FOR some inexplicable reason, the Pakistan Foreign Office has not published the text of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good-neighbourly Relations signed between Pakistan and China on Tuesday. For that reason, some of the most significant clauses of the treaty have remained unknown to the Pakistani people.

More regrettably, China’s pledge with regard to “Pakistan’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” has come to the people of Pakistan as assurances given by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during talks with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, making the people wonder what the treaty has to say about the matter.

As quoted by wire services, Pakistan’s ambassador to China, Mr Salman Bashir, told newsmen the most important feature of the talks was the “clear and unambiguous” and “categorical assurance by China to defend Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” In the absence of the text of the treaty, this looks like a Pakistani claim or interpretation of what happened during the Wen-Aziz talks.

Fortunately, the Chinese side has released extracts from the treaty which can be seen on the website of the People’s Daily of China (www.english.people.com.cn). A reading of the extracts makes it clear that what Pakistan and China signed on April 5 was more than a treaty of friendship and cooperation.

First, let us see what the treaty itself says about the “most important” aspect of the accord. The Chinese side, the treaty says, “reiterates its respect for Pakistan’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity”, while Islamabad in return “supports China’s great cause of national reunification and all the efforts of the Chinese government in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity”. It is, however, the subsequent clause that can give us an indication of the true significance of the treaty, for it stipulates that neither party will join “any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity” of the other side. The next sentence of this clause makes the treaty unique, for it stipulates that neither Pakistan nor China will conclude a similar treaty with any other country.

The clause says, “Each contracting party shall not join any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party, nor shall it take any action of this nature, including the conclusion of treaties of this nature with a third country”. This aspect of the treaty not only “institutionalizes” their relations as pointed out by Mr Aziz, it takes the Sino-Pakistan relationship to an altogether new and a higher level of commitment which neither Pakistan nor China has to any other country. This clause should be seen against another article of the treaty which asks the two sides to “enhance and consolidate trust and cooperation in the military and security fields to strengthen their security”.

The following are the extracts published by the People’s Daily:

The treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Goodneighbourly Relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “the Contracting Parties”) says the two parties firmly believe that to strengthen the overall goodneighbourly friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation between the Contracting Parties is not only in the fundamental interest of the two countries and the two peoples, but also conducive to regional and global peace, stability and development.

It reaffirms that the Joint Declaration between the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on Directions of Bilateral Cooperation signed by the two heads of state in 2003 is of guiding significance to deepening the bilateral relationship.

It confirms the obligations of the Contracting Parties under the Charter of the United Nations and other international treaties which they have acceded to.

It says that the Contracting Parties shall actively develop and consolidate the bilateral strategic partnership of goodneighbourly friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation in accordance with the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Both the Parties agree to maintain a regular high- level strategic dialogue.

It notes the Contracting Parties shall adhere to the principle of non-encroachment on national territories and boundaries in international law and strictly observe the boundary agreements between the two countries. They have resolved to maintain lasting peace and friendship for generations to come in the border areas between the two countries.

The Pakistani side reiterates that there is but one China in the world, the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.

The Pakistani side supports China’s great cause of national reunification and all the efforts of the Chinese government in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Pakistani side opposes any attempt by the Taiwan authorities to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” or “Taiwan independence”.

The Chinese side reiterates its respect for Pakistan’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Chinese side appreciates and supports Pakistan’s efforts to settle peacefully all the problems with its neighbouring countries and all efforts to safeguard its state sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.

The treaty says each Contracting Party shall not join any alliance or bloc which infringes upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other Contracting Party, nor shall it take any action of this nature including the conclusion of treaties of this nature with a third country.

Each Contracting Party shall not allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the state sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other Contracting Party.

It says each Contracting Party shall prohibit, on its own soil, the establishment of organizations or institutions which infringe upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other Contracting Party.

It notes that the Contracting Parties shall, in accordance with their domestic laws, such as extradition treaty, anti-drug agreement, and other bilateral agreements and their respective international obligations, cooperate on both bilateral and multilateral basis to crack down on terrorism, separatism and extremism, as well as such activities as organized crimes, illegal immigration and illegal trafficking in drugs and weapons.

It notes the Contracting Parties shall enhance and consolidate trust and cooperation in the military and security fields to strengthen their security.

It confirms each Contracting Party shall take effective measures in accordance with their international obligations and current domestic laws and regulations to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the other Party’s legal and natural persons in its own territory.

It says the Contracting Parties shall, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, carry out cooperation in economy, trade, agriculture, science, technology, space technology, transportation, finance, energy, peaceful uses of nuclear technology, natural resources development, investment, customs, information technology, telecommunications and other areas of mutual interest.

It says the Contracting Parties shall establish close collaboration in the field of higher education.

