Ties with Russia: a new beginning

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s three-day visit to Russia has ended on a positive note, with both sides affirming their resolve to effect an all-round improvement in their bilateral relations. The joint statement issued on Thursday is comprehensive. It covers, besides geopolitical issues, many economic, cultural and scientific areas where the two countries seem keen to cooperate. The two sides have also signed several agreements on cultural cooperation and oil and gas exploration. But the most important one is a memorandum of understanding for the expansion, balancing and modernization of the Pakistan Steel at a cost of $ 100 million. This is in the fitness of things, because it was Russia which helped Pakistan establish its first steel mills. The agreements show, in the words of President Musharraf, the desire of the two countries to bury the “bad things” and revive and reinforce the “good things.” The joint communique also notes the help Russia has given to Pakistan in its space programme, especially Moscow’s technical assistance in launching Badr-2 communications satellite. Other areas where the two sides are keen to collaborate include narcotics control, debt restructuring, banking, giving each other the most-favoured nation treatment in trade and investment, and a review of the existing joint commissions. However, it is the political aspect of the mutual relationship that received special attention during talks in Moscow because of the implications of certain recent developments and flashpoints of conflict for regional peace and stability. As reflected in the joint statement, the outcome has been a large measure of identity of views and shared concerns on a number of these issues.

Given Russia’s long-standing friendship with India, it would be unrealistic for Pakistan to expect Moscow to shift its position on Kashmir and other Indo-Pakistan disputes. To resolve these issues Islamabad has always called for a dialogue between the two countries, but New Delhi has insisted that Pakistan must first stop “cross-border terrorism” before a dialogue could begin. The joint communique adopts a middle course, stressing the importance of resumption of talks while expecting all relevant parties to create a favourable climate for that purpose. President Musharraf seems to have shown an understanding of the Russian position when he told newsmen that he did not expect an improvement in relations between the two countries at the expense of Moscow’s relations with another country. This is a realistic view. What Pakistan needs is an improvement in relations with Russia so as to remove the misunderstandings of the past and start a new phase of friendly relations between the two countries.

As expected, the communique dwells at considerable length on the issue of terrorism and stresses the need for combating “ethnic and religious terrorism”, besides trafficking in nuclear materials. Pakistan obviously has to do a lot to remove Russia’s anxiety on this score, because Islamabad’s close relationship with the Taliban in the nineties had created problems for Russia in Central Asia. The Taliban chapter in Russo-Pakistan history is behind us, but Islamabad needs to continue to play its vital role in combating the remnants of terrorists in Pakistan. President Musharraf, thus, did well to allay Russian apprehensions with regard to Al Qaeda and the situation in Chechnya, and said Pakistan would not allow its territory to be used as a staging post for terrorism elsewhere in the world.

On Afghanistan, there is need for Pakistan to be sensitive to Russian apprehensions. Afghanistan borders Central Asia, which Moscow regards as its “near abroad.” Terrorism or any kind of political instability affects Central Asia and causes concerns in Moscow. Pakistan would do well to keep this in mind. The joint statement notes that Russia supports the Kabul Declaration of last December which Pakistan and some of Afghanistan’s other neighbours signed, pledging non-interference in its internal affairs. This means that both Islamabad and Moscow are interested in lending support to the Karzai regime to see Afghanistan through the transition to a constitutional set-up. The communique also touches on the Iraq crisis and the Arab-Israeli question and emphasizes the need for upholding the principles of the United Nations and finding a peaceful solution to the two problems. On the Palestinian issue, there is an identity of views, with both sides condemning “all acts of violence.” This naturally includes suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians as well as state terrorism practised by Israel as part of its policy of brutal suppression. On Iraq, the statement upholds the position adopted by France, Germany and China and most regional states, and opposes the “unilateral use or threat of use of force in violation of the UN Charter” and interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

The joint communique is basically a statement of intent. The agreement on specific issues is as important as the desire it reflects on the part of the two countries to forge a new relationship. A key sentence affirms the two countries’ “intention to cooperate closely in bilateral and international forums on strategic stability.” This by any standard is a good beginning. One hopes the two sides will continue to pursue their shared aims and concerns in a spirit of harmony, friendship and understanding.

Discord over Baglihar

THE departure on Thursday of the Indian members of the Permanent Indus Commission without reaching an agreement with their Pakistani counterparts over the controversial Baglihar power project on the Chenab river in India, was a sad development. The World Bank-brokered Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, of which the regular meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission is a key mechanism to ensure an equitable distribution of water resources between the two countries, has survived the worst of political upheavals, including two wars, in the subcontinent. For the first time a need has arisen to resort to a ‘neutral expert’ for adjudicating a dispute between the two sides, as provided for in the treaty. The treaty gives Pakistan the right of unrestricted use of the western tributaries of the Indus river system, namely the Jhelum, Chenab and the Indus, while India gets similar rights over the Beas, Sutlej and the Ravi, the eastern tributaries. India’s planned Baglihar power project, which seeks to utilize water from the Chenab river is thus seen to be in breach of the Indus Waters Treaty by Pakistan.

The original text of the treaty was the brainchild of the American civil servant David Lilienthal, who spent some time in India and Pakistan studying the problem of apportioning of water resources between the two countries in the early 1950s. Lilienthal proposed the remedy to the World Bank, whereafter it took the bank, India and Pakistan six years of hectic negotiations before the two countries finally signed the agreement in 1960.

The composition of the Permanent Indus Commission, manned by civil engineers as provided for by the treaty, was so kept as to avoid political acrimony between the two sides. The treaty has now worked for more than 42 years despite the political ups and downs in relations between India and Pakistan. The Indian refusal now to submit for review the design of the Baglihar project to Pakistani experts leaves Pakistan no option but to call in a ‘neutral expert’ to adjudicate. One hopes that this is done keeping in mind the original spirit of the treaty, which treated the sharing of Indus waters between the two countries as a technical and human issue and not a political one.