[R-P] Fw: [A-List] Kashmir CORRECTED

[Julio Fernández Baraibar]

Este es un interesantísimo artículo de Chalmers Johnson, enviado
porAndre Gunder Frank a una lista de la que formo parte.
Creo que pone una interesante luz sobre la peligrosisima situación que
se vive en la frontera entre Pakistán y la India y cuya responsabilidad
atribuye a "la irresponsable política norteamericana". Quizás Pablo lo
quiera traducir.

Julio Fernández Baraibar.
julfb en sinectis.com.ar

>

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:19:47 -0700
> From: Chalmers Johnson <chaljohnson en mindspring.com>
> To: Andre Gunder Frank <franka en fiu.edu>
> Subject: Kashmir
>
>
>
> THE THREAT OF INDO-PAK NUCLEAR  WAR BLOWBACK & FALLOUT:
> IRRESPONSIBLE U.S. POLICY HAD AMPLE WARNING not  TO PROVOKE IT
>
> The present threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India is the
direct
> responsibility of irresponsible provocation by the Bush
Administration.
>
> Whatever were the remote and immediate causes of previous
Indo-Pakistani
> wars over Kashmir, the present nuclear threat must be laid at the door
of
> Washington, which did everything it could to provoke it and almost
nothing
> to prevent it. Plenty of warnings were available to abort the US
policies
> that would inevitably lead to the present impasse. The most visible of
> these policies have been the overt political ones, but they also
include
> the as ever US economic policies that fail to alleviate but further
deepen
> the economic crisis in both Pakistan and India as part of the present
> world economic crisis.
>
> It was US pressure on Pakistani President Musharraf to become a puppet
> instrument of US rhetorically ''anti-terrorist'' but real world
> aggressively geo-political economic policy in Afghanistan and Central
Asia
> that defined and limited Musharraf's present options.  The Pakistani
> president was obliged by the Bush administration to turn against and
even
> betray extreme and not so extreme Muslim elements in the American
CIA's
> client ISI Pakistani secret service and military as well as in the
> socio-political [dis]order in general. That had to deepen the divide
and
> heighten the tension within the Pakistani socio-political/military
> establishment and society in general.
>
> As a result of that US policy, three possible but not mutually
exclusive
> short-run scenarios and their derivatives now present themselves in
South
> Asia:
>
> 1A. Musharraf's political options are now reduced and confined to
> continuing his anti-Muslim clamp-down AND giving at least the
appearance
> of NOT doing so excessively and especially NOT doing so at the behest
of
> the US and even less so of India.  That requires a now even more
> pro-active stance and praxis regarding the ever present Kashmir issue.
> Moreover, many Taliban and al-Qaeda activists that were previously
> confined to Afghanistan have now been chased out by the US and spread
> through Pakistan and probably Kashmir. That is the direct result of
> irresponsible US policy.
>
> 1B. Reduced political room for maneuver in Pakistan in turn increases
the
> political bargaining power and its use by the Government of India.
That
> India is also a victim of economic crisis and has a Hindu nationalist
and
> fundamentalist BJP government in Delhi and an even more so state
> government in Gujarat, which has responded by deliberately organizing
the
> recent anti-Muslim pogroms with over 1,000 victims, provides the
> background. Moreover, recent electoral alliance and voter setbacks at
home
> now make patriotic diversions abroad more attractive for the BJP
> government. A more aggressive Kashmir and anti-Pakistan policy in
India
> and a corresponding response by Pakistan is the immediate result -
with
> 200,000 troops facing each other on the border, 2 million troops
behind
> them, and rattling the nuclear saber by both sides. That is the direct
> result of US policy.
>
> 2A. President Musharraf is assassinated; the US looses its ''man in
> Islamabad;'' Pakistan looses its present stabilizing force or symbol;
and
> blame is or is shifted onto Muslim ''fundamentalists.'' All Hell
Breaks
> Lose.  Although always possible, that is now more likely as a blowback
> result of US policy.
>
