CENTRAL ASIA

NAVNITA CHADHA BEHERA, Brookings Institution Visiting Fellow, January 10, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What potential roles do you see China playing in the disputes between India and Pakistan?
BEHERA: China has changed its policy post Kargil affair and now is taking the line that it’s a bilateral issue and both countries should sort it out on the negotiating table.

TIMOTHY HOYT, Georgetown University Center for Peace and Studies Research Fellow, January 23, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: If the U.S. were to attempt to bring all parties together for negotiations, is there the respect on all sides to allow our government to so act? More important, what are possible solutions to such issues as settling the difficulties in Kashmir? Could dual or joint governing systems work there? What exactly are possible compromises that would end or significantly reduce conflicts?
HOYT: According to the Simla Accords signed after India’s military victory in the 1971 war, the Kashmir issue must be resolved bilaterally. India would almost certainly reject any adherence to the U.N. resolutions of 1949 because it believes Simla supersedes them. Even if India did, it is doubtful that Pakistan would be willing to withdraw its troops from the portion of Kashmir it controls, which is one of the measures necessary to allow a Kashmiri referendum. Neither state supports Kashmiri independence, which many Kashmiri separatists and politicians favor. The most likely solution would probably involve extending the current line of control as the international border between the two countries, with additional agreement son border crossing, local autonomy, and other local political arrangements---particularly for the largely Muslim Vale of Kashmir. I don’t know exactly what those arrangements would be, but I suspect that tensions would have to substantially decreased before either side could come to anything like a permanent agreement.

ROBERT G. KAISER, Washington Post Associate Editor, August 27, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Which countries in your recent visit do you believe have the more stable governments? Which governments do you see as better moving towards democratic principles? What could cause further economic and political instability in that region?
KAISER” On the surface, all the governments, except maybe in Krygystan, look stable. But that outward appearance isn’t the last word. When any government doesn’t enjoy the expressed support of an unfettered electorate, it’s liable to prove unstable in a crisis.
Ironically, there’s more evidence of independent institutions and a democratic mentality in Krygstan than in any of the others. But you can’t give any of them credit for really moving anywhere near our brand of democracy.
Poverty and pent-up political emotions are both potential sources of instability.

MARY ANN WEAVER, The New Yorker Foreign Correspondent, October 31, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: What do you believe the United States government should do to best bring peace between Pakistan and India? Many have criticized American aide for being too focused on military objectives and not towards improving lives. What do you believe would be the most valuable things America could do for Pakistan?
WEAVER: In thinking in the context of India and Pakistan, the most valuable thing the U.S. could do is become involved. The dispute of Kashmir is a dispute that is more than a half century old. It is a dispute born on Indo-Pakistani independence 55 years ago. Until recent days one million Indian and Pakistani troops faced each other across the line of control in Kashmir. Kashmir, as Clinton said two years ago, is and was “the most dangerous place in the world”. Indian and Pakistan have gone to war three times---twice over Kashmir—and that is before they gained nuclear weapons. The U.S. and the Western world has simply never engaged with India and Pakistan over Kashmir. There are dozens of U.N. resolutions calling for, among other things, a referendum in Kashmir, which have lain dormant in most cases since 1948. The United States and Britain are now reprimanding the U.N. and Saddam Hussein for non-compliance for U.N. resolutions. Why is the same formula not being applied to Kashmir? These people must talk! There is an extremely volatile and dangerous dispute. This has gone on for far too long.

GREG MORTENSON, Central Asia Institute Director, March 24, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Where did you conduct more of your fundraising for the schools (his institute built in Afghanistan and Pakistan) and was there any discussion during the fundraising as to whether the school would exclude or include training is Islamic fundamentalism?
MORTENSON: Most of the funding for our school is from USA, from private contributions (mostly $10-$500 contributions). We have never received any Federal funding, and only about 4% of our funding comes from corporations or foundations.
Islamic studies is required as part of the curriculum in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we have to comply with government regulations, so we do have 2-3 hours per week of Islamic studies in our schools.