|
| October 16, 2005 | Sunday | Ramzan 11, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Not minor hiccups
A worthy Nobel laureate
Taking the peace process forward
AS India and Pakistan prepare to enter the third phase of the composite dialogue, it is important to asses how far the two countries have moved forward since the initiation of the peace process, and what impact this has had on the security and strategic environment of South Asia as well as what does the future portends.
IN the aftermath of last Saturday’s earthquake in Azad Kashmir and parts of the NWFP, Pakistan and India have joined hands to combat the catastrophe that has befallen their people. Natural calamities are great levellers and when they strike with a vengeance, they do not discriminate between people and countries. Last week, Kashmir was the unfortunate victim — the casualties in Indian-held Kashmir were nearly 1,600 dead, 5,000 injured and 32,000 homes destroyed as against 40,000 dead in Azad Kashmir — and given the politically disputed status of the territory, the tragedy assumed greater poignancy. It points to the mistrust built up after decades of bad blood between New Delhi and Islamabad, that the initial moves for rescue and relief were cautious and not as prompt as they could have been. India’s offer of assistance was considered by Pakistan against the backdrop of its “sensitivities”. But it was ultimately accepted by Pakistan in a spirit of appreciation and gratitude.
Humanitarian compulsions, especially where people with cultural, social and economic affinities are concerned, can prove to have a great bonding force. Countries that may have fought wars and are known to be at daggers drawn with each other have come together in times of shared crises. Pakistan had sent relief assistance to India after the Ahmedabad earthquake in 2001. Likewise, India’s offer to send relief goods this time has been timely not just for the earthquake affected people but also for the confidence-building process between the two countries. So far, India has already sent 26 tonnes of relief material by air and another 68 tonnes of blankets, tents and plastic sheets by train that crossed the Attari-Wagah border point on Friday. Another consignment of aid from India is expected by train later this week. The two countries have also made other reciprocal gestures that will go a long way towards strengthening the nascent bonds of friendship and cooperation between them. For instance, many Kashmiris who had travelled to Azad Kashmir from the Valley or vice versa and were stranded when the earthquake halted the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service, were allowed to cross the LoC and return home. Others have returned crossing the international border between the two countries.
This would have been inconceivable a few years ago before the composite dialogue had been launched and confidence-building measures had eased tension in the region and fostered links of friendship at the people-to-people level. Perhaps it is too early to expect the two countries to drop their mutual reservations on sensitive strategic and political issues like Kashmir at this stage, even in the face of a major natural disaster. Thus the quibbling on whether the Indian troops crossed the LoC to help Pakistani soldiers in Azad Kashmir seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has offered to help victims in parts of Azad Kashmir that have been cut off from Muzaffarabad but can be reached from the Indian side of Kashmir. But he has made it clear that he respects Pakistan’s sensitivities, leaving it to Islamabad to accept or reject the offer. These gestures from New Delhi will be welcomed and are of great significance because they underline growing warmth between the two countries. Meanwhile, the people-to-people contacts, that have always been ahead of the official ties, have been active with various organizations and professional bodies in India offering assistance to their counterparts in Pakistan.
IF some quake victims are reported to have resorted to looting food and other things, it is understandable: they are doing so out of desperation. After all, aid has been slow to reach far-flung areas and when it does arrive, it is a case of every man fending for himself and his family. While one can sympathize with it, what is abhorring is how some greedy people are trying to profit from this tragedy. As if it wasn’t bad enough to know about retailers who had jacked up prices of urgently needed goods like tents, there are now reports of people selling stolen goods meant for quake victims. Take the case of an Afghan who was apprehended in Karachi for buying 12 trucks loaded with relief goods on their way up north. The man is said to own two shops and a warehouse so it is safe to assume that he would have made a killing out of relief goods, thereby depriving thousands who are still waiting for any form of aid. Then there is the report of a man in Karachi who ‘donated’ 15,000 cans of expired tinned food which was discovered at the eleventh hour and taken hold of. An FIR has been registered against the man whose cruel act could have added to the miseries of the stricken people. These incidents are perhaps illustrative of what is happening elsewhere and should not be tolerated; the perpetrators deserve to be given swift and exemplary punishment.