It says the Contracting Parties shall, in accordance with their domestic laws and the international instruments to which both Parties have acceded, protect intellectual property rights, including patent, trademark, copyright and other relevant rights. It says the Contracting Parties shall facilitate cooperation in the above-mentioned areas in accordance with their domestic laws and international instruments.

It affirms the Contracting Parties believe it is of major significance to an enhanced mutual understanding and friendship between the two peoples to expand their exchanges in culture, education, media, sports, tourism, public health and social security. The Contracting Parties shall support all walks of life of both countries to actively carry out the above-mentioned exchanges.

It notes the Contracting Parties shall, on the basis of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other universally recognized norms of international law, enhance their cooperation in the United Nations and other international and regional organizations.

It says the Contracting Parties shall continue their cooperation in international financial institutions and economic organizations and shall carry out multilateral economic cooperation within the framework of existing and future international and regional organizations.

THE MMA-led riot in Gujranwala on April 3, 2005, to protest against the participation of women in a marathon, is but the latest example of religious intolerance that has been spreading in Pakistani society for quite some time. What was made matters worse is that many in this country are unaware — or perhaps don’t care — that such acts are making Pakistan out to be a narrow-minded, bigoted, fanatic and obscurantist society.

The struggle for the creation of Pakistan was headed by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his colleagues who held liberal and moderate views. Following the tradition of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, their effort was to secure the due rights of the Indian Muslims, in the political, economic, religious, and cultural fields, in a united India. They eventually came to the bitter conclusion that the oppressive Hindu majority was determined to deny the Muslims their minimum rights.

Thus, the demand for partition and a separate Muslim homeland was made in 1940, mainly for political and nationalistic reasons. There is nothing in the Lahore Resolution to the effect that this homeland would be an Islamic state based on the Shariah. Jinnah never conceived Pakistan as a theocracy to be tightly controlled by the mullahs.

In fact, the religious parties, including those who are the constituents of the MMA, had opposed the Pakistan demand and Jinnah till the very end. The great irony is that after Pakistan came into being, these parties have more or less hijacked the rationale for the Pakistan demand and are now claiming to be the custodians of the “Pakistan ideology.”

The problem here is also perhaps a conceptual one. Many in Pakistan seem to assume that a Muslim country must also be an Islamic state, with Islam as the state religion, where everything, whether in politics or economics, must be subordinate to the Shariah. In actual fact, leaving aside a few countries like Saudi Arabia, nearly all Muslim states in the world today are secular. Should it be said that the peoples of Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the six Central Asian republics, Egypt, Syria or Algeria are not good Muslims? A Muslim state is one where the Muslims are in majority and/or hold political power. There is no necessary implication that Islamic orthodoxy has to be imposed in order for a state to be regarded as Muslim. In fact, during the long Muslim rule over India, great rulers, including the first five Mughal emperors and Sher Shah Suri, were secular in their approach. Did that make them unIslamic?

Since the beginning of the Muslim political struggle in India in the 19th century, neither Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, nor Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, nor the Muslim League under the Quaid-i-Azam ever demanded the creation of a separate Muslim homeland to be run on the basis of the Shariah. The famous speech given by the Quaid-i-Azam on August 11, 1947 made it clear that everyone in Pakistan, irrespective of his religious affiliation, would be treated as an equal citizen of the country.

The Islamization of Pakistan started with the Objectives Resolution of 1949. Religious intolerance gathered pace during the anti-Qadiani agitation of 1953. In the 1970s, the religious parties forced the secular-minded Bhutto to declare the Qadianis as being outside the pale of Islam; liquor to be banned; and Friday to be the weekly holiday.

The march towards Islamization was pursued with a vengeance by the repressive Ziaul Haq regime. The sectarian differences in Pakistan now became violent. The split grew between the Shias and Sunnis, the Deobandi and Barelvi groups and splinter factions like the Sipah-i-Sahaba and the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and their counterpart Shia militant groups who started to carry out terrorist acts and vendettas against each other.

The need to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980s led to military training and the supply of arms to the Mujahideen. One of them, Osama bin Laden, later founded the Al Qaeda, the terrorist movement allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Since then, militant Islam has come to be seen by the West, Russia and many others as a threat to global peace and security. The image of Islam in the world has taken a beating and Muslims are being caricatured as fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists.

The religious extremists need to ponder as to what they are doing to Pakistan and to the worldwide interests of the Muslims. In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muslims are being killed while praying in mosques, eminent religious leaders are being targeted and formerly peaceful cities like Gilgit have seen sectarian riots. Islam prohibits suicide and yet suicide bombers are being glorified and respected citizens are sheltering terrorists. Is this the Islamic society we want to build? Over the centuries, Islamic societies were known for their tolerance. The Jews, who were being suppressed in Christian Europe, were finding refuge in the Islamic world.