> 2B. Supporters of Musharraf try to save the present STATE of affairs
by
> wholesale crack-down on Muslim nationalist/fundamentalists at home -
with
> even more aggressive anti-Indian policies abroad to buy off some of
the
> Muslim opposition at home. The already sufficiently dangerous
situation
> provoked by American irresponsibility becomes even more dangerous.
>
> 2C leads to 3. The Pakistani state is split down the middle, with the
army
> divided and most of ISI re-aligned against the pro-Musharraf forces,
and
> general socio-political caos. US policy is not the only, but now is a
> primary cause of such developments.
>
> 3A.  Via scenario # 2, or even without it, the present regime is
> overthrown and replaced by a more militant Muslim/nationalist one -
with
> nuclear arms at its disposal- that escalates the Indo-Pakistani
conflict
> still more -- if that is then still possible.  That would also
embolden a
> Hindu nationalist BJP government and its supporters in India still
more to
> go after its own Muslims who number more than those in all of Pakistan
and
> could be cast as its 5th column in India itself.  All that would be a
> direct blowback result of US policy.
>
> 3B.  The United States implements already existing military exercises
to
> try to '' take out'' the Pakistani nukes, by destroying them or moving
> them to China or Russia [or Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan]. That IS US
policy,
> but it may not work; and the political consequences may be too
horrendous
> to foresee. Moreover, the participation in this drama of Russia and
China
> are as yet unclear, except as 3C.
>
> 3C. Instead of only TWO nuclear states mobilized against each other in
> South Asia, Eurasia then has FIVE of them actively involved in
Eurasia,
> since Pakistani ally China and Indian ally Russia could also mobilize,
as
> well as the US itself. Is that what US policy wants?  Or is it an only
> ''unintended'' but a certainly foreseeable blowback of irresponsible
US
> policy in Asia.
>
> 4.  Simultaneous sharpening of other political flash-points that are
also
> the direct result of unconscionable US policy is proceeding  certainly
in
> Israel-Palestine, will probably result in the replacement of the US
puppet
> regime in Saudi Arabia and maybe in Egypt, and the insanely aggressive
US
> policy towards Iraq and other Arab states can only aggravate the world
> political situation.  Instead of trying to reduce the sources of
political
> desperation or even taking the wind out of the socio-political support
for
> those who are already desperate, the US continues and aggravates the
> policies that have already generated and are now escalating  terrorism
> against its interests and citizens.  The possible repercussions to any
and
> all of these are incalculable, but ALL ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF
> IRRESPONSIBLE US POLICY.
>
> #5. Aggravation of the present world economic crisis, now already
visible
> in all parts of the world, may still result in a fundamental change in
the
> world economic position and policy of the United States.  For the time
> being, and ever since the mid 1980s when it changed from being the
world's
> biggest creditor to becoming its biggest debtor and especially during
the
> 'boom' of the 1990s, the United States is till running a global PONZI
> SCHEME, in which its liquidity and credit depends on the continued
giant
> vacuum cleaner absorbtion of new credit capital to service the ever
> growing service, not to mention principal, of its accumulated past
debts,
> which now amount to almost double its GDP.  These debts are most
> importantly to foreigners who have bought US treasury certificates
from
> Washington and invested in stocks , or worse their derivatives, in
Wall
> Street.  However, US corporate, household and consumer debt have also
> continued to rise with so far no limit in sight except the always
existing
> and ever greater threat new capital will one day cease to flow into
the
> US, thus making it impossible to re-finance the old debt.  And of
course,
> they higher that Ponzi house of cards pyramid continues to be built
up,
> the greater its crash if and when it comes.  For then, the cessation
of
> capital inflow must generate a rapid flight capital outflow from the
US,
