Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir: A grand bargain?
By Teresita Schaffer, Howard Schaffer
Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 3:07 PM
Share
With U.S. relations in Pakistan at a low point and the two countries' strategic disagreement over priorities in Afghanistan on full display, it is time to review U.S. strategic options. One that deserves a close look is a grand bargain: give Pakistan what it wants in Afghanistan - but on two conditions: Pakistan assumes responsibility for preventing terrorism out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan agrees to settle Kashmir along the present geographic lines. This is not a panacea, nor would it be easy to execute. But it addresses the principal stumbling block to the current U.S. strategy, and provides an incentive to settle the region's longest-running dispute.
For the past decade, U.S. policy has been based on the assumption that the United States and Pakistan shared the strategic goal of extirpating from the leadership of Afghanistan the Taliban and allied terrorist forces. This objective was at the heart of the partnership struck after 9/11. As with the two previous major U.S.-Pakistan partnerships, in the 1950s/60s and in the 1980s, the assumption of strategic agreement was at best only half true, and the differences between the two countries' goals have become increasingly difficult to paper over. This time, Pakistan's desire to ensure what its army chief has referred to as "a friendly government" in Kabul - meaning a government deferential to Pakistan and impervious to Indian influence - has intensified, especially since the beginning of 2011. During that time, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship was devastated by the aftereffects of the shooting of two Pakistanis by CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his subsequent arrest, by the raid that killed Osama bin Ladin, and by the harsh public criticism of Pakistan by retiring U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen.
The two governments have been trying to salvage some working elements of partnership. However, their ability to work together toward a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan, badly strained by conflicting goals, was for practical purposes ended by the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the Karzai government's designated representative for peace initiatives toward the Afghan Taliban. This was not the first time Pakistan's insistence on controlling negotiations inside Afghanistan had trumped its stated policy of supporting the Afghan government's negotiating role, but this incident has brought tentative peace feelers, already rickety, to a virtual halt.
Washington's response to this situation has been to seek a stronger basis for working with Pakistan. This reflects U.S. recognition of Pakistan's critical importance to peace in the region and to Afghanistan's future - as well as the major U.S. stake in nuclear-armed Pakistan's own political and economic health. These are indeed important considerations - but it does not follow that the U.S. should continue on essentially the same path that has repeatedly come up short.
There are two other strategic options: treat Pakistan as a hostile power, and try to impose an acceptable solution in Afghanistan in the teeth of Pakistani efforts to control the process; or build a strategy that allows Pakistan to have the major say in Afghanistan, but on conditions that protect U.S. strategic interests and give Pakistan a strong incentive to respect them. We believe that forcing an acceptable solution is almost certain to fail. It would depend, unrealistically, on the effectiveness of an intra-Afghan negotiating process and of the government that would follow. It would also presuppose, equally implausibly, that Afghanistan would remain able to withstand the Pakistani effort to upset the settlement that would surely follow.
The strategic alternative that remains is a grand bargain, initially between Pakistan and the United States, but eventually involving India. The major elements would be:
- Concede Pakistani primacy in Afghanistan: The United States would tell Pakistan's leaders that it is up to them to work with the various Afghan leaders - the government and whatever elements of the Taliban - toward a postwar accommodation that can keep Afghanistan free of terrorism and at peace. Pakistan would insist on eliminating or minimizing India's involvement in Afghanistan (a modest economic relationship, for example), and would assume the major place in Afghanistan's external environment.
- Hold Pakistan responsible for terrorism from Afghanistan: At the same time, the U.S. would warn Pakistan that we would hold it responsible for any act of terrorism originating in Afghanistan or Pakistan. This does not mean a policy of automatic retaliation - such decisions need to be made case by case - but it would put Pakistan on notice that winking at the forces in both countries that have spread terrorism within the region and beyond carries a tremendous risk.
-
Settle Kashmir along the Line of Control: The United States would tell Pakistan that as
part of this settlement, it will publicly call for negotiations to settle the
Kashmir dispute by turning the existing Line of Control between the Indian and
Pakistani-held portions into an international border. It would give India
advance notice of this announcement. U.S. support for a settlement along the
Line of Control would in all likelihood pull additional international support
in that direction.
The actual negotiations would be carried out by the two countries. These would cover not just the border but a whole host of other issues, including the ground rules for ensuring both countries' security, prevention of terrorism, encouragement of economic ties, and the rights of Kashmiris on both sides of the line to robust self-government. Many of these elements were included in the proposals Pakistan's former president, Pervez Musharraf, set forth before he fell from power, and a good number were at the heart of the proposals discussed in back channel negotiations between India and Pakistan in the last years of Musharraf's presidency. Whether the United States would have a role in the negotiating process would depend on the desires of India and Pakistan. - Maintain a robust civilian and military partnership with Pakistan, including support as appropriate for its work toward a settlement in Afghanistan and generous funding for such Pakistani priorities as electric power generation. In the context of Kashmir negotiations, the U.S. could look at an updated security relationship. All this would of course be contingent on Pakistan holding to the overall bargain.
A deal along these lines would hand Pakistan one of its primary strategic objectives, but at a price Pakistanis would find very hard to swallow. Kashmir has a much tighter hold on the national heartstrings than Afghanistan. However, in practice Pakistan has lost its chance of gaining Kashmir, and many Pakistanis privately acknowledge this. They are well aware that for years, Pakistan's efforts have done nothing to remove India's hold on the state, and have succeeded only in deepening hostility and making the region less secure for everyone, including Pakistan.
Securing Pakistan against its military leaders' nightmare of an Indian threat from both east and west provides a strategic gain, especially when coupled with a possible Kashmir agreement that could lay the groundwork for transforming the hostile relationship with India into one that was merely chilly but improving. The bigger problem may be how to ensure that these gains are maintained. Afghanistan has never had sustained good relations with Pakistan, and may once again look to India as a balancer - an all too willing one - when it tires of being guided by Pakistan. And on the Kashmir side, even if the Pakistan government and its army agree to negotiate peace with India - by no means a sure bet - the militant movement in Pakistan includes many spoilers who will try to stir up trouble in Kashmir or elsewhere in India, providing acute temptation to the army to join in.