In India, Muslims ruled for a 1,000 years and yet three-fourths of the population remained non-Muslim — a prime example of tolerance. This was in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Quran that there is no compulsion in religion. This proud heritage is being torn to pieces by today’s vengeful band of Islamic extremists whose models remain the ousted Afghan Taliban (who were shunned by most countries of the world) and the Al Qaeda.

Of course, apart from religious intolerance, we have also developed a culture of political intolerance in Pakistan. The worst instance of intolerance was the terrorism that ruled over Karachi from 1985 till the mid-90s. Political intolerance goes back to the 1950s when governments were toppled and parties were switched overnight. This has continued ever since. The motivating factor has always been lust for power. Those who manage to rule are in conflict with those out of power.

Election results are not accepted and the opposition is never willing to concede that the rulers might have done some good also. Their tactics are to carry out a campaign of smear and vilification in order to create public disaffection towards the rulers. No wonder, many in Pakistan have come to believe that the country has done nothing praiseworthy, ignoring the great strides made since 1947 in agriculture, industry, military capability, sports, the media, communications, the empowerment of women and other fields.

When the PPP was in power, the opposition Muslim League described it as a threat to Pakistan’s security. Nawaz Sharif used to say that Benazir and Pakistan could not go together. When he was in power, the PPP refused to accept his mandate and made common cause with the mullahs, and even with the army, to bring down his government. The pattern has been that as soon as a government comes to power, the opposition starts nationwide agitations and train marches, strikes and demonstrations to bring down the regime. Former political enemies become allies with the sole objective to bring down the current rulers. Over the years, the legislatures have lost their sanctity and have seen weeks of disruption, noisy protests and outright acts of hooliganism.

Such unprincipled politics have opened the door, again and again, to the military dictators who sought legitimacy on the ground that they could give the country a clean government. While this promise has hardly been fulfilled, their interventions have derailed democracy even further.

No democracy can function unless there is tolerance in society. The reason why the West, and even developing countries like India and Malaysia, have had political stability is that losers in the election wait patiently for their turn until the next election is held. There is no attempt made to disrupt normal life or destroy the economy. The governments in the West, and other democratic countries, for their part, are tolerant of dissent and do not resort to draconian measures to curb the opposition. It is evident that tolerance is the key to political stability and progress. We need to learn this lesson from our history of the past 50 years.

IF India’s wishes were to come true, it would have the best of equation with America. This is obvious from the mood prevailing in top government quarters in New Delhi. One sentence attributed to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — America wants to help India become a major world power in the 21st century — has sent hopes soaring.

The observation may sound patronizing, as one BJP leader has said, but not many have lent him ears. In fact, Rice’s remark has practically erased the past bitterness against the US. What will be the contours of the bilateral relationship is on the top of an unending discussion in the military, economic and political circles. Now the civil nuclear technology is taken for granted. But many more goodies are expected.

The importance attached to Washington’s next move can well be imagined that New Delhi is paying it a lot of attention even in the midst of the long-awaited visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jaibao to India.

With Beijing it has been an on-going dialogue which New Delhi had begun more than two decades ago. It is now nearing the post; there is very little worry of any failure. What remains is the last lap which will cover the principles to settle the boundary dispute, expand economic ties and reach an arrangement whereby the two giants do not come into each other’s way as they did in 1962.

But with America, the real relationship is yet to be built up. The cold war and Washington’s distance even after that did not give New Delhi any hope for normality. President Clinton was inclined to initiate the process to draw India nearer, but then it exploded the bomb. Relations became worse. After the remark by Rice, New Delhi is beginning to believe that America’s attitude is changing and it has only to wait for Washington to open up its gates.

This may explain why the proposed supply of the F-16s to Pakistan has not created the furore that it would have done otherwise. The very mention of F-16 would make New Delhi furious in the past 15 years. Washington had to pigeonhole the purchase although Islamabad had paid out in cash. Even a proposal of sale or transfer of US weapons to Islamabad irritated us. We still believe that such a move fuels arms race in the two countries. But America’s offer to make India “a major world power” is too tempting to stoke old objections. True, New Delhi’s spokesman voiced India’s protest against the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. But it was more to go on record than to upbraid Washington. Even the Left, the main prop of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, was not really angry. This might be because when it came to reaping the benefits all — Left, Right or Central — converged to become the same establishment.

Does this attitude indicate a change in India’s perception that America tends to tilt towards Pakistan? Or, does it mean the beginning of a new type of understanding between New Delhi and Washington where there is a realization that the two largest democracies in the world are realizing that their interests are common? It is too early to find answers to these questions. But by the time President Bush visits India in January next, New Delhi or, for that matter, the world would have known the reply.

Experts have not forgotten that the induction of the US arms in the region has been invariably followed by hostilities between India and Pakistan. Nor has New Delhi ignored the fact that Islamabad is using the opportunity to obtain as many as 70 F-16s. Yet, what has made India as bland and mute as possible is the dream to become a “major world power” with Washington’s help.

