ISLAMABAD: Last week an unusual spectacle was witnessed at the Pakistani capital’s hub of diplomacy and civility — verbal bout at the main entrance of the Foreign Office minutes after a dinner hosted by Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri for the Pugwash delegates to the Kashmir conference.

The encounter, the kind often experienced in parliament, was triggered by remarks made earlier by a Pakistani journalist in a dig at the pro-India Kashmiri leader Omar Abdullah who took strong exception to it. The fireworks erupted when IOK People’s Democratic Party leader Maulvi Iftikhar Ansari pointedly told the editor of an Urdu daily just as he was about to leave the FO that Indian Kashmiri Muslims did not have to prove their credentials as good Muslims nor did they seek any certification in this respect.

The exchanges that ensued created quite a scene which caught the attention even of guards and drivers outside. The disconcerted foreign minister, foreign secretary and other senior FO officials looked on helplessly, visibly discomfited by the outburst. Even the Indian high commissioner present on the occasion stood there as a silent observer, looking equally astonished. The temperatures cooled down only after some intervention. Perhaps, the fireworks would have gone on for longer if pro-independence JKLF leader Yasin Malik, who had decided to stay away from the dinner, had been present.

In hindsight some feel that it was not a good idea to have had a question-answer session given the mix of guests and the sensitivities involved on the Kashmir issue. After all it was the first time that glib-tongued and firebrand Omar Abdullah was encountering the media in Pakistan and emotions were bound to run high. As expected most of the questions were directed at Omar Abdullah who was here on his maiden visit and sat right next to Mr Kasuri at the high table. The sharp-witted National Conference leader initially took questions in stride but his calm eventually wore out under the volley.

When questioned about the failure to implement the UN resolutions on Kashmir, his emphatic assertion was that conditions required for implementation of these resolutions were not conducive from day one. When Mr Kasuri’s response was sought on this observation, he avoided getting into a controversy, saying Pakistan’s position was clear on the issue. At this point, the visibly agitated Omar Abdullah turned to the media and thundered: “Please don’t put us in an awkward situation with our hosts. Let us all look ahead.” He said all including he himself had made mistakes in the past. It was at this point that in an attempt to defuse tension a Kashmiri delegate announced that it was Omar Abdullah’s birthday.

However, the ‘birthday boy’, who turned 36 that day, was not at all amused and his temperature rose perceptibly as questions dragging him into past controversies continued. Finally the question session was cut short at a signal from Mr. Kasuri.

Apparently the FO decided at a review meeting the next day to avoid a repeat of such embarrassing episodes by exercising greater caution in the choice of guests invited to such functions. The consensus was that the FO ought to be more selective even if it meant being less democratic.

Earlier on during a chat, Omar Abdullah made some interesting observations. One, that there was recognition across the board that Kashmir was a political issue and needed a political solution. Two, that a military solution was out and the Line of Control had to be made irrelevant. Third, he believed one positive outcome of the peace process had been that Kashmiri leaders, once at daggers drawn, could now sit together and differ in a mature fashion.

Cautioning against frictions within the Kashmiri leadership, he quoted his late grandfather and Kashmiri leader Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as saying that the Indian government wanted to create a leader out of every ‘mohallah (locality)’ in Kashmir to pursue a policy of divide and rule. He saw President Musharraf’s proposal of joint management as “a bit tricky”, saying it would raise the sovereignty question for both India and Pakistan. On the demilitarisation proposal his suggestion to President Gen Musharraf was that it could be started with Siachen.

According to an insider at the closed-door session of the Kashmir Conference earlier in the day, Abdullah had made the suggestion that Pakistan should make peace with India now as the latter was on its way to becoming a major global power, and Pakistan might have to contend itself with the status quo. In this context, he also made a reference to the Indo-US nuclear deal.

SINO-PAK EQUATION: A close interaction with a Chinese media and think-tank delegation last week at a function hosted by DG ISPR Major-Gen Shaukat Sultan gave a useful and telling insight into Chinese thinking and our army’s mindset, particularly on the issue of democracy.

While reckoning that the growing Indo-US strategic partnership was part of the American policy to contain China as a rising global power, the Chinese did not seem too alarmed by it. Their thrust was that in view of the emerging international scenario and “new deals” coming up, Pakistan and China ought to be shaken out of the complacency of their proverbial ‘all-weather friendship’ to consolidate it into an all-round strategic partnership. There was consensus that Sino-Pakistan collaboration that has so far been mostly in the defence field needed to be extended to trade, economy and people-to-people contact that had tremendous untapped potential.