These difficulties make the grand bargain described here a long shot. Using military and economic aid as leverage might increase Pakistan's motivation to keep the bargain, though this is a tactic that has only worked for short periods in the past, and has never succeeded in dissuading Pakistan from following major strategic interests. To improve the odds, the United States would need to seek other international support, appealing to the desire of Pakistan's international friends to improve Pakistan's long term economic and security prospects. Bringing China at least tacitly on board would be the ideal. Other players would be the European aid donors, and some of Pakistan's Arab benefactors. The United States would also have to expend some diplomatic capital to dissuade India from trying to upset the balance in Afghanistan, noting that the U.S. had promoted a Kashmir settlement on terms quite favorable to India, and that reducing India's profile in Afghanistan had to be seen in that context.
But considering the results of ten years of engagement, and the tremendous risks flowing from a "hostile Pakistan" strategy, the long shot starts to look like the best available strategic bet.
Teresita Schaffer is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Howard Schaffer is Senior Counselor at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University. Both are retired U.S. ambassadors with long experience in South Asia. They are co-directors of http://southasiahand.com.
JOHANNES EISELE/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFPAK POSTER 4, THUMBS, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, DIPLOMACY, INDIA, PAKISTAN, POLITICS, SECURITY, TALIBAN, TERRORISM 
Pakistan will not keep its word on Kashmir
The problem with any grand bargain would be it will not be worth the paper it is written on.
Remember what happened in 1973? Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then prime minister of Pakistan agreed to leave Kashmir alone in negotiations with Indira Gandhi’s India just so that he can get his 90,000 Pakistani troops released from India who were captured during the war for Bangladesh.
Within a week after the release of Pakistani soldiers, Bhutto went back on his word, saying Pakistan will wage a thousand year war if needed to liberate Kashmir!
One has to understand that for Pakistan, Kashmir is the first step towards taking over entire India.
Pakistan has been dreaming to bring back Mogul rule to entire India since its inception and divided India will succumb sooner or later.
1st half is especially true, MM
I'm not convinced if the latter half of MM's input is a serious goal, but per the first half - how many more deals can be made with Pakistan given its history of... non-cooperation ? collaborative intransigence ? reneging on deals ?
Pakistan to Take over India...jt
Pakistan is one of the most conflicted and incompetently governed states on earth; certainly it is the most failed nuclear state.
Pakistan can not manage itself; by what magic could they hope to successfully agglomerate India?
>>>Pakistan can not manage itself; by what magic could they hope to successfully agglomerate India?
Oh, you have no idea about the delusions that lurk in the fever swamp of jihadism. For example, I give you
http://lalqila.wordpress.com/
who used to post here under various aliases. Maybe he's still lurking here. He has a doctored image of the Red Fort with an Islamic flag on it. Below, the text says
"
The flag of Pakistan flies eternally over Lal Qila in Dehli, lest we forget, for Junagarh, Manavder, Hyderabad Deccan, Kashmir and East Pakistan and in rememberance of the Mughals and other Muslim emperors who ruled India for a thousand years and brought civility to the natives.
"
Or maybe it's just a CIA front, to "entrap" American would-be jihadis. :-)
Let me help you there. What Pakistan REALLY wants is Kashmir....so u give them that and keep Afghanistan, along with all its REFUGEES, Gun Culture and Talibanization of Pakistan as well. Americans, Nato, Indians and rest of them in Afghanistan already have LOST battles in Afghanistan. No lesson was learned from the history since no one has ever won any war against Afghanis. This would be too simple to once again ABANDON the area claiming that it was GIVEN to Pakistan as a "Gift" and down another decade come back and attack it again. Sorry that wont happen. All the outsiders will continue to BLEED in Afghanistan before abandoning it. What will happen after that is anyones guess. Anyway for next years election Obama needs to leave Afghanistan like he decided to leave the"THRIVING DEMOCRACY" in Iraq.
Thank you for understanding. But Foggy Bottom can never understand this. I really wonder why!!!
How Can You bargain on something which is not your ??????????
i don't understand
Pakistan is just not trustworthy in regard to Kashmir.
Pakistan will be convinced that this jehadi proxy thing has worked for them in kicking out TWO superpowers from Afghanistan.
Once they have their so called "strategic depth in Afghanistan", kicking India out of Kashmir will be kid stuff in comparison.
The chances that they will attempt to shutdown and eradicate Kashmiri terror outfits from their soil are so remote as to be negligible.
Also a small quibble with your line about such a deal being advantageous to India in terms of Kashmir. It is not. It is a compromise that India has been willing to settle for.
This article's logic is beyond baffling.
If the Pakistanis could be trusted to settle over Kashmir on the LoC, and normalize relations with India, why in the world do they need strategic depth in Afghanistan? If Pakistan's relations with India were to become non-hostile, then why on earth should Afghans be subjected to being ruled by medival fascists whose ideology is not acceptable by the majority of the Afghans themselves? And whay are Afghans to be "given" to Pakistan in the first place? If there is one place where Pakistan is more despised than in India, it is Afghanistan.
If Indo-Pak relations were to be normal, and non-hostile, then Indian involvement in Afghanistan should be welcomed by Pakistan. Afterall, India's committment of cash for development there would only have a salubrious effect on Pakistan-Afghanistan trade and commerce as well. This is of-course, given that India has no intentions of "destabilizing" Pakistan through military proxies, especially after peace and normal relations have been established. But only a schizophrenic fool would not like to believe that as India has not shown any tendency to go to war even now, with all of the provocations of terrorism and Pakistani hostility.
So in summary, getting the Pakistanis to normalize relations with India, and give up their dreams of Kashmir is what will make every other issue moot. Persuading the Pakistanis to give up their delusional world view regarding India is the main step that needs to be addressed. Simply assuming that and addressing other minor issues like Afghanistan is a ridiculous way to go about analyzing the situation. With analysts like this, no wonder the US is stuck in Afghanistan.
Pakistan is at least partially correct in seeing India as a threat. The two border each other, which makes either hostile or friendly relationships unavoidable. Indian and Pakistani* cultures are largely different. Their history going back to the partition has been one of hostility and preparing for the worst. They both claim certain areas, specifically Jammu** and Kashmir. Both nations have nuclear weapons prepared to use against each other. Pakistan has gone through several military coups and I suspect that civilian leaders feel a need to boos their nationalist credentials on India. Lastly, India did play a role in helping Bangladesh gain independence, even if Pakistan lost it through poor politics.
