- guardian.co.uk, Sunday June 9 2002 02.43 BST
But other observers were hoping that talk of war might turn to diplomacy and peace. Most observers agreed with Pakistan's Dawn that the failure of Prime Minister Vajpayee and General Musharraf to even meet face to face at the 16 nation Asian security summit at Almaty was a lost opportunity. But which side was to blame for missing the chance for peace? Dawn reflected a Pakistani consensus that stubborn India was wilfully ignoring Pakistan's concrete efforts at curbing religious extremism. The Indian press made familiar demands for Musharraf to do much more, arguing that he had not categorically given up support for terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.
The innovative Indian news website Tehelka noted the futility of these ritual exchanges and then joined in anyway. But before arguing that, despite American pressure, both leaders might well prefer conflict to peace, given the potential political cost of losing face: "After Richard Armitage and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld leave, there could be a short, silly, dirty war intended to shore up the sinking political fortunes of Vajpayee and Musharraf."
The mood in New Delhi was largely belligerent. The political catchphrase of the hour is 'coercive diplomacy'. The Times of India feared the risks of such high stakes poker, arguing that its all-or-nothing nature renders it fatally flawed. "Back in Delhi, the Americans are packing their bags. This could yet be the Yanks' equivalent of the Indian rope trick, but you'd never know for sure. There's simply no algorithm to tell who is bluffing whom". But the Indian Express was among those more comfortable with encouraging old-fashioned brinkmanship in the nuclear age, arguing that India was best placed to win this 'game of chicken'.
International engagement. A result of the various international meetings was the offer by the UN, the US, Britain and others to monitor the Line of Control. Prime Minister Vajpayee argued that the issue was solely bilateral and once again proposed a joint Indo-Pakistan patrol team. While this was welcomed by some as a softening of India's hardline stance, the majority on both sides felt it was wishful thinking to suppose that there would not be squabbles along every metre of the Line given the level of suspicion. Najam Sethi's editorial in Pakistan's Friday Times saw a different agenda: 'if Pakistan were to accept joint border patrols along the LoC, India could argue that the LoC has been de facto treated like an international border, implying thereby that Kashmir is a part of India and the struggle in Kashmir is illegitimate.'
The Hindustan Times argued that much more attention should have been paid to the findings of a MORI poll that 61% of Jammu and Kashmir residents wanted the state to stay as part of India. The paper undertook a lengthy analysis however, claiming that the survey 'has destroyed every preconception on which Pakistan's policy in Kashmir has been based. For good measure it has also trashed some of the deeply held but unspoken premises of Indian policy towards that unhappy state", but it received relatively little attention either locally or abroad.
As the conflict wears on, the fearsomely belligerent voices who speak of bringing the enemy to its knees have found a counterpoint in the increasing number of commentators who are simply fed up with the politicians. Dilip d'Souza in the Indian online magazine Rediff.com caught the mood of despondency: '...despite these apparent ideological differences, you know what they all share: you would never trust your child to them. These are the people who tell us we must go to war.'
Amid all the wrangling it fell to the international press to offer a broader view. Ehsan Ahrari in the Asia Times offered a nuanced analysis of how the ongoing talks on economic cooperation between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, alongside the recent gas-pipeline deal between Pakistan Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, and the negotiations over Caspian Sea oil reserves might lead to a serendipitous peace and stability in the region.
While more talks are scheduled over the next week, the shooting down of an Indian spy plane by Pakistan looks likely to tighten the screws further. Whether the flurry of words becomes action remains to be seen.
African food crisis deepens
An emergency meeting of UN agencies and aid officials convened in Johannesburg this week as the worst food crisis in a decade pushes almost 13 million people in Southern Africa to the brink of starvation. Grain production has been halved by flooding, droughts and political upheaval, and the next harvest is a year away. Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and Zambia stand to be most affected- Zambia alone has faced a 90% crop failure. Various aid agencies have drawn attention to the political dimensions of the catastrophe, from the selling off of an important grain reserve by the Malawian government encouraged by the IMF, to the land-seizures in Zimbabwe, and the effective de-regulation of crop prices in the region.
While relief for the area is needed immediately, a number of commentators and academics outlined the long term changes that need to be made by both African leaders and the West, particularly in terms of the trade barriers that keep out African goods. As Bill Keller in the New York Times noted: 'Rich countries spend $350 billion a year on farm subsidies - six times what they spend on foreign aid."
Beckham's peace mission?
As the World Cup thrills and spills continued, tales of jubilation, fury or consternation moved from the back pages to the front. In Portugal the stark headlines spoke of a nation 'Disgraced'. As the champions struggled, French captain Marcel Desailly complained that his team was actually being praised too much for the 0-0 draw against Uruguay. Perhaps they don't get the French papers in Korea.
While England completed their seamless transition from the worst to the best team in the world in just five days, the fame of captain Beckham spread far beyond the football pitch. As India and Pakistan stood on the brink of catastrophe, M J Akbar in Kashmir's Daily Excelsior mused: '...I do blame the British for one thing. They could have taught us better football than cricket. Would we go to war if we had qualified for the World Cup? Maybe Britain can still do something useful. Instead of sending Jack Straw Britain could have sent David Beckham to the subcontinent. He would certainly have had a better chance of reaching a goal.'
How the world saw it: send us your views
You can write to Satiyesh Manoharajah, who writes this weekly "How the world saw it" press review at s_manoharajah@hotmail.com. You can also email Observer site editor Sunder Katwala at observer@guardianunlimited.co.uk with comments on articles or ideas for future pieces.
