| 17 October 2004 | Sunday | 02 Ramazan 1425 |
Bush's bete noire
Making roads safer
Twice in less than a week, Pakistan has demonstrated a commendable degree of flexibility on the question of Kashmir. Both President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz have made it clear that Pakistan is not following a rigid policy in talks with India over the Kashmir issue and that Islamabad expects New Delhi to do the same. In an interview with an Indian newspaper, Mr Aziz said that Pakistan's position on a timeframe was not rigid, but that what it wanted was "tangible progress" on the issue.
He emphasized the need for identifying areas where success was possible. A few days earlier, in an interview with the same newspaper, President Musharraf emphasized the need for the two governments to step back from "maximalist" positions. He proposed that India should pull its troops out of the Kashmir valley and agree to a compromise over its status. He left the question of the valley's status vague, but made it clear that there could be no military solution to the Kashmir issue because neither side could dictate terms to the other.
This realism has found expression in the position Pakistan has adopted ever since the process of detente with India began late last year. Islamabad has declared many times that it is open to new ideas and suggestions on a solution that could be acceptable not only to Pakistan and India but also to the people of Kashmir.
Even before the Saarc summit in Islamabad in January this year, the two countries had taken a number of confidence-building measures that have reduced tension and restored travel links. The issue was clinched when former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Islamabad for the Saarc summit and the two sides agreed to hold a "composite dialogue". The joint statement issued on Jan 6 declared that the composite dialogue was designed to ensure a peaceful settlement of all disputes between the two, including the Kashmir issue.
Since then, foreign secretaries and foreign ministers from both sides have met to carry the process forward. There has also been a fruitful meeting between President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York. However, there is no sign yet that the two sides are any closer to a solution of Kashmir.
New Delhi no doubt has moved away from its traditional position that Kashmir is India's "integral part" and accepts the need for a solution of the issue through negotiations. Similarly, Islamabad no more insists on an implementation of the UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. Yet, despite this flexibility on both sides, there is no sign yet of a formula that could be acceptable to the three sides.
Pakistan has made its position on a timeframe clear. Insisting on a timeframe could vitiate the atmosphere and derail the peace process. This does not mean, however, that Pakistan expects the talks to be open-ended. Talks must continue, but in a constructive spirit, the aim being to find a just solution of the Kashmir issue. Without a solution of this issue, there can be no lasting peace in South Asia. If the two sides are to fight the problem of poverty and channel their energies and resources to that end, they have no choice but to find a peaceful resolution of the issue.
Bush's bete noire
One should not be surprised by President George Bush's recent statement that he would not deal with President Yasser Arafat. During the debate with Democratic candidate John Kerry, Mr Bush said that Mr Arafat was not the kind of person who could lead the Palestinians to statehood. If Mr Arafat is unable to do that, who else will? Since the battle of Karame, Mr Arafat has been recognized as the sole leader of the Palestinian people.
It was he who put the Palestinian issue on the front pages of the world press. Because of his dedication to the Palestinian cause and his boundless courage, he has emerged on the world scene as the authentic spokesman of his people. A military leader as well as a statesman, Mr Arafat has led his people with courage and wisdom through tragedies which few nations have suffered.
The ultimate tribute to his leadership came in September 1993 when those who used to call him a terrorist shook hands with him on the lawns of the White House. Finally, for signing what President Bill Clinton called "the peace of the brave" Arafat, along with former Israeli president Yitzhak Rabin, got the Nobel peace prize.
The agreement he signed would have resulted in the establishment of a Palestinian state if Israel had honoured it. Instead, Mr Rabin was murdered by a Jewish fanatic, and his successors - Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr Ehud Barak and the worst of them, Mr Sharon - torpedoed two successive peace processes. It is a measure of President Bush's attitude to the Middle East peace that he has not met Mr Arafat even once but periodically receives a man universally condemned as the "butcher of Beirut".
President Bush has already torpedoed the roadmap to peace unveiled by him in April last year by saying that Israel could keep "some" West Bank land even after withdrawing from Gaza. He also scuttled the roadmap by saying that 2005 was an "unrealistic" date for a Palestinian state to emerge. Mr Bush may or may not deal with Mr Arafat, but that cannot stop the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state one day. Mr Bush's policies can delay but not stop that inevitable hour.
Making roads safer
The Karachi city government has estimated that since 1987 over 12,000 people have lost their lives in about 22,000 traffic accidents. The figures are alarming because of the fact that over the years traffic police and other relevant agencies have completely failed to come to grips with the city's growing traffic problem.
First, the absence of a mass transit system has meant a phenomenal rise in privately owned cars and the consequent problem of traffic congestion on the roads. In recent years, the easy availability of bank credit for buying cars has made the problem worse. Unless some corrective measures are taken, the traffic situation is bound to follow a worsening course.
That half the accidents involved pedestrians points to two things. One, that most of the footpaths on the city's roads, especially in commercial and congested areas (where pedestrians need such places for safe walking) have been encroached upon and this needs to be set right. The other is that sometimes pedestrians do not follow the basics of even crossing a road, which means that road safety programmes aimed at telling people of the basic rules of safe walking and driving should be launched.
A majority of the vehicles involved in accidents happen to be buses, minibuses and coaches. Here, one way to improve things would be to have a mass transit system for the city. This, however, can be only a long-term option because plans to revitalize the circular railway are yet to go beyond the talking stage, as is a scheme to build an elevated rail system. The traffic police, motorists, drivers of public transport and pedestrians all have to play their due roles.
Karachi's roads would be safer to walk or drive on if the traffic police were to take traffic regulation and enforcement of laws more seriously, if motorists and bus drivers were to show better respect for traffic rules in their driving and if pedestrians exercised greater caution when crossing roads.