That isn't to say that Pakistan has not done things which made the situation far worse than it should be, but that both nations do show some rationality in treating each other as dangerous.
*Yes, I know that there is no one 'Indian' or 'Pakistani' culture but for the purpose of this let's accept that the two nations are very different.
**Which, oddly enough, is not mentioned by the writers even once.
Grant, your analysis of their India-Pakistan relationship is quite superficial. The fact is that Pakistan was founded on hatred (of Hindus, Indian culture etc.) and they have done everything possible since then to justify their hatred by brainwashing their population. It is they who dream of breaking up India and bringing it back under muslim rule. It is the Pakistani elite that is deluded by Mughal history and believes that all of India "belongs" to muslims. These delusions need to be corrected. These delusions are similar to Bin Laden's grouse that Spain was no longer under the Moors, or that the Ottoman empire is no more.
Attributing hatred to both countries equally is silly and not supported by facts. Facts are that the Pakistani army has initiated all of the hostilities against India in the past, and continues to do so emboldened by their nuclear shield. The 1971 breakup was self-inflicted: after going on a genocidal rampage that killed some 3 million Bangladeshis, and created 10 million refugees for India, Pakistan's breakup was inevitable. They have not only themselves to blame, but the world needs to bring these Pakistani generals, war criminals, to justice. Seldom in the 20th century has anyone gotten away from genocide scot free as the Pakistani generals have.
The debate of who Kashmir belongs to is based on a discredited lie of the "two nation theory" on which Pakistan was created, mostly by a racist Britain run by Churchill who loathed Gandhi. This "two nation theory" holds that muslims and hindus are seprate nations who cannot coexist in one country. This notion, apart from being completely anachronistic to modern notions of statehood that are based on progressive, liberal, inclusive ideals, are also unsupported on the ground by the ugly fact that nearly as many muslims continue to live in India as Pakistan (of-course, in Pakistan the Hindus and other minorities have been killed off or driven away by "the religion of peace"). Indians will never accept any idea that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan or should be independent because it brings into question about Indian statehood itself.
So Pakistan's view of India as a threat is only because it insists on initiating hostilities with India, and then wondering how or when or if India will retaliate. If Pakistan were a normal country, like even Bangladesh, there would be no need for them to fear India. Afterall, India hasn't gone and invaded Bangladesh, or Nepal, or Burma, or Sri Lanka, or even the Maldives.
That's all, nothing more needs to be said
Pakistan was founded on the same basis as India. The two groups were outright rejecting Gandhi's calls for a unified India representing both communities. It wasn't just Muslims in the north killing fleeing Hindus, during partition both sides caused a huge amount of deaths (among other things).
I do agree that the secession of East Pakistan was caused by Pakistani policies, but India did play a role in causing it and that is something that the Pakistani military will not forget. On another note many Indian soldiers have also been responsible for serious crimes, notably in fighting separatist and Maoist groups throughout India. Trials usually don't happen unless the guilty party has just suffered a massive defeat and the legitimacy of the state is widely questioned. Additionally, you'll that a common prerequisite of peace is glossing over those crimes.
Lastly, history and geography mean that most of Pakistan and India's energy are devoted towards each other. Pakistan also doesn't commonly invade other nations and in terms of supplying weapons to insurgents both India and Pakistan have similar track records. To put it simply, both nations are unfortunately correct in viewing each other as serious threats. It'll take a great change in regional politics as well as significant increases in the legitimacy and power of the Pakistani state and it could be decades or a century before both states come to a lasting agreement*.
*With respect to the opinions of the people who actually live in Jammu and Kashmir completely optional of course.
Attempts at equal-equal don't hold water
Sorry, you continue to insist on making false statements. First of all, Gandhi was part of the "Indian" group, and not above it all as you seem to imply. The Indian National Congress always stood for a unified India, but democratic, with proportional representation based on how the political parties had done in the elections, and not under some sort of anti-democratic 1-muslimman-3-votes scheme that Jinnah and his muslim league wanted. The events that lead to partition have to be gone over in detail, and it does not seem like you have any grasp of that history. Suffice it to say, the vision of Jinnah's "unified" Indian confederation that would essentially be ripened and fattened for balkanization later was decidedly at odds with the INC's vision of India with a strong center. Jinnah's idea wasn't even implemented in the moth-eaten Pakistan he got, when Bangladesh broke away. So we can eaily judge whose idea, the INC's, or fof Jinnah's, has been the more durable one.
India played a role in stopping the attrocities in East Pakistan the way the US and Russians stopped the attrocities being committed by Germany and Japan in WWII. Should Germany and Japan harbor a grudge against the allies for stopping their madness? Or should they, as they have done, express remorse, and fundamentally remake their societies and view of history? Note that India's stopping of Pakistan's madness in Bangladesh was done in a considerably more humane manner than the American technique of bombing Dresden back to the stone age, or dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after firebombing Tokyo for good effect.
As far as allegations against Indian soldiers go, there are trials held in India against any excesses, and there is a democratic and judicial system, and a free press in place for dealing with it. But actually, the Indian army has exhibited remarkable restraint in the way it has dealt with these insurgencies compared to the American "shock and awe", or love expressed through daisy cutters, or the Isreali use of fighter jets and attack helicopters on Palestinian villages, or the Russian bombardment of Grozny, or the ethnic flooding practiced by the Chinese in Tibet and Xinkiang, or the way in which the Turks have handled the Kurds, or the way the Americans fought in Vietnam. In fact, look at the way the Pakistanis have handled the Baloch. Compared to all that, the Indian army stands quite tall.
India and Pakistan do not both devote their energies equally to one another. This is a delusion the Pakistanis have. They are certainly obsessed with India, but India hardly with them. Pakistan enters the Indian conciousness only when a bomb goes off in an Indian city. Remember that despite everything the Pakistanis have tried, India has experienced its highest economic growth in the last 2 decades. So its a fallacy to think that India wastes its energy on Pakistan. And no, they do not "both have an equal track record" in fuelling insurgencies. Pakistan's record is quite clear, not just against India, but against the world as a whole. Now everyone says that Pakistan is the world's epicenter of terrorism, with almost every terrorist act anywhere having some connection to Pakistan (Pakistanis, Pakistani-born, trained in Pakistan, went to Pakistan....a veritable 4 degrees of separation at most). However allegations against India are just that, allegations. Unproven, unsubstantiated attempts at pretending that it has to be equal. Present the evidence.