There is nothing wrong in it. But the ground realities do not give any indication that America means what Rice said. The US media paid little attention to her observation. Practically, no Congressman or Senator spoke in favour of what she said. If anything, the remark by Rice was taken as part of rhetoric, not worthy of any specific attention. This will be the inference drawn in any part of the world because a policy statement by the US Secretary of State is followed by a categorical announcement by the White House, if not the State Department.

President Bush did convey to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on phone about the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. But Bush did not say anything on America’s help to build India into “a major world power.” It was only Rice’s observation and that too when she was juxtaposing the supply of F-16s to Pakistan against what America was having in mind regarding India.

New Delhi is reportedly thinking of buying F-16s or the later version and also acquiring the technology to manufacture them. The step is not without risks. Russia, India’s main supplier, may lift the ban on selling weapons to Pakistan. Moscow has persistently said ‘no’ to Islamabad’s request for arms in the past.

The visit of the US officials from the Department of Energy does not suggest anything big. Even if this is the beginning, it is at a low level. America will have to go out of the way to release latest technology in different fields and offer a long-term generous credit.

What probably is true is that America is worried over India’s growing relations with Iran on the one hand and China on the other. A long-term deal which New Delhi has signed with Tehran for gas, with the possibility of the pipeline through Pakistan, has irritated Washington. Rice minced no worlds when she met government leaders in New Delhi. America does not like any country, much less India, to foster closer relations with Iran which may well be Washington’s next target despite Europe’s pressure on Tehran to give up its nuclear programme.

As far as China, India’s equation with it may not be to the liking of America. Beijing still remains the most recalcitrant capital that Washington faces in the world. In America’s scheme of things, the democratic India is supposed to counter the doctrinaire China.

If the two were to sink their differences, what answer does Washington have to Beijing’s defiance? America has seen how China has passed Anti-Secession Act to occupy some day Taiwan which Washington swears to keep independent.

The report that China wants a free-trade area with India on the lines Beijing has contracted with Islamabad cannot be to the liking of Washington. If the markets of India and China are to be limited to the US, it is bound to suffer. Tomorrow’s two economic giants are India and China. How can America sit back and watch the developments that are against its interests?

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

TO the literature on deception in war Americans must now add a new chapter — on self-deception. For that is the ultimate explanation for how the American military went to war in Iraq in March 2003 equipped with gas masks and chemical-biological suits to protect itself against weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist.

The presidential commission that released its report last week was scathing about this intelligence failure. It described an intelligence community that is “headstrong,” “too slow” and “a ‘community’ in name only.” It dissected intelligence reports that were “riddled with errors,” “disastrously one-sided” and that relied on information from “sources who were telling lies.”

The commission’s conclusion was simply worded but devastating: “The harm done to American credibility by our all too public intelligence failings in Iraq will take years to undo.”

The report blamed everyone involved in the WMD fiasco except the Bush administration officials who actually made the decision to go to war. “[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received,” the commission explained. That omission is unfortunate. If there’s one thing that has become clear in the history of US intelligence over the past 50 years it is that the CIA is not in fact a rogue agency. It is shaped, often to a fault, by the priorities and pet projects of whoever is in the White House. Intelligence supports policy, but it doesn’t make it.

The Bush administration must examine its role in the process of self-deception over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, above all to guard against future mistakes. It wasn’t Saddam Hussein who deceived American leaders; he claimed repeatedly that he had no WMD. It was America that deceived itself. The commission said it didn’t find evidence of any direct political pressure on analysts to skew their judgments.

But it hints at the real-life Washington atmosphere in which the disastrous mistakes were made: “[I]t is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.”

As the commission tells the story, the self-deception began with the intelligence community’s failures before the 1991 Persian Gulf War in assessing how far Iraq had advanced in its nuclear and chemical weapons programmes. “Shaken by the magnitude of their errors,” the report notes, “intelligence analysts were determined not to fall victim again to the same mistake.”

So they made a new one, which was to assume the worst possible case about Iraq’s WMD. They wove together suppositions, preconceptions and shreds of real information. Incredibly, in the egregious case of a defector to Germany code-named “Curveball,” who had provided fabricated “intelligence” about Iraqi mobile biological labs, the CIA passed the information to policymakers without ever confirming it independently.

When it came time to write the decisive National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD in October 2002, the analysts took their assumptions “and swathed them in the mystique of intelligence, providing secret information that seemed to support them but was in fact nearly worthless, if not misleading.” Philosophers describe this process as “reification” — turning soft information into what appears to be hard fact.

The intelligence community is bruised and demoralized these days, and not without reason. Its mistakes have spawned a kind of reform-mania, and a frantic drive to rejigger the bureaucratic boxes.—Dawn/Washington Post Service