| 29 July 2004 | Thursday | 11 Jamadi-us-Saani 1425 |
Pakistani captives in Iraq
Bias against Al Jazeera
The question of a 'timeframe' for negotiations between Pakistan and India has recently come to the fore. It was apparently raised by President General Pervez Musharraf during his meeting with the Indian foreign minister, Mr Natwar Singh, during the latter's visit for the Saarc conference in Islamabad.
It had a cool reception from the Indian external affairs ministry, but our foreign office referred to the issue again at a briefing on Tuesday. The question does not relate to the overall progress of the so-called 'composite' dialogue now in progress, which, even according to the foreign office spokesman, has maintained a satisfactory pace.
It is Kashmir that has always been the sticking point and Pakistan appears to feel under some obligation to political lobbies and hardliners in the establishment to ask for the Kashmir track to be quickly activated. The problem is that any show of impatience on this score could well retard the entire peace process.
The course of negotiations between India and Pakistan has been a tortuous one. History, geography, emotions, electoral politics - all are involved. The debris of half a century that the two countries carry is enormous.
Now that the thread has been picked up again after bitter lessons learnt by both, the greatest care is needed to ensure that the goodwill generated and the small steps towards reconciliation already taken are not in any way endangered.
Even talking too much or out of turn can be counter-productive; we have the example of premature disclosure of the Siachen agreement resulting in a reversal that has not been corrected to date.
President Musharraf's dilemma is clear and to an extent understandable. He is saddled with an ally-cum-opposition that is raucous in its anti-Indian stand. He probably also faces pressure from foreign office bureaucrats steeped in years of shaping a crusty policy vis-a-vis India, and indeed from elements within the military who have not yet reconciled themselves to the new ground realities.
He needs some visible advance on the Kashmir track to be able to silence the many obstreperous critics all around. India should not lend strength to the view that it is foot-dragging on Kashmir while it is happy to speed up resolution of other problems.
At the same time, it should be realized that the government in New Delhi is still finding its feet and does not enjoy the confidence that its predecessor government did under Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Indian leaders believe that their repeated declarations that Kashmir is part of the dialogue agenda itself mark a concession to Pakistani sentiment. But the Congress-led government is in the happy position of seeking to build on a policy shaped by a party that now forms the major opposition grouping, and it has ample room to make bold gestures.
An issue that has defied for 57 years a solution can hardly be expected to be settled within a short and specified time span. But at least the two sides can start talking about it on the basis of experience and the many formulas that have already been discussed at various levels.
And there certainly doesn't seem to be any visible impediment to India immediately re-establishing contact with the Kashmiri leadership or to providing some indication of scaling down its overbearing military presence in J&K. More haste, less speed - and less talk might be a wise course to follow for both counties.
Pakistani captives in Iraq
While the families of the two Pakistanis recently kidnapped by militants in Iraq and threatened with execution endure an agonizing wait for news of their loved ones, our mission in Baghdad should spare no time or effort to locate the whereabouts of the captives and secure their early release.
This is a hard task considering the surge in kidnappings of foreign nationals in the troubled Middle Eastern country of late, and the fact that some militant groups - who routinely accuse their victims of working for the American occupiers - have actually carried out their dire threats of execution.
However, the release of many others, including Amjad Hafeez, a Pakistani driver in Iraq, should offer some hope to the families of the latest Pakistani captives - Azad Hussein Khan and Sajjad Naeem, both from Azad Kashmir.
Their families have appealed to the abductors to release the two men on humanitarian and economic grounds. The president and prime minister, too, have appealed to the captors to set them free and the National Assembly has adopted a resolution expressing its concern over the incident.
Earlier on, reacting to the militants' suspicion of President Musharaff's stand on Pakistani troops for Iraq, the government said that no decision had yet been taken in this regard.
The question is to be debated in parliament if Pakistan receives a formal request from Iraq to station its soldiers there. Indeed, if the subject of troops for Iraq is brought up for discussion in parliament, the risk to the lives of Pakistani citizens in Iraq must be factored into any decision that is taken.
Reports say that more than 100 Pakistanis - many recruited by "agents" promising them employment and then leaving them to fend for themselves - are missing in Iraq, and it is feared that some could have been taken hostage by militant groups.
Meanwhile, one hopes that even if the abductors have little faith in the Pakistan government's assertions, they will listen to the families of the captives, who have no interest in Iraq other than to earn a living.
Bias against Al Jazeera
The removal of Al Jazeera's banner from the main hall of a convention centre playing host to the national convention of America's Democratic Party is a good example of discrimination and double standards in American politics.
The party has given a very improbable reason for the decision, saying that there was not enough space around the podium and that "aesthetic reasons" prompted the measure. However, banners of other news channels, all American and mainstream, were not removed - clear evidence of bias against the Arab world's most popular news channel.
Al Jazeera has not had an altogether pleasant experience of working in a country which often likes to think of itself as the leader of the 'free world'. In the past, it has been publicly criticized for having an anti-US agenda.
Its correspondents have been rebuked during news conferences by US military spokesmen and its reporters have been denied access to the New York Stock Exchange.
It is quite evident that Mr Kerry's Democratic Party, known for its close political and funding ties with Israel and the Jewish lobby, does not want to present itself to its supporters as being in any way associated with an Arab news channel.
Part of the blame for demonizing it lies with the mainstream US media. Many columnists, editorial writers and leading news networks have echoed the sentiments of the hawks in the Bush administration regarding Al Jazeera as Al Qaeda's mouthpiece.
It has also to be said that most American politicians have a history of not offending Israel and their Jewish support base. Decisions such as the removal of the banner only tend to reinforce the views most Arabs and Muslims have that regardless of which party is in power, they can never expect to get a fair deal from America.