Pakistan today is like Nazi Germany without the organizational prowness or the industrial chops. But the rest of the dementia is there in spades: notions of their own superiority and "chosen-ness", delusions of granduer, a perverse sense of victimization, a view of others has subhumans. Normally socities like these need shock therapy to get them straight again. But in the 21st century, at least stopping support to this Sauron is not too much to ask.
Sorry, meant "1 degree of separation", not 4 above!
Yea right. Gifting something that does not belong to you
You should have your head examined for suggesting such a solution. Afghanistan is not for USA to give nor is Kashmir. Perhaps USA can give California to Pakistan in exchange for their nukes. Afterall we gave them the nukew (we looked the other way when they were acquiring them inexchange for them supplying cannon fodder against the evil empire USSR) and CA belonged to Mexico to begin with. Everyone will be happy.
Homely article. Its like kids playing mom and dad. With a grand mom thrown in.
To think Pakistan would willingly leave Kashmir alone based on present boundries is pure fantasy. Oh you might get the PM and the political powers that be to sign off on such a treaty with the best of intentions, but much like our present mess in Afghanistan I guarantee you the ISI will never, ever leave well enough alone. Shoot, the Taliban was propped up into power by the ISI to enable fertile training grounds in Eastern Afghanistan so Musharaff would have a ready-made force to initiate hostilities in the late 90's. What Schaffer fails to grasp is that Kashmir and Afghanistan are inextricably linked, with Kashmir being the primary driver of what the ISI is doing to the west. I'll bet at least one mortgage payment that within three years of the US pulling out of Afghanistan the LeT and other proxie groups will have set up shop in Eastern Afghanistan, started the recruiting lines through Turkey again, and will be running their old training camps for the next war in Kashmir once again. There is no way they would ever live up to such an agreement.
There are plenty of options available
This article suggests surrendering - it is bad idea. Pakistani leadership supports the Haqqanis and others, but that doesn't mean that they have complete control over it. Therefore, even if there was a bargain where Afghanistan was ceded to Pakistan, they lack the military, economic or culture wherewithal to maintain control of Afghanistan. As a result, they cannot live up to their part of the bargain and we would be back to exactly where we are now, except that now there wouldn't even be an Afghan presence.
Furthermore, it is too early to surrender. Just maintaining a small asymmetric presence would be enough to prevent a Taliban takeover and to tip the balance in favor of local elements opposed to the Taliban.
Lastly, there are plenty of options to put the pressure onto Pakistan. Economic measures such as reducing textile exports into western nations would begin to squeeze them. Other economic measures such as stopping IMF and World Bank funding for 2-3 years would produce hardship that would make it hard for the current rulers to maintain control.
Another pressure tactic would be to call for religious freedom in Pakistan. Demanding an end to the Blasphemy laws could squeeze Pakistani rulers between a just demand and an unyielding bigoted internal dynamic. Boycott of Pakistani goods could be organized at local levels in many parts of the world that would put pressure on the Pakistani elite that benefits from the connection to the west. Indeed, many of these techniques were used against South Africa and USSR to great effect.
These are just a few options that have yet to be exercised; so it would appear to be early to consider surrender.
The Pakistani economy is bad enough as it is, I have no hope at all that a boycott would do anything other than completely radicalize Pakistan's youth. As we have seen across the world for decades, economic sanctions do little on their own to force states to change things, they can increase a leader's popularity by giving them stronger nationalist credentials and it's unlikely Pakistan's neighbors would go along.
As for the blasphemy laws, please remember that Malik Qadri* was openly cheered by many Pakistanis, including many Pakistani lawyers. This does not seem at all an issue that can be easily changed.
*The man who murdered Pakistani politician Salman Taseer, who was trying to have those laws overturned.
I am no opposed to the idea of surrender, in the case of an un-winnable conflict.
I think surrender would strengthen a hyper-extended America that is enmeshed, once-again, in a conflict that the US lacks the cultural competence to comprehend let alone to "win."
However, i find your arguments concerning Pakistans inability to hold up their end of any bargain, to be compelling.
Even though, I disagree with boycotts, since boycotts would harm the very people that represent a possible long term improvement in civil society within Pakistan, I also find elements of Pakistani society (such as the Blasphemy laws) to be intolerable. I don't like criticism without some positive possible solution, but sadly, in this case, i don't yet see one.
I've seen some unrealistic suggestions before* but this must be at least in the top 15. Let's break it down point by point.
1. Despite being under reported, most Afghans aren't interested in Pakistani domination any more than they are in U.S, Iranian or Indian domination. While Afghan leaders might accept that they could not fight Pakistan, they would not just accept Pakistani control.
2. Pakistan is incapable of halting terrorism and insurgency aimed at Pakistan in Pakistani territory. In what world does it seem possible that Pakistan could stop any terrorism in Afghanistan? Furthermore, this makes the incredibly simple assumption that Pakistan has influence with groups responsible for international terrorism. They don't, or at least it has not been shown. Pakistan has influence (of a type that is unclear) among some insurgent groups along Afghanistan and Pakistan and among some groups in Pakistani-controlled/India-controlled Kashmir. Groups like Al Qaeda do not fall into either category.
3. How exactly would the U.S hold Pakistan responsible? It's hard enough to hold nations like Syria or Iran responsible when you have a smoking gun, given the anarchic state of South Asia I can't see what the U.S could do that wouldn't simply convince the more radical Pakistanis that the U.S is the problem.
4. Neither India nor Pakistan will give up their claims to Kashmir. Musharraf might have made an effort near the end of his time to settle the issue but the Pakistani military sees India (with some justification) as the single greatest threat to the survival of Pakistan. Additionally, considering the touchy nature of territorial issues and India's economic might I doubt many other states would follow America's example.
5. Both India and Pakistan seem to consider backing separatists and fighting over Afghanistan to be the best means of attacking each other now that both nations have nuclear weapons. If Pakistan and India were so willing to settle on Afghanistan and Kashmir then they would already be at real peace and we wouldn't need to worry.
6. This completely ignores the opinion of the Kashmir people, many of whom may not like the violent groups but who also have a great dislike for the frequently brutal Indian military. Also it ignores the opinion held by a least a large portion of Kashmir that it should be independent of both nations.
