| 21 February 2004 | Saturday | 29 Zilhaj 1424 |
Europe has lost its leverage
Marxists and the Vajpayee road
Displaying a commendable willingness to accommodate each other's viewpoint, Pakistan and India have agreed on a roadmap for a composite dialogue that may move steadily towards the resolution of all their outstanding disputes.
By deciding to hold the first round of the dialogue on substantive and contentious issues in May or June, a fine balance has been struck between caution and swiftness.
This will give sufficient time to the two sides to prepare adequately for the critical negotiations as well as guard against the allegation of evading discussion on substantive issues.
The roadmap appears to have been sketched keeping in mind the schedule of India's general elections expected to take place in April/May this year..
The Islamabad accord about the timeframe and format of the composite dialogue is on the lines of the eight-point framework agreed upon by the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan after a series of meetings between March 1997 and September 1998.
The sunny side of the latest talks, held after a lapse of more than five years, is that having settled the timeframe and modalities of the composite dialogue, the two sides can now focus on technical-level talks on reviving the communication links between Khokharapar (Sindh) and Munnabhao (Rajasthan) and running a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar..
The Sindh-Rajasthan link talks are scheduled to be held in Islamabad on March 8 and 9. These will be followed by technical level talks on March 29 and 30 to establish bus services between the two parts of Kashmir.
The Islamabad accord covers all the eight subjects identified in the 1998 format for a composite dialogue. According to the approach agreed upon in 1997 and 1998, peace and security (including confidence-building measures) and Kashmir were to be discussed by the foreign secretaries of the two countries.
Pakistan wanted to elevate discussion on Kashmir to the political level (ministerial) as a dialogue on this sensitive and contentious issue would require political decisions which will be easier for a foreign minister to take.
The Indian argument was that since the Vajpayee government would soon be seeking a fresh mandate, the upgrading of Kashmir dialogue to the ministerial level was not feasible at this juncture. However, the real reason for New Delhi's hesitation to elevate the level of Kashmir discussion appears to be that it wants to confirm that Pakistan has put an end to its support for cross-border infiltration and that conditions continue to be conducive for a meaningful dialogue. Therefore, as a compromise, it was decided that the foreign ministers of the two countries would meet in August to review the overall progress of talks.
The other subjects are likely to be discussed at the level indicated below: Siachen (defence secretaries), Wullar Barrage and Tulbul navigation project (secretaries, water and power), Sir Creek (additional secretary defence/surveyor-general), terrorism and drug trafficking (home/interior secretaries), economic and commercial cooperation (commerce secretaries) and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields (secretaries culture).
It is interesting to note that friendly exchanges which imply people-to-people contact and contact between the civil societies of the two countries has been put at the end as the last item of the agenda, indicating its low priority.
It is not clear what will happen to the tentative agreements already reached between the two countries on such subjects as Wullar Barrage and the demarcation of the boundary at Sir Creek. Will they retain their relevance or have they been thrown overboard so that we are back to square one?
India has evaded the Pakistani proposal that South Asia be brought under a nuclear-restraint regime. Its contention is that its nuclear programme is not Pakistan-centric as it is not oriented to a threat from within the region alone. Acknowledging the danger posed by the nuclear weaponization of South Asia, both sides have agreed to hold expert-level talks in the later half of May on nuclear and confidence-building measures as agreed in the Lahore Declaration of February 1999.
Interestingly, this is the first time that the Musharraf government has included in its official policy an important element of the much-maligned Lahore Declaration.
It may be recalled that the Lahore Declaration laid down that the governments of Pakistan and India "shall take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures for confidence-building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict".
Happily, the environment in which these talks have been held and the future negotiations are expected to take place is far more congenial than the one that prevailed in 1997 and 1998 when the last contacts between the two sides took place.
An auspicious development, that was missing at that time, is that an effective channel of communication has been put in place to deal with complications or obstacles that may crop up from time to time.
This informal, but very effective, line of communication is being managed by messers Brijesh Mishra and Tariq Aziz who enjoy full confidence of their respective leaders.
Another encouraging development is that signals received from New Delhi since the Islamabad accord, between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee, have all been positive.
For instance, on February 18, Indian foreign minister Yashwant Sinha said India was determined to sustain peace efforts with Pakistan, resolve all outstanding issues and normalize bilateral relations.
India's defence minister George Fernandes, in an interview on February 11 with Press Trust of India, said: "There is solid information that Pakistan has taken steps to put down terrorism - and there is no evidence of terrorist elements being funded by Pakistan authorities."
In a speech titled "Peace, stability and security in Asia - India's perspectives", Mr Brijesh Mishra, made some important observations at the 40th Munich conference on security on February 7,2004.
Describing Pakistani response to Mr. Vajpayee's April peace initiative as "positive", he said "There is no denying that improved India-Pakistan relations can transform the political and security landscape of South Asia." During his address he indirectly referred to the possibility of Iranian gas line to India through Pakistan.
