Mending ties with Russia

EVEN though a fuller assessment of the outcome of President Musharraf’s visit to Russia will be possible after it is over, President Vladimir Putin’s remarks on Indo-Pakistan relations on Wednesday deserve to be noted. Speaking at a joint press conference, the Russian president called for Pakistan and India to resume dialogue to sort out their differences. This was the only way, he said, to solve the Kashmir issue on the basis of the Simla agreement and the Lahore Declaration. The press conference followed a one-on-one meeting, which, President Musharraf said, was frank and purposeful. However, behind the veneer of diplomatic pleasantries, one can detect the realization the two presidents seem to have of the enormity of the task they have in attempting to normalize Pakistan-Russian relations. Putin, no doubt, called for a dialogue between Pakistan and India, but this was coupled with remarks asking Pakistan to stop militants from crossing the Line of Control into Indian held Kashmir. The Russian president also asked his Pakistani counterpart to round up terrorists believed to be hiding in Pakistan. This prodding to Pakistan to “do more” to rein in the forces of terrorism is not something coming from Moscow alone; Washington too has been putting pressure on Pakistan on this score, expecting it to try harder to flush out Al Qaeda and Taliban militants said to be hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan, thus, would do well to take the Putin remarks seriously and try to give a better account of itself in dealing with the problem of extraterritorial militancy and violence.

Mercifully, the two leaders have made it clear that they are determined to leave the past behind and forge a new relationship. Both deplored that the two countries’ relationship was not what it should have been. Putin’s futuristic remark is worth noting. He noted that President Musharraf’s visit to Russia was the first by a Pakistani head of state in three decades and hoped that Russia-Pakistan relations would be on a better footing when President Musharraf visited Moscow next. In return, the Pakistan president invited President Putin to visit Pakistan — the first ever by a Russian head of state. He added that he had come to write not a new chapter but a new book in their relations.

For Pakistan, an improvement in relations with Russia is of vital importance. There are no territorial disputes between the two countries, and there is no reason why they should not be on the best of terms. In this context, Pakistan must admit the mistakes that had been made in the past. The American U-2 which Russia shot down while on a spying mission over that country had flown from Pakistan. Also Moscow has not forgotten the role that Islamabad played in Afghanistan as America’s ally in the eighties. However, Pakistan, too, would be justified in expecting a democratic Russia to realize that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a serious mistake. It devastated Afghanistan, killed more than one and a half million people, and pushed Russia-Pakistan relations to the lowest depths of antagonism.

Pakistan must now address Russia’s concerns, especially with regard to the activities of Islamic hard-liners in Central Asia. Even though its borders do not touch Pakistan’s, Russia remains an important Eurasian power. It may be down at the moment, but by no means out. After it gets out of its present eclipse, Russia will sooner or later achieve the position it is entitled to by virtue of its size, power and technological advances. Pakistan’s interest lies in being on friendliest possible terms with that Russia — today’s and tomorrow’s.

The North Korean riddle

WITH the world’s attention focused on Iraq, another member of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ continues to draw attention to itself by taking one provocative step after another. The timing of North Korea’s moves is not coincidental. It is intimately linked to the Iraq situation and is designed to wrest concessions from the US before it becomes embroiled in a war in the Gulf. The message from Pyongyang seems to be that if the US wants to go to war with Iraq, it must first settle issues with North Korea. There is a fear in Pyongyang that the US will target North Korea after it is through with Iraq. The Koreans have decided to pre-empt such action by engaging in a highly dangerous game of brinkmanship. A series of controversial decisions have been taken since December, following US allegations that North Korea was pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme. Pyongyang kicked out the IAEA inspectors based in the country and pulled out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This was followed by moves to restart facilities to produce nuclear weapons fuel. All the steps seemed calculated to raise the stakes and force the US to sit up and take notice.

The US reaction has been uncharacteristically calm, in stark contrast to its response to Iraq. While one country that is flaunting the fact that it possesses and is developing weapons of mass destruction is treated with kid’s gloves, another that insists it has none and is fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors is bullied and threatened with war. However distasteful and cynical this display of double standards may seem to the outside world, the US finds itself in a dilemma over North Korea. It cannot threaten a war with North Korea simultaneously with its Iraq campaign, nor does it wish to alarm its allies in the region who would prefer to engage in a dialogue with Pyongyang to prevent it from taking even more desperate steps. The prospects that the Koreans may up the ante further in the coming days is causing deep anxiety in the region. The US and North Korea’s neighbours will require all the diplomatic skills they can muster to defuse this potentially explosive situation.

PTCL’s strange stance

PTCL’s refusal to listen to a clear-cut directive issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to stop blocking websites offering Internet telephony is regrettable. Several months ago, the PTCL unilaterally began blocking these sites because they were depriving the corporation of millions in lost international calls. Quite understandably, local Internet service providers were adversely affected by PTCL’s move. They raised the issue with the telecom ministry and eventually with the PTA, the state telecom regulator. The majority of phone and Internet users were also on the side of the ISPs in this tussle since they had the most to gain out of being able to make very cheap calls abroad via the Internet.

PTCL’s action came in for considerable public criticism because it was seen to be acting in a selfish manner. The revenue loss that these telephony websites were said to be causing was a small fraction of the PTCL’s overall revenue. Finally, the PTA, after listening to both sides, ruled in favour of the ISPs and ordered PTCL to lift its block on these websites. However, the telephone company has chosen to defy this order, saying that it will take the dispute to the ministry. This not only shows that the PTA lacks the teeth needed to enforce its orders, but also that large public-sector corporations think that they are outside the orbit of regulation. To avoid any further inconvenience, and to improve its sagging public image, the PTCL should immediately implement the PTA’s directive. The end of the corporation’s legal monopoly should make it realize that it can no longer do business by flexing its muscles.