7. China is among the nations least likely to go along with this. China has made a point of pushing India over Indian-controlled Kashmir in response to India's hospitality to the Tibetan government-in-exile and over disputed territory between India and China.
8. This makes the overly optimistic suggestion that the U.S can just offer Afghanistan to Pakistan. What exactly is to stop Pakistan from deciding all it must do is wait another ten years and then work with a Taliban-dominated government, or to stop Afghanistan from deciding it is tired of all foreign influence and attempts to increase nationalist fervor by demanding that the Pakistan-Afghan border (which has never been accepted by many Afghans) be redrawn?
All in all I'm surprised that two figures with long histories in South Asian politics would suggest this. I'm reminded of Biden's brief affair with the idea of dividing Iraq.
*Including a rather stupid one over at Small Wars where the author made the baffling statement that 'the use of nuclear weapons [in Afghanistan] is not yet acceptable'. I'm still not sure when any author would consider the use of nuclear weapons acceptable, especially in a Third World country.
The solution is very simple.
Pakistanis have mortgaged their country to their generals who constantly use the bogey of the India threat to keep themselves in power. They own more than half the country, and actually have no inclination to fight; they have outsourced that to the various sundry jihadi groups they have created. They take money to the tune of billions from the gullible Americans, and pretend to fight the very terrorists they are busy churning out by the thousands every year.
So what is the solution you ask?
Stop supporting the Pakistani army! I mean how much simpler can it be? America pays these terrorists billions of dollars, only to have at least 1800 body bags return from Afghanistan as a thank you gift. This is on top of whatever role the ISI had in 9/11 as well, something that is not yet talked about, but will be in the fullness of time.
If the American government stops funding the Pakistani army to the tune of billions and stops giving them fancy toys, the process for creating a more rational state that is not delusional can begin. The terrorist factories will also then get shut down, as the civilians grapple with the problem of running and feeding a large, poverty stricken counrty of 180 million on something other than conspiracy theories and more/purer Islam.
Ending U.S aid to the Pakistani military would probably be the final nail in U.S-Pakistani relations*. Additionally I'm not sure how much of the deception is on the part of the Pakistani military and how much of it is the Pakistani intelligence. Indeed, I suspect very few people outside the U.S government and the Pakistani military/intelligence know for sure.
* One major concern for the U.S that has remained the same for decades is avoiding the creation of a second Iran.
I agree with on all your points except:
4. Do I need to remind you that 1/3 of Kashmir was and is forcibly occupied by Pakistan? You seem to be focused, like most writers, on Indian Kashmir because India allows freedom of expression there and holds regular democratic elections. I could be wrong but it does seem unlikely that you consider Pakistan occupation of Kashmir a problem. If true, why is that? Note that Paki Occupied Kashmiris are butchered regularly, particularly in Gilgit and Baltistan but you do not hear about it because there is no freedom of press in Pak or China. India would have a common border with Afghanistan if it were to get its Pak Occupied Kashmir back, a gateway into Central Asia.
5. There is absolutely no evidence or anecdotal data to supports your view that India, like Pakistan, supports separatists in Pak. If that were true, there would be no Pak today. This is a canard, Paki propaganda that you have swallowed whole. I am not saying that India is therefore somehow morally superior. It is just that India is only now developing a strategic culture and some dexterity in realpolitik. Look at the provocations to India from Pak, including 26/11. Can you imagine any other country on the planet that would not have retaliated with overwhelming force? India is different. However, in the face of Paki and Chinese hostility, it is changing.
6. I hate to go back to 1947 which is perhaps rather irrelevant today. But you do not seem to know that Kashmir joined India via a legal document of ascension. The relevant UN Resolutions call Pakistan the invader and require it to withdraw from Occupied Kashmir, following which an election to determine the free will of the Kashmiri people would be held. You can verify above by going on the Paki web site and looking up the UN Resolution. Well, if you noticed, since 1948, Paki never withdrew from Occupied Kashmir and so Kashmir-wide elections could never held; you know of course that Indian Kashmir holds free and democratic elections regularly. Just because Pak makes all the noise and India does not, it does not mean that Pak has a real grievance in Kashmir. The truth, as they say, lies elsewhere.
7. You seem to imply that Chinese support of using Pak to terrorize India and thus tie it down is justified because India offered refuge to the Dalai Lama. Again, you have missed it. China knows India is an ancient civilization and the only true rival to its hegemony in Asia. It has had a policy of keeping India down since 1950 and Pak is a tool for that purpose. If you truly think that China is justified, and you may not, to assist Pak to terrorize India and kill civilians simply because India has provided safety to the holy Dalai Lama, shame on you.
In response, in order:
4. Both parts of Kashmir are effectively occupied. As I pointed out, neither nation will give up the land they control and in other places outside this debate I have pointed out the focus on Indian-controlled Kashmir. Data is hard to come by for Pakistan-controlled Kashmir but it seems that the people there largely don't want to be part of either nation.
5. India's RAW has been known to dally with Pakistani separatists as well as aiding Bangladesh. Again, this is completely understandable given that neither nation wants to go to all-out war and both nations are afraid of nuclear destruction. Much like the Palestinians, the major powers have a vested interest in a proxy war.
6. I understand that Kashmir joined against the opinion of the people who lived there and because of the decisions of it's (unelected) leader of the time. Admittedly Pakistan appears to have managed to push the ruler into India's arms through a brutal campaign, but it doesn't change the fact that the people of Kashmir themselves have not really accepted the rule of either Pakistan or India.
7. I never suggested that China had some moral justification*. I pointed out that China, a major power and one that considers Tibet to be part of China. While things would probably be tense between the two nations anyway, China appears to consider escalating tactics on Indian-controlled Kashmir to be a way of pressing India. On another note, I don't think that the writers even mentioned that China also controls a piece of the territory. That's rather baffling if they're supposed to be experts on the region, don't they know that China and India fought a multiple battles in 1962 over this?
*Indeed, I just love how anyone who doesn't side completely with one group on arguments like these is vilified by everyone. Reminds me of Israeli-Palestinian debates.
