India asked to pull out troops from Siachen: FO hails Singh’s statement
By Qudssia Akhlaque
ISLAMABAD, June 13: Pakistan on Monday welcomed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement that the time had come to convert the world’s highest battlefield, Siachen, into a ‘peace mountain’ and hoped that India would vacate its aggression in the area to make this vision a reality. “We welcome this statement and hope that it reflects a change in Indian position,” said Foreign Office spokesman Jalil Abbas Jilani at his weekly news briefing here in response to a question. He pointed out that Pakistan had always emphasized a peaceful resolution of the Siachen issue.
“India had committed an aggression in 1983 and we hope following this statement India would withdraw unconditionally its occupation of the area that it did in violation of the 1972 Shimla agreement and the 1949 Karachi agreement,” he added.
Siachen can only become the mountain of peace if India unconditionally withdraws its troops from the area, was the spokesman’s loud and clear message.
Mr Jilani expressed surprise over Mr Singh’s statement that Baltistan and Northern Areas were also disputed areas. His explanation for the ‘surprise’ was that it was India and not Pakistan that had been denying their right of self-determination by not holding a plebiscite.
He maintained that the future of the entire Jammu and Kashmir area had to be determined in accordance to the UN resolutions that called for holding of a plebiscite.
In reply to a related question, he said the UN resolutions also talked about the Northern Areas and the plebiscite would have to be conducted in the entire region.
“India has to accept the disputed nature of held Kashmir rather than talk about areas that have already sought freedom from the Maharaja and the Indian yoke,” he emphasized.
The spokesman observed that Pakistan’s principled position remained the same that the issue had to be decided in line with the aspirations of people of Jammu and Kashmir as promised to them by both India and Pakistan and by the international community.
Any other solution, he said, had to emerge out of a process which involved India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. “At the moment, there is no fixed settlement that anybody has in mind,” he categorically stated.
When questioned about Pakistan’s position on APHC chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s recent assertion that the Kashmiris desired to be citizens of the United States of Kashmir, the spokesman said: “If the United States of Kashmir means a unification of the divided parts of Kashmir and if it means ascertaining the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through a free and fair plebiscite then of course that remains Pakistan’s position.”
In response to another question, Mr Jilani clarified that the Miwaiz had not criticized the UN resolutions on Kashmir but the UN’s failure to implement them.
When questioned about the basis of Pakistani leadership’s optimism regarding an early solution of the Kashmir problem, Mr Jilani said events of the last couple of months had given the hope for it. He also pointed to the intense engagements and developments of the last 18 months that had generated optimism.
However, conceding that an overnight solution was not expected, he said: “There is a serious realization in both the countries that this issue has to be resolved in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the visit of the Hurriyat delegation should be seen in that respect.”
“Their (Hurriyat leaders) visit is the first step towards their participation in the dialogue process,” he added.
Mr Jilani said there was a realization in both countries that for the development and peoples of the two countries it was imperative that this issue be resolved at the earliest.
In reply to a question, the spokesman ruled out the possibility of conversion of Line of Control into a permanent border as a solution to the Kashmir dispute. “LoC is a problem and not a solution,” he stressed.
When his attention was drawn to Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s disappointment with the peace process, Mr Jilani said the minister’s reference must have been to its slow pace and the need to speed things up.
The spokesman was evasive on the question of Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed’s planned visit to Kashmir later this month. “I am not aware of the itinerary of his visit,” he said while emphasizing the fact that the minister would undertake the visit in his personal capacity as a Kashmiri to meet his relatives on the other side of the LoC.
GAS PIPELINE: In reply to a question regarding US concerns on the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, the spokesman made it clear that Pakistan’s national interest would be the determining factor in this regard.
“We are aware of the US concerns about the project but we will take a decision in the best interest of the country,” he stated.
Referring to the recent visit of Indian petroleum minister, the spokesman said the Iranian petroleum minister would also be visiting Pakistan on June 20-21 to discuss the project. “We hope these bilateral meetings will translate into trilateral meetings to firm up the project,” he said.
The Indian petroleum minister during his visit here had also expressed interest in being associated with two other gas pipeline projects (Turkmenistan and Qatar) that Pakistan was considering, the spokesman added.
“Pakistan is interested in all three projects and some good progress has been made in this regard,” he said, adding that the petroleum secretary was on his way to Qatar to discuss the project with his counterpart there.
BAGLIHAR TALKS: Mr Jilani described as ‘extremely fruitful’ the first-ever meeting under the auspices of the World Bank neutral expert to resolve the Baglihar dispute between Pakistan and India.
“From our point of view it was an extremely good meeting and we were able to make good progress on the issue,” Mr Jilani said when asked about the outcome of last week’s meeting in Paris.
He pointed out that during its detailed presentation on the technical aspects and its objections to the Baglihar project, the Pakistani delegation emphasized that the determination on the issue by the neutral expert had to be strictly based on the Indus Waters Treaty. The delegation also called for an expeditious resolution of the issue, he added.
“The neutral expert assured us of expeditious determination or closure of this issue,” Mr Jilani stated.
He said during the two-day meeting the neutral expert as well as Pakistani and Indian delegations discussed the modalities and worked out a schedule of engagements.
According to the understanding reached at the meeting, India would provide complete and up-to-date information about the project by a certain date, and Pakistan on the basis of that data would substantiate its objections to which India would respond, Mr Jilani stated. This would be followed by a visit of the neutral expert to the project site along with the Pakistani and Indian technical teams, he added. The joint site inspection would begin at the end of September and would be completed in the first week of October, Mr Jilani said, adding that it would be preceded by a separate visit of the Pakistani team to the site to familiarise itself with latest developments.
The spokesman disagreed with the view that the date was too far ahead given that India was continuing with construction work. Underlining that it was a time-consuming process, he said: “We have been assured that the entire process would be completed much before the completion of work.”
In reply to a question, he maintained that the neutral expert did not have the mandate to suspend construction work on the Baglihar project.
The spokesman was tight-lipped on the question of IAEA findings on the centrifuges dispatched by Pakistan. “There is no official comment from the IAEA,” was his abrupt response.
