South Asia Security Monitor: No. 255

SO CLOSE, BUT SO FAR AWAY
Pakistan’s former foreign minister (2002-2007) has revealed that his country and India were one signature away from a comprehensive peace settlement on Kashmir on 2007 – a disputed tract of land the two rivals have fought three wars over since independence in 1947. Kurshid Mahmud Kasuri, serving under then-presisdent Pervez Musharraf, secretly met with his Indian counterparts and representatives from Kashmir in Pakistan, India, and third countries over a span of three years to hammer out a consensus “solution” to the Kashmir problem. And by Kasuri’s account, they were able to reach that solution: full demilitarization of Indian and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and “a point between complete independence and autonomy” for a representative government in Kashmir. The Track II talks were so successful all the major parties to the talks, save one hard-line Kashmiri separatist group, agreed on the outcome. However, the signing of the accord, which was to take place during a visit to Pakistan by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in February-March 2007, was sidelined by a surge in domestic unrest in Pakistan that year over Musharraf’s sacking of the chief justice of Pakistan’s supreme court; unrest that eventually drove the president from power and torpedoed the three-year-old peace effort. (Times of India April 24, 2010)

CONTROVERSIAL NUKE DEAL FOR PAK-CHINA
[Editor’s note: Neither Pakistan nor India are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty however both are nuclear powers. The U.S. sought to integrate India into the global nuclear community with a landmark civilian nuclear agreement in 2005 which ended sanctions on India and opened its markets to the transfer of nuclear technology. Ever since that deal, Pakistan has pressed Washington for a deal of its own – a request the Bush and Obama administrations have both denied, citing Pakistan’s abysmal nonproliferation record.]

In a controversial move, China’s National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) has announced plans to construct two new 650 MW nuclear power plants for Pakistan. Pakistan has been asking China for as many as six new nuclear power stations since 2006, shortly after the U.S.-India nuclear deal was concluded and Washington rebuffed Pakistani calls for a similar deal. The agreement is controversial, as parties to the Nonproliferation Treaty, including China, are forbidden from providing “nuclear equipment to non-nuclear-weapons states without comprehensive IAEA safeguards, including Pakistan.” Any party to the 46-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) can object to such a transfer, however. China has already built two nuclear reactors for Pakistan, the Chashma I (2000) and Chashma II (scheduled 2011), that were grandfathered in when China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2004. China claims that the proposed reactors, Chashma III and IV should be given equal treatment. While the Bush administration made known its opposition to any such deal, it is unclear whether the Obama administration will challenge the proposed deal. The State Department has said that the agreement must be “in compliance with the rules of the [NSG]” but other U.S. officials insist “discussions are underway” and the Obama administration is as yet undecided. (Chandigarh The Tribune May 26, 2010; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Energy Brief April 27, 2010)

WATER DISPUTES RISE TO TOP OF THE AGENDA
Water disputes between Pakistan and India have grown increasingly acrimonious in recent months, with the potential for water-sharing to eclipse Kashmir as the rivals’ primary point of contention. Notorious Pakistani militant Hafez Saeed, founder of Lashkar e Taiba (LeT), the militant group responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008, has in TV interviews and public speeches begun adopting Indo-Pakistani water disputes as a rallying cry for Pakistani militants, accusing India of “water terrorism.” India and Pakistan set up a bilateral mechanism, the Indus Waters Treaty, in 1960 to arbitrate water disputes. India was given control of the three eastern rivers of the Indus river system and Pakistan the western three, though the sources all originate in India. The Treaty has been viewed largely as a success, but Pakistan has been agitating over recent Indian plans to build hydroelectric power plants in Kashmir; a proposed dam on the Kishanganga, and Indus tributary, has become a specific sticking point. Rifaat Hussain, a professor of security studies at Qaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad believes Saeed is trying to “echo the establishment’s line.” “The government is trying to shift the focus of Kashmir as part of a jihadist thing… to an existential issue.” (Washington Post May 28, 2010)

DRONE MATH
The use of unmanned aerial drones to target militant leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas has become one of the most legally, morally, and strategically contentious issues in the conduct of U.S. warfare post 9/11. The most controversial aspect of the CIA-led campaign has been the collateral damage caused by the strikes; given the secretive nature of the campaign it has been difficult to determine civilian casualties and estimates vary widely. Unnamed U.S. officials revealed in May to Reuters that some 500 militants and fewer than 30 civilians had been killed since the summer of 2008, when the use of drone strikes began to increase dramatically. Of those killed “14 are considered by experts to be top-tier leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other militant groups, while another two dozen are deemed high-to-mid level leaders,” making the vast majority of those killed lower-level fighters. The U.S. estimate is lower than other independent estimates – Reuters and the New America Foundation put the total number closer to 800 – while Pakistani press account put the number of civilian deaths alone at 600. (Reuters May 3, 2010)