> as it did from other areas that had 'enjoyed' earlier speculative
capital
> inflows.
>
> The ONLY RESPONSE POSSIBLE will be to DEFAULT on much of the
> debt owed across and within US borders - with disaterous
> consequences all around.  But that can and would be done in
> a variety of ways or combinations thereof: simple wipe out of stock
> values, a sharp increase of printed or credit-created US dollars both
to
> meet demand for the same and to devalue the debt by inflating out of
it.
> Or the free-trade and open-market apostle that the US claims to be
will
> impose controls on capital outflow abroad and limitations on capital
> transfers and the use of bank deposits at home- also following other
> countries whom US policy has already forced into situations that gave
them
> no other choice, as now spectacularly so in Argentina.  All would
result
> in FALL IN THE US DOLLAR'S VALUE.  That would also spell the end of
the US
> role as the world's consumer of last resort.
>
> Before a dollar confidence and supply crisis becomes that acute, a
number
> of possible measures could pave the way and result already in a
decline of
> the dollar, which then at any moment could turn into an abrupt fall.
All
> of these eventualities should also be considered as potential
political
> economic blowbacks to recent and still current irresponsible US
policy.
> Among them are:
> - Japan's banking crisis obliges Japanese to withdraw money invested
in
> the US and bring it home to shore up their exposed positions there
> - China devalues, becomes still more competitive in the
> world market, and forces other Asian producers into still more
precarious
> financial positions and corresponding defensive policies
> - Europeans transfer their international currency reserves from the US
> dollar into the Euro
> - Others decide to do the same
> - OPEC decides to re-price its oil exports in Euros instead of
dollars, or
> even in a basket of currencies including both or maybe even the
Chinese yen,
> and/or
> - OPEC countries individually or collectively decide to place and keep
> [some of] their earnings in Euros, especially if they are priced in
> that currency, but even if they are not.But if the dollar exchange
> becomes  costly, te rational thing to do will be to price out of the
> dollar to begin with.
> - Somebody/anybody gets upset at yet another outrageous US
policy/praxis,
> and out of fright or spite decides to try to put their money in a
safer
> haven than the US.  Depending on who does that when and how, it could
> trigger a run on the 'US BANK'.
>
> To appreciate the seriousness of any and all of these very possible
> scenarios, it is important to realize that US economic 'strength'
really
> is based on a world wide Ponzi Scheme House of Cards whose essential
> element is that the US can print US dollar world currency, and nobody
else
> can.  However, the opposite side of that dollar coin is that this
dollar
> supply and demand is the ONLY ECONOMIC STRENGTH THE US NOW HAS.  The
> importance of US TNIs, industrial and agricultural productivity, high
> tech, education and all pale in the shadow of the DOLLAR.  The other
> pillar of US strength is the Pentagon, which claims already to be
> encumbered by lack of dollars.  However, the deployment of Pentagon
forces
> abroad is dependent on having highly valued dollars abroad with which
to
> buy national currencies to defray local costs of bases, supplies,
> deployments and other military expenses.  So the strength of the
Pentagon
> is in part dependent on the strength of the dollar - and vice versa
[see
> A.G. Frank we-page on 'US Economic Overstretch and Hegemonic political
> military blowback?]. Their hand in hand decline, in the face of
present
> official [and popular?] hubris overconfidence, could spell
incalculable
> political costs at home and abroad.
>
> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS DOING ALL IT CAN TO PROMOTE
> SUCH BLOWBACK DISASTER AT HOME AND ABROAD AND NOTHING TO PROTECT
> THE SECURITY OF AMERICAN - LET ALONE OTHER COUNTRIES'- CITIZENS.
> --
> Japan Policy Research Institute
> 2138 Via Tiempo
> Cardiff, CA 92007 USA
> Tel (760) 944-3950
> Fax (760) 944-9022
> Email: chaljohnson en mindspring.com, chaljohnson en jpri.org
> Web: www.jpri.org
>
>
>
>
>