For the first time in India's electoral history, peace and friendship with Pakistan, rather than confrontation, has emerged as a popular election slogan being used by the ruling political party likely to win again the most number of seats in the general elections..
Mr. Vajpayee opened the electioneering campaign of the BJP on February 8 by declaring that he was confident that "ties with Pakistan are set to improve and the resolution of the bilateral disputes will bring peace in South Asia." These are auspicious words.
As Mr. Vajpayee is almost certain to form the next government at the centre, a heavy responsibility rests on his shoulders to play his part in laying the foundation of a bright future for South Asia.
The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.
Europe has lost its leverage
Would that Europe really had a "directorate" of two, three, six or whatever number. The accession of new member states should be a moment of triumph, but instead it will come at a time of serious weakness and of a lack, rather than an excess, of direction.
Europe's failure so far to come up with either a formal set of new rules for its governance, as demonstrated by the impasse over the constitution, or an informal one, as demonstrated by the sour reaction to the Berlin summit, is only one aspect of this weakness.
The European Union will eventually get its internal affairs in order to some degree. But it will be doing so at a time when long-term trends are taking away some of the influence it once enjoyed, and some of the opportunities it might have expected as a consequence of European successes in the future.
These trends are not, in the first instance anyway, those to do with population, pensions, migration, and out-sourcing that have led to suggestions that Europe will be increasingly outpaced by America, India and China. More important is the simple fact of lost leverage in the three regions of most importance to Europe - the US, Russia and the Middle East.
Elsewhere the situation is as bad. Gordon Brown's faltering aid plan for Africa and other poor regions is one example. The failure to react to China's breaking of its promises in Hong Kong or to the threats it has directed at Taiwan, with Jacques Chirac almost endorsing the latter, is another.
Colin Powell's dismissal of French proposals for intervention in Haiti is a third. But America, Russia, and the Middle East are the three theatres that matter most, and the picture is not encouraging in any of them.
Both America and Europe contributed to the breakdown of an alliance system that had usually been managed with some intelligence and sophistication. Reconciliation and the reform of Nato are now the professed aims of both sides.
But, as Elizabeth Pond concludes in a new study of what she calls the "near death" of the transatlantic alliance, "the alliance's uninstitutionalized core of trust ... has been violated" and "may be the hardest to restore".
Europeans saw America demanding support for a risky war without offering real consultation, while the Americans saw Europeans, and especially Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, lightly breaking a compact that had lasted half a century.
Even though German troops patrol the streets of Kabul under a Nato flag and Polish soldiers in Iraq enjoy Nato logistical support, mutual suspicion now hangs over every Nato meeting.
American plans to move its Nato installations to the supposedly friendlier (and-definitely cheaper) countries of eastern Europe reinforce the suspicion on the European side that America under George Bush has come to see the European Union as a potentially oppositional force that should be kept off balance and divided.
Underlying American anxieties is the usually unspoken thought that Europe, knowing it is not the principal target of terrorists, mainly wants to stay out of the line of fire. How much this would change if President Bush was to lose the election is a question, but it is arguable that a residue of mistrust would persist.
Europe's loss of influence over Russia in part reflects the fact that the United States and Europe now deal with Moscow more separately than they once did, another aspect of the change in the transatlantic relationship.
But it also reflects Russia's greater autonomy, as Vladimir Putin, aided by the increase in oil revenues, has put his country in order. Too much order, in some ways, as Europe contemplates the prospect of having to congratulate Putin on his re-election as president after a farcical contest with a cast of nobodies.
Too little order, as Europe watches the war in Chechnya stumble on while becoming increasingly connected with a chain of other clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
The failure to make Russia over as a liberal democracy was a triple failure of Americans, Europeans and Russian liberals. Whether it was ever realistic to expect more than the semi- authoritarian society that has emerged - better than what went before but not as good as what had been hoped for - is a difficult question.
In any case, Europe's instruments of aid and advice, although not of trade, have lost much of their potency; there is resentment in Moscow as the states of the old outer empire enter the European Union, and there is a clear possibility of clashes of interest and values in what is now both Russia's and the EU's "Near Abroad".
But it is in the Middle East that Europe's star is faintest. The reason is that, although Europeans have enjoyed no real independence of action in the region for decades, there have always been Arab hopes that there would come a moment when Europe would act as a real counterbalance to the United States and Israel.
However, in spite of European opposition to the war in Iraq and in spite of European efforts, notably those of Tony Blair, to persuade the United States to deal with the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians more even handedly, Arabs are shifting in their view of Europe. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.
Marxists and the Vajpayee road
Midnapore is a ramshackle town in West Bengal. It is still remembered by the revolutionaries of the days gone by. Three white deputy magistrates were killed here during the British period to register anger against foreign rule. Today not many people recall those incidents. Yet, their thinking has been radicalized.
