Beyond Incrementalism: Rethinking Approaches to CBMs and Stability in South Asia

Toby Dalton Other Publications January 30, 2013 Stimson Center

Summary

India and Pakistan need more than incremental steps toward peace and stability in South Asia—they must also make symbolic leaps.

Related Topics

Nuclear Weapons

Full text

In December 2011, and again in December 2012, Indian and Pakistani government experts met to discuss confidence building measures (CBMs) on nuclear and conventional military issues. At both meetings, the atmospherics were “cordial and constructive;” officials from each side conveyed their commitment to uphold past agreements and to consider additional measures. Predictably, though, the meetings produced no new agreements or any other signs of progress toward reducing long-standing tensions, neither side willing to take significant risks to move beyond the current framework. One Pakistani analyst described the talks as “reflect[ing] the overall bilateral state of play rather than being a catalyst for change.” This assessment aptly sums up the dilemma of how to pursue peace and stability in South Asia: incremental steps, designed to build trust in small bites rather than big leaps, have indeed not produced stability nor been a “catalyst for change,” yet no viable alternative approach appears to be on the table.

For over twenty-five years, India and Pakistan have sought to negotiate and implement measures to avoid conflict, reduce military tensions, improve economic ties and build the confidence necessary to normalize their relationship and, eventually, to resolve disputes like that over the territory of Kashmir that are fundamental to a lasting peace. These efforts accelerated after 1998, when the danger of military escalation took on new importance once both nations openly tested nuclear weapons and declared themselves nuclear powers. Perhaps the crowning achievement of bilateral diplomacy to institutionalize such measures was the 1999 Lahore Summit and the Composite Dialogue process that resulted. But the reality of these measures has never matched the promise.

Dalton is the deputy director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. An expert on nonproliferation and nuclear energy, his research focuses on cooperative nuclear security initiatives and the management of nuclear challenges in South Asia and East Asia.

Toby Dalton

Deputy Director
Nuclear Policy Program

More from this author...

Efforts by Pakistan and India to establish and sustain an incremental process of building stability seem to follow a predictable and cyclical pattern. The need of both parties to find means to scale back tensions during crisis or conflict, and in recent decades to assure the international community that they are responsible stewards of nuclear weapons, has tended to yield agreement on ending hostilities as well as on vague principles for resolving broader issues. As Feroz Khan has observed, “every major treaty or CBM between these countries has its origin in crisis resolution.” The 1972 Simla Agreement, for instance, both concluded the hostilities in East Pakistan and established a line of control in Kashmir. But if these agreements managed the immediate termination of conflict or crisis, they have not resolved or even greatly attenuated the underlying sources of tension. As such, once the fanfare surrounding each agreement faded and international concerns were mollified, implementation lagged. At times, the dialogue and CBM process broke down completely, or it simply sputtered along pro forma. After some months or years, another crisis arrived and undid whatever progress and momentum toward stability might have existed. Thereafter the cycle began anew. Incremental CBMs have not led to peace, and neither have moments of stability been consolidated by further steps. This rather desultory history was adeptly captured by Dennis Kux in the subtitle of a recent work on this subject: for India-Pakistan negotiations “is past still prologue?”

The most glaring exception to this cycle is the Lahore summit, which created profound but momentary hope that a new course could be charted, based on a fundamental change in the terms of the Indo-Pakistan relationship. The reason that this summit, more than any other event in the nearly seventy years of bilateral relations between the two, raised hopes to new levels is that it comprised not just talk but also several symbolic acts by the leaders of both countries, acts which addressed directly and forcefully the aspirations and fears of people on both sides of the border. This symbolism seemed to augur new potential for peace and stability in a way not previously captured by treaties and other CBMs.

Today, the prevailing expert sentiment is that incremental CBMs remain the best hope for ending this cycle of crisis and mistrust. Despite a mixed record of success for this approach, it is common in track II fora to hear calls for a “Lahore II” in order to recapture and extend the gains made through CBMs in 1999. But the idea of a second Lahore agreement based only on small advances seems to miss what made that summit unique: a process that surrounds such increments with major symbolic and risky steps taken by the leaders of both countries. This essay explores the notion of incremental and symbolic steps and the prospect that these can produce a different trajectory in Indo-Pakistani relations, one characterized by sustained stability rather than a cycle of crisis, momentary progress, then stasis. Focusing in particular on the Lahore Summit, it assesses the record of incremental CBMs, mainly in the political-military sphere. Second, it discusses the symbolic component: high-visibility, leadership-driven, risk-laden measures—like the “leap of trust” taken by Prime Ministers Sharif and Vajpayee at Lahore in 1999. It weighs the considerable hurdles that stand in the way of progress, and then concludes with an argument for a new approach to stabilize relations between Pakistan and India based on a mix of small increments complemented by big, symbolic leaps that can establish a new baseline for relations. If there is one lesson to be distilled from past practices in South Asia it is that faster incremental progress can be facilitated by sustained, high-level political involvement reinforced by symbolic acts. Without such high-level involvement, there seems little prospect that these antagonists can break out of the cyclical crises that frustrate progress toward peace.

Comments (1)

Sort by: Date Posted | Recommended

Email Updates

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article. Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Screen Name Email Address* (Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Subscribe

Anjaan February 5, 2013 10:26 PM
An ill timed and insensitive article, that advocates big leap to replace incremental steps between India and Pakistan, at a time, when Pakistan is facing the blow back form its home grown terrorism, and dragging its feet to honor Indian demand of taking concrete actions against the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre ...... !

Tweet

Recommend

Reply to this post

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.) Screen Name
(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Characters Used

Close Panel

Comment Policy

Report Abuse

Source: http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/01/30/beyond-incrementalism-rethinking-approaches-to-cbms-and-stability-in-south-asia/fa25

More from The Global Think Tank

Stimson Center

The Non-Unitary Model And Deterrence Stability In South Asia

Summary Deterrence stability is a better framework for conceptualizing and redressing the nuclear challenge in South Asia than focusing on preventing "loose nukes" and nuclear terrorism. More >

Understanding the Arms "Race" in South Asia

Summary India and Pakistan are entangled in a long-standing security competition, but they are chasing vastly different goals—and certainly aren't locked in an arms race. More >

Excerpt from The Rise of the Indian Navy

India's Aspirational Naval Doctrine

Summary The Indian Navy has had to grapple for years with receiving only a meager portion of the nation's defense budget. More >

January 31, 2013 Washington, D.C.

Twenty Years of Transformation in South Asia

Summary The “Twenty Years of Transformation in South Asia” conference will examine developments within the region and in the role of South Asian states on the global scene. It will mark the official launch of the Carnegie South Asia Program. More >

Twitter

@CarnegieEndow

In Fact

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

million people killed

in Cold War conflicts.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

new airports

are set to be built in China by 2015.

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

million Russian citizens

are considered “ethnic Muslims.”

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840 Contact By Email

Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站，进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Regions

Countries