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:16 IST)
Something like the Sarfarosh/John Mathew chat?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:18 IST)
Mr. Krepon, one Paki friend told me " Kashmir and Kargil later on, think of Sindh today", in very colloquial terms...what do you say???
Mahendra (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:18 IST)
Hi Mr Krepon sorry for coming in at the end of the chat. I just wanted to know that aren't India and Paikstan small fries compared to the BIG THREAT from China?
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:19 IST)
Hi
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:20 IST)
Hi software guy, where/how?
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:20 IST)
Is this chat still going on or over?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:21 IST)
the chat is kind of on but beginning to take an attitude . . .
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:21 IST)
I'm from New York. Whats about u?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:21 IST)
dig?
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:22 IST)
Over here Indian & Pakistani kids play togeter
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:22 IST)
dig?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:22 IST)
.../
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:23 IST)
.../ (snore)
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:23 IST)
whats dig?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:23 IST)
.../ (snore and dream REM)
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:25 IST)
by 42nd street U mean port Authority terminal?
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:27 IST)
Sir, I pushed on 42nd and Broadway (a small courier's delivery handcart), I caught buses from the Port Authority terminal but I swear, never seen a place in mah life more dangerous than the Men's room waiting for the night Indian (a bus, if you please) headed for Boston . . .but Mr. krepon, you've given away the game, sorry, but Arabic, rusty or otherwise, will only get you overpriced whores off Colaba and not an insight into the sub-Continet. Jeez, mac, you is one sad guy, you come and give me spiel about how much you know about my countries, and you don't speikka da language? Could you imagine somebody being an expert on America and not speaking American ??? What is this???
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:27 IST)
Michael Krepon: Please kindly answer some of my questions. I have certainly stated all of them with calm circumspection. The reason why I ask them, is not to bother you sir, but rather because I feel that these questions are important. I am also using a bold-face font, in order to try to draw your attention to them. I hope you don't mind.
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:28 IST)
Check us out in Delhi, some of us have wandered East Timor with Noam Chomsky and some of us, truly, know the sub-Continent better than those who only speak English, really. Thanks for being here, Mr. Expert . . .
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:29 IST)
Yup software guy, I mean the Port Authority terminal and also Grand Central/Penn . . .
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:29 IST)
akhoonchee baadee chooli gaicho and all that jazz . . .
SoftwareGuy (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:30 IST)
Hi Mr. Krepon, I'm an Indian and I'm 100% satisfied with the Indian Government for the manner they've handled Kargil situation. At presently I'm in New York physically but my heart is in India.
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:31 IST)
Hi software guy, the big bad apple, let me assure you, your heart is in the right place . . .
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:32 IST)
These Big White Chief, they understand my country?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:32 IST)
Mr Krepon: "Get a Life"?? Why? What questions have I asked that were so inappropriate? I thought that my questions were very critical to a better understanding of the current events in Kargil. It was certainly not my intent to be rude, but rather to initiate examination of critically unexplored areas of these issues.
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:33 IST)
Dear Sanjai K: Get a life is a reply that came from a country that views Dilbert as well as barfing as a form of culture . . . relax!
Veeresh Malik (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:35 IST)
Welll unless somebody wants to post chat analyse this , it is goodbye . . .
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:39 IST)
Veeresh Malik: But I thought that Westerners are supposed to be more responsible and mature than us heathens. They are supposed to want peace, while we are supposed to be the warmongering savages. They are supposed to possess greater wisdom and altruism, which requires us to take guidance from them. Their logic, egalitarianism and sound judgement are supposed to put people like me to shame. Aren't they?
Sanjai K (Thu Jul 15 1999 7:43 IST)
Well, if you want my opinion, the people in the West who are alleged to have come out most strongly in support of India, are the ones who will be used as vehicles to do the "tough-talking" to India. I think that this is unofficially known as "good cop, bad cop". Altho Americans officially refer to it as "2-track diplomacy".
|