This has given the Communist Party of India (Marxist) an edge over other political parties to entrench itself in the area. Yet what has really deepened its roots has been the land reforms the CPI (M) government has effected - a ceiling on individual's holdings and, more than that the transfer of land ownership, the tiller. This is where people look to the future - farmers tending their fields and Swasthya Sahayikas (voluntary health workers) promoting health care and family planning.
Midnapore is also the place where Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has revolutionized travelling. His quadrilateral highway to connect the north with the south and the west with the east has reached here. It has reduced the 12-hour journey to Kolkata to three. People give him credit for that but stay distant from the BJP, the party he is leading in the forthcoming elections.
The road is making a difference in our economy, say the generally left-inclined voters. But we do not want any communal trouble. In their mind, the BJP is associated with the party creating a Hindu-Muslim divide.
Our two communities have lived together for centuries and it is the BJP which is trying to destroy the common bond, they say. The CPI (M) has, over the years, strengthened their conviction in a pluralistic society.
Still, the BJP is gaining ground elsewhere in the state, especially in the border districts where the Bangladeshi Muslims have been settling down and changing the complexion of the population.
This is bothering both the state government and the CPI (M) leadership. West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya does not say anything on the subject because the party pounced upon him when he pointed out the proliferation of madressahs in the border areas. The illegal migration of Bangladeshis is a problem which the state does not know how to solve without disturbing the solid support of the Muslims.
The BJP is exploiting the situation and trying to polarize the society. It is succeeding to some extent, much to the concern of the CPI (M). The Lok Sabha polls may not be affected but the state elections may since the assembly constituencies are small in size and visibly express local sentiments.
In the next Lok Sabha polls, the CPI (M) looks like adding to its present strength of 21. The main reason is that the United Front of Left parties has stayed intact in spite of the fear that it would falter over the allocation of seats. The CPI (M) has also gained due to the erosion of Mamata Bannerjee's influence. Her Trinamool Congress has lost ground after the alliance with the BJP and her mercurial temperament has told upon her following.
The Congress could have been a viable opponent of the CPI (M). But the understanding between the two at the national level has poured cold water on the enthusiasm of some old leaders wanting to reinvigorate the Congress. Their age is not so much a factor as is their infighting. The party does not have a person of stature to guide. Once it was led by people like Bidhan Chandra Roy, Atulya Ghosh and recently by Siddarth Shankar Ray. The present leadership is that of pigmies.
Despite its limitations, the Congress may win some seats in the urban areas, alienated by the CPI (M) years ago when it rubbed the industry on the wrong side to placate the labour force.
The middle class was angry and many businesses were taken away from Kolkata. Most party workers still believe that the strategy went awry, not that they were wrong. Such thinking may well be the reason why the party has not been able to grow in the states other than West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala.
The party won a total of 33 seats in the three states in the last general election. It may tally more this time.
In the Hindi-speaking areas, its role is confined to building a viable front against the BJP to stop it from coming to power at the centre. The CPI (M) has failed to rope in the Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav. Yet its effort to get the non-BJP parties on one platform has not been without success. At least the DMK, a constituent of BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, has severed its connection with it.
Many parties have realized that the growth of the BJP is narrowing the space for diversity. What may open the eyes of the NDA constituents is what Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Uma Bharti is doing - converting the state into a Hindutva fiefdom under the RSS control. A few other allies of the BJP have been disillusioned following the Supreme Court's intervention in Gujarat where the state high court had let off the 22 accused in the Best Bakery massacre.
True, power is the glue that the BJP has provided to keep the NDA united. But the pressure of disillusioned voters may force two or three constituents to change sides after the polls. It really depends on how many seats the BJP wins.
Its present strength is 180 in the 545-member House. The party has, however, taken it for granted that it will form the next government. The situation on the ground is changing rapidly. The Muslims who can influence the outcome in 100 Lok Sabha constituencies are firmly opposed to the BJP even though it is trying its best to woo them.
They have praised Vajpayee because of the improved relations with Pakistan. But they have disliked his initiation of the poll campaign from the Ayodhaya trail.
The same Kalyan Singh who was UP chief minister when the Babri Masjid was demolished is not only back in the BJP but reiterates that the temple will be built on the disputed site.
The biggest disappointment is that of the lower half which does not feel good despite the expansive advertisements. In fact, there is resentment over the waste of public funds which they wish could have been spent on their betterment.
They are extremely poor, neglected and facing the crunch of unemployment. They still are out in the cold and pray India Shining could come true some day.
The BJP has, however, done the impossible: devaluing the Nehru-Indira Gandhi dynastic factor. One great grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru has joined the BJP. The other two, Priyanka and Rahul, have not set the Yamuna on fire by becoming the Congress members. It is a refreshing development because the pull of the dynasty at one time tilted the scales. There may yet be emotional response in a few constituencies in UP.
Strange, people in Midnapore seldom talk about the dynasty. Their complaint is that the CPI (M) cadre is too overbearing. The administration does not take it lightly nor the party leadership. Their dilemma is how and when to draw the line. But then the eve of elections can hardly be the time to do anything.
The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.