| January 9, 2003 | Thursday | Ziqa’ad 5, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Turkish peace initiative
Telegraph blues
EVERYONE interested in peace, progress and stability in South Asia has long been urging the Vajpayee government in India to abandon its irrational and arrogant policy of refusing to talk to Pakistan unless what it calls “cross-border terrorism” totally stops. This view has been forcefully reiterated again by a senior US official during a visit to India. The State Department’s policy planning adviser, Richard Haass, is reported to have said that the Indian position does not “provide the basis for a sound, long-term policy” and urged New Delhi to “reach out and reinforce” the new government in Pakistan. “Resuming a range of contacts with Pakistan at this time will not mean rewarding terrorism. Indians should not view efforts to improve relations with Pakistan as a favour to its neighbour,” Mr Haass added.
The US has a vital stake in peace and normalization in the region, and analysts in Washington have been predicting a strategic partnership with India. Such a partnership can serve American interests usefully only if India is not seen in a state of perpetual hostility with its neighbours. It is thus not merely altruism that drives the US to work for a lessening of tensions between India and Pakistan. Indeed America’s interest in this respect is welcome because it provides powerful endorsement of the only sane and sensible course that Pakistan and India can and should follow in their own enlightened self-interest. We should not need any outside country to tell us to live in peace and friendship. The impulse for it has to come from within ourselves — from a clear-headed realization of what is best in the long-term interests of our two countries. Mr Haass’s statement is particularly welcome in that it distances Washington from the Indian contention that it is only following the American line in combating terrorism.
In recent days, there has been an angry exchange of rhetoric across the border. It may be less lethal than cannon fire and mortar shells, but it is equally deadly in its soul-destroying effect. Both sides routinely ridicule the leadership of each other’s country. The Indian premier congratulated Mr Zafarullah Khan Jamali on his “appointment”, and not election, as prime minister when Mr Vajpayee himself is described by Indian commentators as little more than a prisoner in the hands of the hardliners in his party, some of whom wish to annihilate Pakistan. This is just one example of the mean sniping that is going on almost daily.
The discourse between New Delhi and Islamabad must acquire a more civilized and constructive tone and quality. Even if we have to abuse each other, let us do so as part of a face-to-face dialogue. From “enemies” — a term much in use on both sides — we should begin to look at ourselves as estranged neighbours who wish to move ahead towards a productive relationship. The Agra summit had broken up amidst mutual acrimony, but at least the points on which agreement was reached there could be resurrected to form the basis on which negotiations can be resumed. This does not even need to happen at a summit level: foreign ministers or senior foreign ministry officials could meet and talk. If no headway is made in the first rounds, they should try again — and yet again. The important thing is to get some sort of a normalization process going. India must somehow get its no-talks blinkers off. This would be the best way to counter those in either country who have developed a vested interest in perpetuating hatred and discord.
TURKISH Prime Minister Abdullah Gul’s current regional tour should be seen against the backdrop of the international community’s efforts to avoid an American attack on Iraq. The Turkish prime minister has visited Jordan, Egypt and Syria and is likely to visit Saudi Arabia to mobilize regional support against a war. As Iraq’s neighbour, and as a key US ally in the region, Turkey has vital stakes in peace in the region. During the last Gulf war, Turkey provided bases to the US-led coalition forces, but it suffered economically because of the sanctions on Iraq. Currently, Ankara is under pressure from Washington to provide logistic support to the US for the likely military offensive against Iraq. Even though, like all of Iraq’s neighbours, Turkey does not have the best of relations with Baghdad, Ankara feels that a US attack on Iraq will only exacerbate the already volatile regional situation. As Mr Gul said in a newspaper interview before leaving for Damascus, “Iraq is a Pandora’s box” which it would be dangerous to open.
Among many of Ankara’s fears is the impact the collapse of the Iraqi state structure will have on Turkey’s territorial integrity. An independent Kurdish state, carved out of northern Iraq, will encourage separatist tendencies among Kurds in Turkey and Iran. This could threaten the security of the two states and lead to a possible Balkanization of the region. The Turkish premier made it clear he believed the responsibility for peace also lay with Baghdad, which should abide by the relevant UN resolutions. In Damascus, Cairo and Amman, he found Presidents Bashar al-Assad and Hosni Mobarak and King Abdullah supporting his views. One hopes Washington would take note of the consensus among Iraq’s neighbours on the need for a peaceful solution. American disregard of this peace consensus will throw the Middle East into a deeper crisis and strengthen those very forces which the Bush administration’s war on terror is supposed to rain in.
THERE has been a boom in the telecommunications sector since the laying of optical fibre cables by the PTCL. While this modernization move has considerably added to the number of PTCL subscribers, there are areas within the PTCL’s operations which could do with a dose of sprucing up and streamlining. One such service to have suffered much has been the telegraph. True, now with the Internet and swifter, better long-distance phone service within the country and linking Pakistan to the wider world, one may be tempted to question the wisdom of running a telegraph service at all. Yet, a closer look at the PTCL’s existing optical fibre-connected network makes it clear that much of the rural hinterland remains out of the loop. This is not to belittle the achievements made by the phone service over the past decade or so but to bring to notice the isolation and inconvenience of those who still remain outside the ambit of the technological revolution.
Theoretically, telegraph remains an important mode of communication for millions of its potential users in the rural hinterland — if only it were more reliable and effective. Recent reports from far-flung areas speak of the prevalence of utter disarray in this service, ostensibly because it does not make much business sense for the PTCL any more. Telegraph offices in rural areas and small towns do not have the necessary equipment in proper order, often requiring the staff to send telegrams through ordinary mail, which negates the very purpose of a telegram. Thus, notwithstanding the declining business status of this aspect of their operation, the PTCL authorities would do well to keep the telegraph service effectively running until such time that they can offer better and more timely communication services in its place.