AMERICAN MEDIATION IN KARGIL CRISIS

INTRODUCTION
The subcontinent witnessed a particularly grave crisis in May 1999 when according to Indians they first became aware that some 'Pakistani intruders' had penetrated across the line of control (LoC) in the Kargil sector and had firmly entrenched themselves over several hilltops. The Indians seemed to view it not only as the most serious penetration and violation of the (LoC) ever from the Pakistani side but also one that threatened their strategic highway to Ladakh and access to Siachen. The President of United States of America Bill Clinton played a role of mediator in this whole crisis. Lets discuss the reasons behind this mediation and the circumstances which provided food for mediation but, first we will discuss the Kargil war.
KARGIL WAR
Kargil war was fought between Mujahideen and Indian forces at Kargil, according to India's own estimate Pakistani intruders was in hundreds and Indian force was at least twenty or forty thousands in numbers. During the fighting India had only slow progress, during two months India had only made limited military gains on the ground but it cannot be denied that India regained control over the Kargil heights and the eviction of the Mujahideen was eventually secured through a political decision.
INDIAN RESPONSE The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) adopted a track two approach, whipping up jingoism, chauvinism and fake appeal to the "National unity". India's calculation was to persuade the US to put pressure on Pakistan, something which was achieved when in Washington Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif agreed to reaffirm the LoC's sanctity.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE ISSUE
India had invited the US and other major powers to intervene on its behalf to avert pressure on Pakistan to withdrawal its troops. The issue has been internationalized by India in this way.
INDIAN DIPLOMACY AND PAKISTANI RESPONSE
According to India’s interpreter, terrorists have occupied Kashmir and they claimed directly on Pakistan for Kargil war. Initially Pakistan has denied that Pakistan is not involved in that attack. We are just supporting them morally not militarily but afterwards it has proved that some Pakistani army jawans are also taking part in this attack when Pakistani prime minister went to US for the surety of military withdrawal.

AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT OR AMERICAN MEDIATION
Such circumstances envisage a role of third party mediation. In mediation the mediatory party has a more active role and participants in the negotiations direct them in such a way that a peaceful solution is reached but suggestion by mediators are not binding. Equally problematic has been the BJP’s reliance on external mediation for short-term gains. It is not India, but the US, which has benefited from the diplomatic setbacks to Pakistan. Contrary to official claims, India did not resist external intervention or mediation. Rather, it invited it, albeit by another name. In truth, what has happened over the past month is a triangular exchange of proposals, through emissaries, telephone calls and letters-all under US supervision.
Bill Clinton’s top officials got involved in these exchanges early on. This cleared the way for extraordinarily close intelligence-sharing between India and the US on Kargil, as heard in the famous tapes of the conversation between Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf in China and his deputy in Pakistan. Clinton called Vajpayee on 14 June and Sharif the following day. Frequent consultations on 3rd and 5th July between the US officials and their Indian counterparts provided clinching evidence of the tripartite mediatory process. Clinton would not have shared with Vajpayee the latest ‘readouts’ of his talks with Sharif at midnight, nor would US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott have talked at length with Jaswant Singh the following morning, had they not already agreed on mediation. Of course there was an understanding that the term itself would not be used. Mediation can take many forms, Camp David being just one example. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize others, such as conducted indirectly, through long-distance calls. India solicited, and was party to, mediation over Kargil, whose direction and pace were largely controlled by Washington DC.
UNITED STATE'S INTEREST IN MEDIATION
In the long run, nothing would suit the US more than a privileged presence in South Asia. A deal over Kashmir will give it a vantage position in the heart of Asia. Whatever this might do for the BJP in the short run, it is bound to undermine India’s half- century-long struggle to minimize Great Power influence in this region. It is not merely enough to be wary of the US. It is equally important to recognize the historic folly of South Asia’s nuclearisation, to which the BJP was the crucial contributor. Without nuclearisation and the precipitous worsening of regional security, the US would have neither embarked on an assertive mediatory role, nor got a degree of acquiescence for it from the world community.
FACTS
WASHINGTON, JULY 5: Pakistan agreed to pull back forces that had crossed the Line of Control after a panicky Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a midnight dash to Washington on Sunday amid international opprobrium, diplomatic ruin, and most recently, military reverses. As Indian forces re-established control over the strategic Tiger Hills over the weekend and readied for a punishing follow-up, Sharif held three hours of talks with President Clinton at the end of which he capitulated to the main Indian - and American --demand: that Pakistan withdraw its intruders before presenting any wish list. US officials who briefed reporters on background following the meeting said they expected a withdrawal of Pakistani forces but were not certain of the time-frame. ``We would like to see positive steps in the very near future,'' one US official said. US officials too made it clear that Pakistan instigated the current conflict. ``Our position has been that the forces across the LoC need to be returned to the Pakistani side... Our understanding is that there will be a withdrawal of forces,'' officer said.
TEXT OF JOINT STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AND PRIME MINISTER NAWAZ SHARIF
President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif share the view that the current fighting in the Kargil region of Kashmir is dangerous and contains the seeds of a wider conflict. It was agreed between the President and the Prime Minister that concrete steps will be taken for the restoration of the line of control in accordance with the Simla Agreement. The President urged an immediate cessation of the hostilities once these steps are taken. The Prime Minister and President agreed that the bilateral dialogue provides the best forum for resolving all issues dividing India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. The President said he would take a personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of those bilateral efforts, once the sanctity of the ( LoC) has been fully restored. The President reaffirmed his intent to pay an early visit to South Asia.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively we can say that the Kargil crisis and then mediation by the US was not in the interest of Pakistan. The US just protected the interests of India because they have vested interests. Their interest is to build up India as a bulwark and frontline against China. Infact there was no need for Nawaz Sharif to go all that way to the US if what Pakistan had to agree was a commitment on pullout. Pakistan had good offer from the Indian Prime Minister to pullout intruders from Kargil and then India would be ready to talk on other matters including Kashmir. Bringing Clinton was neither good for Pakistan nor for India.
PREPARED BY SAMRINA BUTT
CLASS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
M.A (PREVIOUS) 2003

All content (C) Department of International Relations, Karachi University

Website designed and maintained by Techdorado Web Technologies Inc.
Disclaimer Email Webmaster, KUIRD.org