Pakistan's best bet is probably soft borders

OP-ED: How partnering with the U.S. could strengthen Pakistan's sovereignty, By David Ignatius, Washington Post, December 17, 2009

Ignatius is usually one of the smartest thinkers around, but I tend to doubt the goal here of Pakistan accomplishing that which it has never really accomplished before: serious subjugation of the Pashtun belt.

In the end, Islamabad does not see enough "strategic depth" in this path.

I guess I'd rather see a path whereby Pakistan proper (the Punjab section on the Indian or southeastern side) remains confident to embrace globalization, having made its peace with its non-states-within-a-state portions (Pashtun, Baluch). Of course, that path would likely require, in combination, Musharraf's concept of the soft border across the Kashmir.

Complex, I know, because you have to get India to accept the soft border on the Kashmir to get the Punjab portion of Pakistan to accept the same regarding the Pashtun (arguably, along with an Afghanistan that does the same with its Pashtun south). But I've seen what intransigence on both sides has accomplished to date in the Kashmir (nothing), so why push the Pakistanis to pick the second fight in addition, hoping that will lead to stability and a "real" nation?

(Thanks: Jeffrey Itell)

Comments

[Petrer]

Pakistan's ONLY bet is soft borders. The obsession (separate from legitimate, contextual criticism) with Israel in the UN is due to what I have been saying before, a Kurdistan semi-state is ok, an Israel is a NO NO!...let alone any truly independent Lebanon or Palestine!

It isn't because always they're jews! it is not always antisemitism, it is not because the Palestinians don't deserve their country, it is a (sometimes legitimate) fear of ethnic empowerment!