Underscoring that China was a key factor in the Pakistan-US equation, Gen Shaukat Sultan observed it was not a mere coincidence that President Gen Musharraf had made a trip to China just ahead of the Bush visit to Pakistan. He believed that the Indo-US nuclear deal had actually enhanced Pakistan’s options from this end and asked the Chinese delegates: “What stops Pakistan from having such a deal with China?” The general saw the Indo-US ‘embrace’ as largely market-driven to keep the huge American defence industry going given that India had the second biggest army in the world after China. His view that Pakistan could provide a vital strategic link between the two countries by offering a trade and energy corridor to China was fully endorsed by the Chinese team. Declaring Gwadar as the silk route of the 21st century and selling Pakistan as a valuable transit point and transport hub, he underlined that China no longer needed to travel 21,000km to get to an eastern port.

Another point made was that relations so far had been marked more by high-level exchanges and there was need to promote greater interaction between the peoples of the two countries to involve the younger generations as well. Regular interaction between the media was particularly advocated as it was seen as the most efficient way of disseminating information.

The Chinese emphasised that improvement of Indo-Sino relations, which was part of China’s policy to maintain good relations with its neighbours would be conducive to peace and stability in South Asia and these relations would in no way affect Sino-Pakistan ties.

On the question of democracy Gen Sultan cited examples of countries like the US, the UK and France where it took centuries or so for democracy to evolve. His overriding message was that it was courtesy the generals and men in uniform, the likes of Napoleon, that democracy eventually came about.

The discussions at the reception also took in the genesis of extremism and terrorism, which it was felt could be traced to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It transpired during these discussions that Pakistan received a paltry sum of $12 per annum for each one of the four million Afghan refugees.

NEW DELHI: Russia has decided to supply low-enriched uranium fuel for the Tarapur nuclear reactors. It had been reported earlier that a decision to clear this supply for the fuel-starved reactors had been taken shortly after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Moscow in December last year, and that an announcement to this effect could be expected in March.

The ministry of external affairs spokesperson, in response to a question, confirmed on Tuesday that Russia had notified the Nuclear Suppliers Group of its intention to supply fuel for the Tarapur nuclear plant under the safety exception clause of NSG guidelines. India had made a request for urgent and limited fuel supply for the fuel-starved reactors and had been negotiating the same with Russia since May last year, when the issue was first taken up by Dr Singh with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The decision has already elicited a strong response from the executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, Mr Daryl Kimball, who was quoted by news agencies as saying: “This is the first salvo. China could be next in trying to propose a similar loophole for Pakistan.” The association is leading the attack in the United States on the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy agreement, insisting that it was a case of rewarding India for not adhering to any international treaty on non-proliferation.

The ministry spokesman, in response to a question on similar lines, said that the decision was in conformity with the July 18 joint statement signed by the Prime Minister and US President George W. Bush. There is a paragraph here that commits President Bush to work with “friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded reactors at Tarapur.” The relevant line here is: “in the meantime, the United States will encourage its partners to also consider this request expeditiously.”

This has obviously been done very expeditiously, with Russia clearing the fuel supply even before the ink has dried on the renewed statement of good faith signed by President Bush and Dr Manmohan Singh in New Delhi earlier this month. Mr Bush is currently seeking to soften criticism back home and give the deal a chance of being accepted by the US Congress despite strong opposition by non-proliferation lobbyists within and outside this body. New Delhi has pointed out that Tarapur is running short of fuel, which would affect operations, and the energy generated now would be used to supply electricity to the western power grid. This limited supply, the spokespersonsaid,, would be for the safeguarded reactors TAPS-1 and TAPS-2.

Russia last supplied fuel for Tarapur in 2001, drawing strong censure from the US. US officials have been quoted by news agencies reporting from Washington as saying that Russia had told the Bush administration that it planned to export 60 metric tons of fuel that would be “safety related”. In 2001, Russia had used the same argument to ship 58 metric tons of fuel and after the strong reaction from the NSG had let it be known to the Indian government that it could not proceed with this without the necessary clearances from the NSG. President Vladimir Putin had agreed to reconsider this in May last and, according to sources, the decision was taken after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Russia in December.

The NSG has not cleared the supply of fuel but the US government has been kept on board, with sources pointing out that the first information of this was given to select members at the recent IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna. There is no sense of surprise from Washington over the Russian decision, with the sources maintaining that the Bush administration was fully informed. President Bush might, however, have a difficult time convincing the non-proliferation lobbyists that the supply of fuel by Russia at this stage was not a further breach in understanding, and that it could in no way be constituted as a “reward” for India.

Interestingly, a non-proliferation analyst with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Mr Jon Wolfsthal, has also been quoted from Washington as saying: “To assume that the United States would be the only country competing for a potentially lucrative cut of the Indian budget is naive. If the US is going to put business before non-proliferation priorities then other countries are going to do the same.” President Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both sought to justify the nuclear agreement with India with a dollars-and-cents argument. In fact, Dr Rice even went so far to state that if the US got even two of the six or seven nuclear reactors India would be in the market shopping for, it would bring its nuclear industry back into business. —By arrangement with The Asianage