This is reflective of US obsession with Pakistan. If peace is desired in Afghanistan, put Afghanistan first. The commitment should be for democracy, free elections and security alliance with Afghanistan to help Afghanistan defend itself against attacks by anybody. In this case if Pakistan is attacking Afghanistan by proxy, then it needs to be dealt with as an enemy and same as any other aggressor/invader country. The main reason for the mess in Afghanistan is the double game played by US in deliberately considering Pakistan as ally knowing fully well that is fighting the Pakistan army and it's proxies in Afghanistan.
I must say that every Reader should carefully review all of the comments by Bowman. He has said it well and fully. Other commenters are close but Bowman hits all the nails on the head. S/he has stolen my thunder and I salute him/her.
One Point
At the bottom of it all, it is the hold of the paranoid military that is destroying Pakistan and causing instability. Now that Pakistan is seeing its relationship with the US deteriorate, it is making tentative steps toward normalizing relations with India. This has also been historically the case,. NOTE: Now is NOT the time to make nice to Pakistan; the US should maintain its distance, perhaps increase it by stopping ALL assistance to Pakistan for a time period, until the tentative Pak steps toward normalization with India reach near fruition. It pains me to say it, but it is U.S. largesse that has allowed Pakistani Generals to indulge in their delusional hateful fantasies for the last 64 years. Now that the opportunity is there, the U.S. should simply keep tightening the screws and the Pakistanis may, or not, bend to reality. But, certainly, if the US starts to make nice again to Pak, we can all forget about peace or stability. (No, China is simply not a factor.)
making nice to Pakistan is the cornerstone of American strategy
You all seem to forget that currently the goodwill of Pakistan is a cornerstone to American national security. Why? Because there are tens of thousands of US nationals in Afghanistan, whose presence is not sustainable without a continuous and stable highway of supplies. That highway runs through Pakistan. If that highway is closed, there will be devastating losses in both life and military equipment.
Bottom line? Talk all you want about not making nice to them, but the government will never break up with the Pakistani Military, the de facto controllers of US supply lines. You may declare the Pakistani Military "paranoid" or whatever, but luckily you don't have the position nor the power to judge or replace them.
So think for a moment. Obama and the hawks are always ready to score some cheap political goodwill by playing the blame game, making all of you dumba**es believe that it is a third country's failure that you can't even occupy a country properly in 10 years. Then they can appear "tough" by talking "hard" about a country they already bribed enough to take the blame, and which they have no real intention or possibility to alienate.
In 2001 you were led to believe that Afghanistan is the root of all evil. In 2003 it was Iraq. In 2011 it is Pakistan. Now you think yourself smart enough to play Versailles, offering chunks of land and people to countries they despise and you can't even find on the map. All in the name of "peace and stability" of course. Now go home, you and Bowman.
Nicholas, you need to understand a few things before going off on an irrational rant like that.
The US has been digging a hole, called its "Support Pakistan policy", for the last 64 years. The Pakistanis have been taking a dump in this hole for quite some time. Now some people are starting to complain of the smell, but continue to insist on digging. Perhaps, in fairness to you, who would also like to continue digging, you don't mind the smell, and perhaps enjoy being covered in Pakistani crap. From what you write, I wouldn't be surprised.
But the first rule of when you find yourself in a hole, my dear smelly fellow, is to stop digging.
See, only then can you start looking for ways to climb out of the hole, and then think of covering up the hole.
But first you have to stop digging. And that means stopping the support of the Pakistani army. Of-course, that is likely to be already happening. We will only know for sure in a few years. But it will be a long process. Holes dug over 64 years cannot be climbed out of overnight, even for a superpower, and certainly can't be back-filled that easily.
In the meantime, the Pakistanis will have to learn to take their dump somewhere other than in a US taxpayer dollars-lined hole dug by the US government. Too bad for you! Perhaps, like the Indians they despise, they can also do it off their own railway tracks. Should be much easier in Pakistan as the Pakistan railways is broke, most trains suspended, and no working locomotives left.
Bowman, stop looking for holes, see the facts on the ground inst
Funny how you are getting lost in your own made-up metaphors. Instead of the sitting in your own hole, please take the time to read before you comment:
- I never said the US government SHOULD NOT cease to accommodate Pakistan, but that with tens of thousands of US nationals sitting at the end of supply line running through Pakistan the US simply CAN NOT afford to have Pakistan hostile. It would endanger the whole war effort. Once they are out, it is an entirely different story. At the moment Pakistan can easily hold all those soldiers, contractors and staff hostage, because without a constant supply provided through Pakistan, they are all dead.
- Having said that, you can see that the US will not stop to make nice to Pakistan for the time being, as long as this war lasts. By making nice I mean the substantial aid packages and not the insubstantial empty words of Obama.
- So, you and JJJackson, please just about the geopolitical realities for a moment before starting to bash the US attitude towards a country the US is dependent on.
Kashmir is not a piece of cake which can be divided between greedy neighbours. It involves the matter of life,death and destiny of 20 million peoples. No enduring solution and peace in South Asia is possible if the aspirations of the peoples are not given full consideration through impartial plebiscite. United States and global players should favour and facilitate democratic and pro peoples dispensations otherwise peace and security will always remain an illusion in this region. Stop treating Kashmir as crumbs of partition feast.
Similarly, Afghanistan can not be handed over to Pakistan as no foreign power has been able to control it. In recent history Brits and Soviets burnt their hands and now the US has learnt a lesson to be followed by the Indians sooner than later. Pakistan also had not any decisive or enduring leverage in that country, though becuase of geography it can not distance itself from an intertwined neighbour.
To expect that Pakistan will be able to effectively control terrorism in Afghanistan is fiction and to think that Islamabad will be held responsible for any incident is too naive to contemplate.
The authors of this article should not treat Afghanistan and Kashmir as commodity. Such trade offs do not work in communities and nations. Such imperial dispensations can not bring enduring peace in this region.
Everyone saw how imposed borders work out: the forcefully redrawn borders of Europe directly resulted in WWII and saw many seeds of hatred still plaguing the region. Now imagine doing the same with half the world's population there and three nuclear powers.
This article highlights the typical arrogance associated with Western Authors around the world. Kashmir and Afghanistan are not tradable commodities which can be given here or there based on the U.S.'s prefernces or choices or its own myopic world view of the outside world. Their Iraqi policy was based along these same lines and look where it has led the country to.
There is a fundamental flaw in the authors understanding of the situation in South Asia.