Such dreadful acts of a few individuals may have a disheartening effect on people who may hesitate to donate, thinking that their donations may not reach the desired destination. This will be a big blow to relief efforts. To ensure smooth delivery of goods, the army needs to double its efforts in providing tight security along the roads where looting — be it desperate victims or criminal gangs — is likely. While chaos and confusion prevail, concerted and coordinated efforts need to be made to ensure that relief goods reach the deserving as quickly and painlessly as possible.
THE Swedish Academy deserves to be appreciated for its choice of British playwright Harold Pinter for the Nobel Prize for Literature this year. Mr Pinter is known as one of the masters of the theatre of the absurd, writing plays over a period of time and his work has been influenced by another great playwright Samuel Beckett, who went on to become his good friend. But more than that, in recent years, he became one of the leading voices of criticism against the invasion of Iraq, reserving his most blistering comments for the US and British governments. He told a British newspaper in 2003 that George W. Bush’s administration was like Hitler’s Nazi Germany, only concerned with dominating the world. He also said that it was like a “wild bloodthirsty animal”, called Guantanamo Bay a “concentration camp” and referred to Tony Blair as a “deluded idiot” and “mass murderer”. Contrary to the view taken by many other critics, he held the US public also responsible for America’s disastrous foreign policy because it sat by silently and did nothing to stand up to someone like Bush. He blamed the US media as well, which, he said, tended to portray Mr Bush as a “moral” and, therefore, a legitimate ruler. For him, the only way for an individual to protest was by “thought, intelligence and solidarity”, something he said that even his compatriots seemed to lack.
The strength of his prose is its brevity and precision. His plays have characters who speak in incomplete and sometimes incoherent sentences, with many pauses and silences. In a sense the language being used does not signify communication but miscommunication and misunderstanding. The citation for Mr Pinter’s award very aptly reads that his works “force entry into oppression’s closed rooms” and it is clear that he is a staunch defender of the rights of the oppressed.
Considering that nearly three years ago the two nuclear rivals were locked in a protracted military standoff, there is no denying that they have come a long way, although progress has been essentially on softer and less contentious issues. The security environment has improved significantly. Ceasefire along the 750-kilometre Line of Control and the Siachen Glacier is holding and both sides have reaffirmed their commitment to ensure its compliance in future.
Additional confidence building measures (CBMs) include the pre-notification of ballistic missile tests, the establishment of communication links between the maritime security forces, a dedicated fibre optic communication link between foreign secretaries to serve as a nuclear risk reduction measure and upgradation of the existing director general military operations hotline.
Besides, a host of CBMs covering travel between the two sides of Kashmir, allowing the visit of the All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC) leaders to Pakistan and the restoration of air, rail and bus links between India and Pakistan have been agreed upon. New air and land routes are also likely to be opened in due course. People-to-people contacts have improved significantly and the business community on both sides is looking at prospects for economic and commercial cooperation.
The revival of the Indo-Pakistan joint commission after a lapse of 16 years opens up possibilities of cooperation in the fields of agriculture, health, science and technology, education and information technologies. It is indeed encouraging that the peace process and the leadership of both countries is showing sensitivity towards each other’s political constraints.
Negotiations on Siachen and Sir Creek are going on but have not made any real progress so far. Some agreement may emerge on these issues in subsequent meetings as the joint statement after the foreign ministers’ meeting of October 2005 in Islamabad indicated. On the resolution of the vital issue of Jammu and Kashmir, India continues to drag its feet and wants to compel Pakistan and the people of J&K to, by and large, accept the status quo.
This led to growing fears that the peace process may lose its momentum when in September 2005, at the United Nations, both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh fell back on the old rhetoric of blaming each other’s country for destroying the spirit of the peace process.
Nonetheless, the positive aspect of the issue of Kashmir is that talks between the APHC and the governments of India and Pakistan have taken place. As the dialogue moves on, it is possible that besides the APHC, Islamabad may also consider reaching out to other political forces in Kashmir, including the militants, to make the process more inclusive.
