| February 15, 2002 | Friday | Zilhaj 2, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Building bridges
Road to Chitral
FOLLOWING his talks with President Musharraf in the Wite House on Wednesday, President Bush made it known that his country would remain engaged with Pakistan on a long-term basis. A reiteration of America’s policy towards Pakistan was long overdue, because, as Mr Bush himself said, many people thought it was again going to be “a short-term dance.” He seemed aware of the feeling in Pakistan that the US often ditched this country once its interests were served. Criticism in Pakistan has specially focused on American behaviour in the wake of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan: Washington not only abandoned Pakistan as a friend and ally, its policy thereafter tended to give an impression of hostility. One remembers the abrupt manner in which Washington stopped the issuance of annual certification required under the Pressler amendment. This not only cut off all military and economic aid to Pakistan, it also led to the F-16 episode, with Washington first postponing and then cancelling the planes’ delivery. Even the reimbursement of the money Pakistan had paid for the planes was inexplicably delayed. The unfortunate episode left a lot of bitterness in Pakistan.
America too had some grievances against Pakistan: one was Islamabad’s nuclear programme; the other was the growth and spread of religious extremism. In the case of nuclear objection, an element of selectivity and discrimination was palpable in the sense that no such eyebrow was raised against India which had a much larger nuclear establishment, and that New Delhi had tested a nuclear device as far back as 1974. But America imposed sanctions that were Pakistan-specific. About terrorism, too, Washington conveniently ignored the fact that it had itself contributed to the rise of religious militancy by backing the jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. No wonder, US-Pakistan relations touched the lowest point when the military seized power in October 1999.
September 11 and the war against terrorism changed all this. Once again Pakistan became one of America’s key allies in the war on terror. The old question thus re-surfaces: will the US abandon Pakistan again now that its war aim has been nearly achieved? Going by what President Bush said on Wednesday, Washington intends to remain “committed as long as our goals remain the same.” It remains to be seen, however, what follows from Mr Bush’s firm assurances. America has already committed an aid package to Pakistan and further progress, especially with regard to military sales, depends on the outcome of the talks now under way.
An encouraging feature of Mr Bush’s press talk was his plea for negotiations to resolve the Kashmir issue. This constitutes an indirect criticism of Indian policies, because New Delhi has refused to talk to Pakistan. His willingness to facilitate a South Asian dialogue is reasuring. Given Pakistan’s geographic location, the US can ignore this country to its disadvantage. Situated strategically in a region where America has vital economic and geopolitical stakes, Pakistan shares a common perception with the US on many issues affecting the region. They can again serve the cause of peace and stability in the region as they did in the past, provided their relationship is based on mutual interests with long-term goals in view rather than transient interests.
THE just concluded meeting between the foreign ministers of the European Union nations and the Organization of Islamic Conference in Istanbul was a useful first step towards removing the misunderstandings between the Muslim and Christian world following the September 11 attacks in the US. The forum, aimed at closing the cultural gap between the two civilizations, was appropriately held in Istanbul which stands at the crossroads of both the worlds. At the end of the two-day meeting, the foreign ministers issued a joint statement stressing the need for further dialogue between Christians and Muslims following the events of September 11, and “a need to strengthen tolerance and understanding among different cultures to avoid a reappearance of deeply-rooted prejudices that can surface.”
These prejudices were starkly reflected recently in the widespread eruption of anti-western sentiments following the US-led bombing of Afghanistan as well as in the spate of hate crimes against Muslims in Europe and North America. While much of the joint statement was made up of well-meaning platitudes about universal values and the need to shun ethnic, racial and religious prejudices, there were certain substantive messages too. The meeting unanimously condemned the September 11 attacks in the US in strong terms and pledged to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Most significantly, the meeting called for a just and comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict “in accordance with international law and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions”. The statement added that a “ two-state” solution of the conflict is the best way to ensure peace and security in the region. This can be interpreted as a tacit recognition that the issues such as Palestine, rather than any innate and primordial animosity between two civilizations, lie at the heart of the problem of terrorism and the current tension between the Muslim and Christian world.
For the US, on the other hand, drawing linkages between what occurred on September 11 and the Muslim world’s grievances against the West are generally viewed as attempts to justify terrorism. The OIC and EU seemed to go a step beyond that simplistic piece of US dogma. It is important that more meetings of this nature are held in the future. Only a frank and wide-ranging debate can clear the deep-rooted prejudices and suspicions between the Muslim and western world and ultimately prevent terrible events like the ones that shook the world on September 11.
LIKE many previous winters in the Chitral valley, winter this year has also been a long and shivering one. The valley is inhabited by nearly half a million people who have little to live on during the long winter months. This is not to say that the valley becomes a very prosperous place in summer; far from it. The simple rural folk only have their limited livestock and meagre agricultural produce as the only means of subsistence in this hard mountainous terrain. Surrounded by the snow-bound Hindu Kush mountains, the least treacherous way out of the valley is through the Lowari pass — over 10,000 feet above sea level — into Dir and from there on to the plains.
But even this road is prone to frequent landslides and closures — as and when it rains — and remains totally impassable to travel for nearly six months when it is snow-bound. Thus in winter the only mode of transport in and out of Chitral is a PIA Fokker flight, which is operated on a ‘subject to weather’ basis, and hence is not reliable, considering frequent cancellations and long waiting lists. Successive governments since the mid-1970s have promised the people of Chitral an all-weather route in and out of the valley by building a tunnel under the Lowari pass. Work on the project started back in the 1970s but has remained suspended for shortage of funds. It is high time the project was revived with the provision of the needed funds for it. The Chitral district has been part of the NWFP for a long time now and deserves to be treated equitably when it comes to allocation of development funds by the federal government.