There is a major assumption that appeasing Pakistan by using all means necessary is the only way to prevent the rise of extremist elements that are a threat to American sovereignity. Isnt this the policy that has been tried and failed by them for the past 30 years ?
The second assumption is that the US is dealing with just one Pakistan, when infact there are many.
The root of the problem is this : There is the all empowered Millitary and intelligence, for which a burning Kashmir issue and an Afghanistan that is poor is the best way to keep it relevant in the country.
This is why they will always have unreasonable demands such as
a) Handing over the whole region of Kashmir by India (which is not going to happen, especially when you consider the fact that India is a much more powerful country both economically and militarily ). Nothing less than this is going to suffice for the generals. In the highly unlikely event that this does happen, their next aim is going to be to destabilize India more and more till the country will completely disintegrate. This is their official doctrine.
b) Keeping Afghanistan on the edge always. A strong and forward looking Afghanistan represents an threat to the influence excercised by the Pakistani military, as a destabilized and poor Afghanistan helps keep the Pakistani military relevant to the West.
India is pushing for development in Afghanistan for exactly reason b), so that the Pakistani military eventually loses its relevance with the US, which would result in even more loss of power both militarily as well as in terms of relative strength vis a vis the Indian Army.
In this scenario, which country's game plan should the US support ? Should it support a country trying to uplift Afghanistan out of its poverty or a country that is trying to keep it poor and extremist ?
And they say the US is the saviour of the world. Right !
I think it was Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results every time! It is time the US stopped indulging the Pakistani army and its delusions and recognizing that the US and Pakistan have different goals in Afghanistan, and one way they can go about it is to stop funding the Pakistani army because underwriting the Pakistani army is underwriting the Tablian and other jihadi outfits in the Af-Pak region! The US and Pakistan have nothing in common -either values or interests!
Pakistan which uses terrorism as an instrument of its foreign policy has proven again and again that it does not belong to the comity of civilized nations. Its armed forces are a state within a state, answerable to no one., its generals experts in the art of nuclear blackmail and brinkmanship. The best option for long term peace in South Asia and the World is to truncate Pakistan. Eastern Afghanistan can be merged with the NWFP province of Pakistan to create a Paktun state. Balochistan may be merged wtih Sindh to create a new Balochi-Sindhi nation. The remaining rump should be made a UN protectorate and should be defanged of its nukes.
...it does you no good. Lack of control over the executive authority automatically qualifies a state not belonging to the community of civilized nations? Exactly who the executive power of the US responds to? Remember Libya, waging war without authorization. How could the Pakistani military act any worse than that?
That said, the rest of your BS not worth reading. Carving up a country of 180 million just because they don't help the US occupy its neighbor? You lost your medication or something?
Your just proving Indians want to break up pakistan into piece fully justifying their paranoia
Let's make a deal with Pakistan...jt
I love grand schemes.
As grand schemes go, this is a doozie. It puts a bow on a package of solutions to US/ Pakistani / India troubles. Wouldn't it be amusing to watch Pakistan struggle with Afghanistani medievalism?
I have just one question: Does Pakistan have the power to make that deal? In other words, do they have the ability to cut off the Kashmiri, Muslim, would-be nationalists?
And the answer is, at best...maybe.
(No, China is simply not a factor.) - JJJACKSON1
JJJACKSON1, you are one sick puppy.
On one hand you said, China is not factor in any of dispute between India & Pak, then you launched triad on China threat to America & supposedly hostility to India yet to be demonstrated, then proclaimed India automatically is morally superior for hosting Dalai Lama against China, and everyone must concede to whatever India demanded.
This is why Nothing in this world will ever resolve the India & Pakistan dispute except two principals involved, because no one from outside can settle equitably and fairly among two parties concerned. Anyone trying to bring outsider for any kind of leverage is doomed to fail.
China provided aids to Pakistan as friend and a conduit of goodwill to Muslim world and gateway to Middle east, and already stated long time ago, any dispute can only be settled peacefully between two parties.
India continuously maligned China of hostile intent to India and hyped threat of China against America for whatever leverage - begging few pittance of Americans handouts. Shame!
Afghanistan is not a United State to give
What does the US have in Afghanistan? Tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors who can't even provide basic security. A puppet government which is disloyal even to its master. An impoverished, tormented, fragmented population, rebels, insurgents. A state destroyed by aggressive warfare and occupation.
"All of this could be yours, my dear Pakistan, for the staggeringly low price of abandoning a region you consider your core, giving in to your worst enemy, reversing all of your policies and dealing with the massive unrest all this would cause. Oh, by the way, we are out of here in a few years, so we can offer no guarantees either. What's not to love?"
"Tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors who can't even provide basic security. A puppet (civilian)government which (has to answer to its armed forces). An impoverished, tormented, fragmented population, rebels, insurgents. A state destroyed by aggressive warfare and occupation(Kashmir)." Just about sums up Pakistan give or take a few points!
"abandoning a region you consider your core, giving in to your worst enemy, reversing all of your policies and dealing with the massive unrest all this would cause. Kashmir is not Pakistan's to abandon! Pakistan's policies, interests, strategic goals etc does not matter especailly when it is a threat to world peace and order. Pakistan is a basket case of a nation in the first place, dependent on American largesse and charity, tries to be the tail that wags the American or should it be the World dog. Its time Pakistan is cut to size!
Actually, there's no need for a grand bargain at this point. Maybe several years ago, but we're on a good trajectory now.
Assuming the US pullout happens on track, with maybe a small force left in place, what are the possible outcomes ? Pak-backed insurgency, with the ANA in no position to deal with it. But India, Russia and Iran have had the last 10 years to build up the northern areas. So it will be a long drawn out stalemate.
Who suffers in such a scenario ? The Af people first, and Pak second. The jihadist culture will continue, Peshawar will again become a Kalashnikov wild west, and an alphabet soup of jihadists will fight not just Af gov, but the Pak state as well.
Rationally, such an outcome will not benefit the Pak people, but that has never stopped the Pak shadow state, so the odds are that they will continue to engage in adventurism in Af after the US departs.
