APRIL 3 , 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 13

B.K. Bangash/AP Will a future Sharif get together with a Vajpayee?

V I E W P O I N T
What Clinton Didn't See
The U.S. President leaves behind a subcontinent on the brink of war
By APARISIM GHOSH

There is delight in Delhi, disappointment in Islamabad and despondence in Kashmir as Bill Clinton returns home from South Asia. The American President takes with him a suitcase full of souvenirs and a sense of relief at having survived the diplomatic mine fields of what he called "the most dangerous place in the world today." It was, in retrospect, relatively easy: all he had to do was avoid suggesting to his Indian hosts that they should seek mediation in their interminable dispute with Pakistan over the divided state of Kashmir. (Indians regard outside help as unnecessary; Pakistanis see it as essential; Kashmiris view it as the only way to peace.) Ever eager to please the largest number of people possible, the President declared he had no intention of playing peace broker, and he didn't recommend anyone else for the job.

As a result, Clinton leaves the subcontinent an even more dangerous place than he found it. Delhi's rulers, so busy congratulating themselves on having kept America's nose out of their affairs, will now be under little pressure to change their policies on Kashmir, never mind that these have failed to win any hearts, minds or territory in more than a decade. Pakistan had already painted itself into a corner by rebuffing Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's peace initiative in early 1999 and pinning its hopes on U.S. mediation. Now that those hopes have been dashed, Islamabad's generals and the extremist Islamic groups they patronize will no doubt feel obliged to "liberate" Kashmir by other means--their very existence depends on it.

ALSO IN TIME COVER: Referendum on Reform Though he himself isn't running, President Kim Dae Jung is at the center of a parliamentary election that may determine whether he can continue his liberal economic policies • Extended Interview: Kim on politics, North Korea and the Net • Censorship: A new tolerance is bringing sex into the arts • Viewpoint: A writer warns of a national authoritarian streak SOUTH ASIA: Mission Impossible During a colorful visit, Bill Clinton wins kudos for diplomacy but is muted on the region's most critical issue, Kashmir • Eyewitness: A massacre stuns a Sikh village • Viewpoint: The President should have pressed for peace TAIWAN: Tectonic Shift While Beijing seems to be taking Chen Shui-bian's victory in stride, the Kuomintang struggles to keep from falling apart • Viewpoint: A tale of two presidents CINEMA: This Fighter Can Act Chinese action star Jet Li is ready to conquer Hollywood • Books: Rebel Son Assimilation's woes in a sprightly first novel TRAVEL WATCH: How You Can Get Those Airline Upgrades ESSAY: History Comes Tumbling Down

If we're all very lucky, they will confine themselves to attempts at land-grabbing, like the one that led to the 10-week border battle in Kargil last summer. There will be more attacks like the one that killed 35 Sikh villagers near Srinagar last week. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of soldiers and innocents will die on both sides, each casualty taking the subcontinent further away from a chance of lasting peace. If we're not lucky, there will be a war. Reports from both countries suggest the rival armies are readying for a "limited" confrontation involving only conventional weapons. But many military analysts say this could all too easily spiral into a nuclear exchange. And if history is any judge, that, too, will end without a clear resolution of the Kashmir issue.

Could Clinton have stopped this deadly chain reaction from starting? On balance, probably not--although, as Leader of the Free World, he might have been expected at least to try. One constructive suggestion he could have made is precisely the one India doesn't want to hear: that when two countries have proven incapable of resolving an issue after 53 years, they obviously need a disinterested broker. Nor does the U.S. President have the leverage in Islamabad that his predecessors enjoyed: General Pervez Musharraf won't even countenance Washington's polite suggestion that he curb the activities of Islamic extremists who use Pakistan as a base to attack Indian-held Kashmir.

Can the two countries pull back from the brink? Yes, but that will require acts of supreme statesmanship from Vajpayee and Musharraf. The Indian Prime Minister showed it could be done when he hopped on a bus and went to Lahore in February 1999 to meet his Pakistani counterpart at the time, Mohammed Nawaz Sharif. With that one grand gesture, Vajpayee swept away years of bickering over where and how the dialogue should begin. For the first time in more than two decades, it seemed the two countries could build a bridge over their ancient animosity. But then came Kargil, and the chasm opened again, wider than ever.

Does Vajpayee, who felt betrayed by the Kargil incursion, have it in him to make an even bolder leap of faith? Does Musharraf? Both men know their countries must put Kashmir behind them, and quickly: India, to free its political, diplomatic and financial resources for the much more pressing task of lifting 300 million people up from below the poverty line; Pakistan, to return to the unfinished business of building a stable nation. If the leaders of the two countries won't listen to an American President, perhaps they might be persuaded by the best interests of their peoples.

If not, in the months ahead, Delhi's delight will turn into dismay, Islamabad's disapointment into desperation. Only Kashmir's despondence will remain unchanged.

Write to TIME at mail@web.timeasia.com