If India allows an institutionalized dialogue among these major political forces, then it is possible that they could work out the future methodology to determine, either through referendum or other means, the election of representatives for negotiating with India and Pakistan and move toward conflict resolution that is acceptable to all three.
Meanwhile, the promotion of trade and joint economic activity between the two sides of Kashmir should strengthen the peace constituencies. Both parts of Kashmir could also promote tourism, exchange horticultural products, export Kashmiri handicrafts and jointly undertake communication and energy projects. Ideally, Azad Kashmir and Indian administered Kashmir can undertake hydel-projects as great potential for generating power exists.
Improving the economic well being of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is a prerequisite for creating the enabling environment and weaning disgruntled elements away from militancy.
Freedom of movement in terms of greater people to people contact and new trade and commerce opportunities can act as a catalyst for change both in Kashmir as well as between India and Pakistan.
New Delhi and Islamabad are also seriously examining prospects for energy cooperation, but progress has been slow. US pressure on India and Pakistan has made the future of the gas pipeline from Iran uncertain, although both countries maintain that they will pursue the project and are working on its financial and technical aspects.
The US approach is short sighted, considering that the key challenge to the sustainability of India and Pakistan’s economic development is to find ways to satisfy their rapidly increasing energy demands.
Additionally, energy demands are a critical factor in influencing strategic thinking and military attitudes. Regional energy grid projects will strengthen the cause of bilateral and regional cooperation and boost peace constituencies in South Asia. Islamabad should look at the gas pipeline project not as a stand-alone venture, but more holistically by embracing the concept of normal trade, granting Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status and permitting transit rights to India.
Regional energy networks could eventually move the two countries and the region including Afghanistan to pursue common energy policies. Success of pipeline projects could also act as an incentive for all parties to bring peace and security in Balochistan and the tribal belt as these form the transit areas from where the pipelines are expected to pass.
There are other trends that are disconcerting, including India’s adoption of the “cold start strategy”. This concept is based on using highly mobile integrated battle groups, combined with elements of air force and navy as “hard strike” forces in an offensive role. It is not that Pakistan’s military cannot counter this, but the approach reflects a state of mind and attitude totally at variance with the spirit that both countries are trying to develop. Similarly, Pakistan can no longer be ambivalent about its policy of support to the militants.
India and Pakistan have held exploratory talks on nuclear issues yet there is no likelihood of either country placing restraints on its nuclear and missile development. Both seem to be engaged in a silent arms race. Both countries continue to expand and modernize their nuclear arsenals. Both are increasing production of fissile materials, and high priority is being accorded to the development of delivery systems, with India focusing on Agni 2 and Agni 3 and Pakistan on the Shaheen l and Shaheen 2.
Indeed, what is even more critical is the type of nuclear strategies the two countries evolve over a period of time. It is, however, encouraging that both sides have so far not deployed their nuclear weapons, and declared that they will not engage in nuclear testing. They have agreed to limited stabilization measures such as following a missile notification regime and remain committed to their earlier agreement on prohibiting attacks on each other’s nuclear installations.
The other negative aspect is that the strategic thinking in both India and Pakistan lacks clarity about the concept of minimum deterrence. Both countries pursue the term rather loosely to cover their nuclear aspirations. Their doctrines and nuclear discourse occasionally mirrors the Cold War lexicon. They still talk of massive retaliation and India’s adoption of the triad militates against the concept of minimum deterrence.
The transformed geo-strategic environment and changed global order demands that India and Pakistan bring about a fundamental change in their military thinking and culture. And this can be facilitated if the differences in the security perceptions between the two countries are narrowed and the legacy of distrust that continues to cast a deep shadow on their relations is minimized.
We also have to remind ourselves that the forces of radicalism are still very active in the region and could exploit the lack of substantive progress on major issues.
The greatest challenge facing the two countries is, therefore, to gradually work towards removing the major contradictions in their relationship and harmonizing their military aspirations with the ongoing peace process.
Without this, it will not be possible to bring about a qualitative shift in their relationship. This is a great window of opportunity for the leadership in both countries to settle their disputes and eventually work towards a conventional and strategic restraint regime in South Asia.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general of the Pakistan Army.