The important thing is to recognize that the worst case outcomes after the US departure are bad only for the Af people and the Pak people. Without wanting to sound callous about it, superpowers can afford a few stalemates. In any case, it was primarily a punitive raid, and even though this makes western liberals uncomfortable, the rest of the world completely understands the concept. The US went in, tried to prop up an unpopular government, no go, hence egg on face. But we threw out the Taliban in a few weeks, shot OBL and dumped him in the ocean, so we're even, and emphasized the message, don't f*** with a superpower. That was really what it was about.
Dont f**k with a superpower or we'll bankrupt ourselves in the poorest country on earth to prove our point.
>>>we'll bankrupt ourselves
The best response to this is Krauthammer's article on the 10 th anniversary of 9/11
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276694/911-overreaction-nonsense-charles-krauthammer
"
but these exertions have bankrupted the country and led to our current mood of despair and decline.
Rubbish. The total costs of “the two wars” is $1.3 trillion. That’s less than one eleventh of the national debt, less than one year of Obama deficit spending. During the golden Eisenhower 1950s of robust economic growth averaging 5 percent annually, defense spending was 11 percent of GDP and 60 percent of the federal budget. Today, defense spending is 5 percent of GDP and 20 percent of the budget. So much for imperial overstretch.
Yes, we are approaching bankruptcy. But this has as much to do with the War on Terror as do sunspots. Looming insolvency comes not from our shrinking defense budget but from the explosion of entitlements. They devour nearly half the federal budget.
"
Entitlements have been around almost a century. war on terror has been around for ten. We were fine before 9/11. War on terror cost more than 1.3. Its cost more than 5. Include newly formed homeland security, afghan AND iraq war, lifetime medical benefits for 30,000 injured troops, supporting the families of dead soldiers, and interest. Its well over 5 of the 15 trillion we owe. They dont call it the graveyard of empires cuz its a cute name
By the way a trillion dollar economy with a billion people doesnt make you an economic juggernaut. You guys need to stop playing up India. China's economy is 5 times the size and even they are quite behind. They also buy all their weapons from Russia and produce almost nothing. Turkey will be a more powerful country in 20 years
I was surprised to read this article from a couple of experts on South Asia. To me the proposal sounds like wishful thinking.
The army in Pakistan has a stranglehold on the country. While Nawaz Sharif makes noises from time to time that question the army's pre-eminence, I doubt that any combination of political parties and civic society can pry real power from the Pakistan army's grasp. The only real contender is the extremist fringe backed by a section of the armed forces. This means a veritable civil war.
I see it inevitable that the US will withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, but will keep offshore flotilla and onshore bases in the "stan's" to keep an eye on Afghanistan. The Afghan government will cede power over time to a host of militias and regionally to Pakistani proxies. Russia, Iran, and India will fish in these troubled waters as well. The US will rain down missiles on groups that it deems to be a threat to its interests, as well as carry out special forces raids.
If the US cuts aid to Pakistan, the nation state will crumble. I suspect that Pakistan will continue to run with the foxes and the hounds and the strige in AfPak will continue for the rest of this decade.
Dont forget the taliban were considered freedom fighters against russia but savage, repressive terrorist against the US
Over the course of her career, Ms. Schaffer has proven to be one of the most knowledgeable American scholars about South Asia. Therefore, it comes as a big surprise to me that she has written an extensive proposal that rests on the weakest of legs - the trustworthiness of the Pakistani military. If the Pakistanis were trustworthy, they would not have needed the airlift from Kunduz, they would have sealed Tora Bora, they would shut down the Quetta Shura, shut down LeT, and not let Osama bin Laden build a three story house within a stone's throw from a military academy. They have done none of this. So how can Ms. Schaffer possibly believe that the Pakistani Army will be a reliable partner is some regional Grand Bargain?
The US is more unpopular in Pakistan today than even India! Go figure.
How did this happen? How come no heads ever roll in the American foreign policy establishment despite repeated policy failures in South Asia? What credibility do the Schaffers have in suggesting grand bargains anyway? Like other leading lights on matters South Asian, have they not always kept a finger in the wind?
If American analysts are openly calling for the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir to be converted to an international border, it must be desperate times indeed. This option was available 60 years ago. Why was it not adopted?
The answer is simple. Pakistan is to South Asia what Taiwan is to Southeast Asia--namely the West's hedge against the big kahuna of each region. What prevents peace from breaking out between Pakistan and India? Is Kashmir the root cause of hostilities, or a symptom? During the cold war paying lip-service to Pakistan’s claims on Kashmir was how America paid off its client diplomatically. I doubt American analysts really ever believed that Kashmir was the “core” issue between the two countries. It was just a convenient talking point to keep India on the defensive. Mr. Fai’s (head of the Kashmiri American Council, in the pay of the ISI) recent arrest is indicative that the United States never took Pakistan’s narrative on Kashmir too seriously.
The fundamental unresolved matter in South Asia is this, “how will Muslims and non-Muslims live with one another?” This question has been asked many times in that part of the world, and to which many answers have been given. The latest answer, upon which Pakistan is founded, is the two-nation theory (TNT), which by its very design and content can only lead to implacable hostility between Muslims and Hindus, and other non-Muslim faiths as well. What is it that the Kashmiri Muslim cannot have in a democratic India that he feels he can either as part of Pakistan, or in an independent Kashmir? The answer is Sharia, plain and simple. No, he cannot have Sharia in India, which is why expulsion of Hindus from the Kashmir Valley, the only Muslim majority portion of the state of Jammu and Kashmir under Indian control, was such a high priority.
If India, Pakistan, and the United States need to talk, it is about Pakistan’s transformation into a more tolerant, democratic country. Kashmir would then automatically resolve itself in due course. But, I’m afraid Pakistan has gone too far down the fundamentalist road for the TNT to be repudiated nonviolently.
Which is why seeking a grand bargain will go nowhere. While India does not seek the destruction of Pakistan, it does seek the destruction of the TNT, as it must. The US did not rest until communist ideology was defeated since this ideology was at such complete odds with America's political beliefs. Imagine people of Mexican descent in the US declaring themselves to be a separate nation from Anglos. What will follow? Territorial disputes (California?), and implacable hostility between Anglos and Mexicans. This is what happened in South Asia.
The Schaffers' cynical grand-bargain idea is ultimately about preserving the West's hedge in South Asia, not peace. India will not play until Pakistan repudiates the TNT and everything that implies.
Perhaps, its time for a geographic makeover http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
(60)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE