03 August 2004	Tuesday	16 Jamadi-us-Saani 1425

KARACHI, Aug 2: Experts at a round-table conference here on Monday expressed the view that there could not be an amicable solution to the Kashmir issue without friendly mutual relations and permanent peace between Pakistan and India.

Without giving up their principled stands, Pakistan and India should pursue other avenues to build mutual trust that would pave the way for a settlement. This consensus emerged at the conference which discussed in length the ongoing composite dialogue between the two countries.

The moot was organized by the International Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution. The event was chaired by Lt-Gen (r) Syed Shujaat Hussain, Rector of the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), and Mr Javed Jabbar, Honorary Chairman of the IIPCR.

Former ambassador Mansoor Alam set the ball rolling when he, in his presentation, suggested that it was about time that Pakistan reversed the refrain that "there can be no durable peace without the settlement of the Kashmir issue," to "there can be no amicable settlement of the Kashmir issue without friendly relations and permanent peace."

While reviewing various stages of bilateral relations, Mr Alam expressed the view that the relationship "makes it very difficult to be more than cautiously optimistic that the outcome this time will be any different."

Nevertheless, he stressed, despite signs of persisting mistrust and impatience, there were some new factors which were likely to give peace a better chance this time.

In this context, he referred to the strong, overwhelming and unmistakable desire among the peoples of the two countries for peace, amity and friendship, clearly manifested during the recently held cricket matches, and hoped that such sentiments would exert pressure on both the governments to show flexibility and accommodation.

He pointed out that both the states realized that war was no longer an option because it would only lead to 'mutual and assured destruction (MAD), while tension and Cold War would considerably slow down the pace of their economic development and would become a cause of social and political instability of devastating proportions.

He observed that overt nuclearization of the two countries with sophisticated and advanced delivery vehicles had radically transformed a regional dispute into a threat to international peace and security.

Consequently, he added, all major powers of the world, including China, would react strongly to any display of nuclear irresponsibility either by Pakistan or India.

Mr Alam pointed out that the two countries had signed many important regional and international agreements for cooperation in the fields of economy, trade, terrorism and drug-trafficking.

SAFTA, set up within the framework of Saarc and due to become fully operative by 2008, and the WTO, which would come into effect next January, are two such agreements. This means that even if bilateral relations hit a dead end once again, the two countries will have to honour their commitments to each other under these agreements.

It was stressed that normal relations and cooperation between Pakistan and India were indispensable if they wanted to tackle any of their core common problems like poverty alleviation, control on population explosion, rising terrorist activities, communal unrest, drug-trafficking, water scarcity and rapidly growing demand for energy.

Calling of taking a flexible stance on Kashmir, the ambassador expressed the view that Pakistan could not force India through a high- or low-intensity war to make concession on the issue. Similarly, India could not stop Pakistan from taking any possible measure short of a full scale war, against the status quo.

He observed that India might be able to bear the huge economic, political and moral cost of suppressing Kashmiris' struggle for self-determination, but it could not eliminate their aspiration for freedom.

He emphasized that while the international community was deeply concerned over the possibility of an armed conflict on the issue, it was incapable of persuading or forcing either side to change its stance. Therefore, he added, any desperate move in anticipation of the world community's intervention would only result in aggravating the situation.

Some of the participants were of the view that there were no signs of a change in India's objectives. The other point of view was that India and Pakistan must push for improvement in relations and should not focus on Kashmir alone. There was also a suggestion that 'independent Kashmir' was the appropriate solution.

Brig A. R. Siddiqui was of the view that nuclear option had failed and it was no more a deterrent. Therefore, he added, this element should be taken into consideration while handling bilateral relations.

Prof Shamim Akhtar said that Kashmir was no more a bilateral issue because China was also in possession of some parts of the territory and Kashmiris added the fourth dimension to the conflict.

Mr Javed Jabbar suggested that Pakistan should guard against the fatigue factor and should not give up its principled stand. Ambassador Mehdi Masud was of the view that Indians, perhaps, would be thinking that Pakistan had called it a day on Kashmiris' right to self-determination and, therefore, it wanted to maintain the current posture with open-ended negotiations.

He stressed that the day Indians would realize that Pakistan would persist, there would be a change in its attitude. Earlier, objectives of the IIPCR were spelt out and the need for promoting awareness of resolving conflicts was stressed.

The institute plans to create a centre of international repute for the promotion of peace and conflict resolution at regional and global level and to identify the underlying causes of tension and conflict in various regions of the world and the threat they pose to world peace.

It would also focus particular attention on South Asia region to identify the options and the means for the reduction of tension between Pakistan and India, leading to a stable and durable peace in the region.