There is optimism in the air

INDIAN Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s weekend visit to Islamabad has been described by an editorial in this newspaper as creating “optimism in the air”. This is certainly an extremely relevant statement, and it will be hoped by all those who wish peace to finally emerge between Pakistan and India that the optimism will last.

In the past month or so, statements have been made in public that seem to portend a new atmosphere between the two countries. The Pakistani president and the Indian prime minister have both talked of looking at the issues bedevilling relations in the subcontinent for many years, the Kashmir dispute for almost 60 years. There has been and is opposition from certain political quarters to moves to establish and move onward with a peace process, but unless one is grossly mistaken, the opposition or resistance has weakened and come to terms with international and regional reality. Pakistan has certainly changed more than has India, which remains far more a prisoner of its self-esteem than its neighbour.

It was in mid-February1999 that the then prime minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, had worked with India for the Lahore visit by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. This was an Indian premier’s first visit to Pakistan since Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s in1988. The atmosphere generated  by Mr Vajpayee’s presence in Lahore has been much written about and treasured by all those who believe that neither India nor Pakistan can really move forward in this region as history and the needs of the ordinary masses require without a genuine commitment to peace. The 1999 optimism, however, wasn’t to last and this was because of two developments.

Mr Vajpayee’s party lost a parliamentary vote of confidence, if only by a single vote. His government remained in office as a caretaker till the next general election. This brought the peace dialogue with Pakistan largely to a standstill. But the leaders of Pakistan were to make a greater mistake. Gen Pervez Musharraf had apparently taken the move to undertake the futile Kargil operation.

Both Pakistani and foreign writers have taken note of the events at that time, but perhaps Dennis Kux, the US diplomat who dealt with Pakistan and India for almost two decades and is author of the well-known book 'The United States and Pakistan 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies’, seems particularly perceptive. He praises the boldness of the Kargil operation, but then points out that the operation was “qualitatively different from the guerilla tactics that the Kashmiri insurgents had previously followed. Tactically clever, the strike hit the Indians where they had enormous difficulty in reposing. But the move boomeranged and resulted in a major political setback for (Nawaz) Sharif.

“President Clinton telephoned Sharif to urge him to have the forces withdrawn and sent General Anthony Zinni to Islamabad to second this message directly with the prime minister and with Gen Pervez Musharraf, who had replaced Karamat as chief of army staff. Brushing aside Pakistan’s claim that it was not directly involved in the Kargil operation and lacked control over the mujahideen, the US general urged Islamabad to see to it that the intruders pulled back across the Kashmir line of control.. When not even the Chinese, let alone the Americans, were willing to support the Pakistani position, Islamabad found itself internationally isolated. As the Indian counter attacks continued to grind slowly ahead on the ground, Sharif realised that his gambit had failed and decided to cut Pakistan’s losses.” Was the operation Mr Sharif’s gambit or Gen Musharraf’s is not clear: the former denies that it was his.

Most know what had happened after that. Mr Sharif was forced to go to Washington when in his meeting with President Clinton “‘he seemed like a drowning man looking for a miracle, hoping that somehow the United States would bail him out’.” After that, the prime minister had to agree to the US suggestion that Mr Sharif would “urge” the mujahideen to withdraw across the line of control and restart the stalled Lahore process with India.

The situation has of course acquired different versions since Mr Kux’s book, written in 2001.  Gen Musharraf in his autobiography 'In the Line of Fire’ has of course given credit largely to the “freedom fighters”; whoever they were, civilian or military, must be seen as a matter of conjecture.. With the forward movement “of our troops to dominate positions, we began to understand exactly what the Pakistan freedom fighters had undertaken”. The general also believes that the military’s position should have been appreciated by the political leadership. “On our side, our political leadership displayed a total lack of statesmanship and made no serious effort to rally the country. Neither side’s leadership had an appetite for war, but India worked hard to isolate diplomatically. Considered purely in military terms, the Kargil operations were a landmark in the history of the Pakistan Army.. ..”

Does one accept from this that Kargil should have been accepted by the politicians as a Pakistan Army landmark? And where it would have eventually taken us? Gen Musharraf’s belief is that he wants to state emphatically that “whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflict”.

Now of course Gen Musharraf sounds totally different on Kashmir, and that perhaps is welcome for our peace and welfare. Whether the entire military goes with this is another matter, though. He has said Pakistan has never wanted to possess or occupy Kashmir and is only interested in ensuring that the people of Kashmir decide their future. Technically this is the correct position ever since India had moved the Kashmir resolution in the UN, but the myth has often been adopted by many of our military men, foreign office bureaucrats and ordinary citizens, both right-wing and those considered enlightened.

Kashmir has been dubbed by military men, retired generals specially, and our religious extremists as our jugular vein. If this position is changing where the leaders are concerned, especially those military men who lose wars but want to be part of jihad, this is most welcome. The religious people are still repeating the old slogans, but their motivation has lost force. Pakistan may have understood that the economic progress it wants to establish (and the military enterprise involved in this), then it is best to make up with India, which has now become almost a superpower.

India also has to make a compromise on Kashmir, Siachen and other issues. Dr Manmohan Singh may say nice things publicly, but whether New Delhi’s tough line is really changing is not clear. The prime minister makes a positive statement; a couple of days later his foreign office sounds more reserved, like our own foreign office. India has to understand that it needs to adopt a wider view of the region and trust its neighbours. With Pakistan, the situation can be far more powerful considering what’s happening in Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East.

When people deal with smaller countries than theirs, they have to be more accommodative and try to win the latter over. India has never realised this; it has often ignored they and stuck to its own old line. Even small new steps such as the rail link with India across Sindh and arrangements to issue visas from Karachi have run into delay and trouble. On the border in Punjab, Hussaini Wallah is on the Indian side while Ganda Singhwala is on our side. That doesn’t seem to bother anyone but the exchange of names should be somehow noted and celebrated. It’s time to change, or we will lose even more precious time.

A moment has to come now when Pakistan-India relations and conditions in the subcontinent should not be the monopoly of the military rulers and establishment beneficiaries but should be determined for the sake of the people.

A new Cold War can be averted

A WATERSHED in international relations has occurred in recent months. Indeed, the past year may well have seen the end of an entire era in world affairs — the post-Cold War period of unilateralism and missed opportunities.

When the Cold War ended, avenues opened up for progress towards a better world. Major powers, particularly the United States, the Soviet Union and China, were working constructively together in the United Nations Security Council. International conflicts, including those in Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cambodia, were brought to an end. Nuclear and conventional arms control agreements were concluded, and democratic changes were under way in dozens of countries in Asia, Latin America and central and eastern Europe.

The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed in 1990, marked the beginning of a process that was expected to lead to a new, peaceful and democratic world order. But the movement in that direction soon stalled. The break-up of the Soviet Union was followed by changes in the political elites of the United States and other countries. The Charter of Paris was forgotten. Instead of moving towards a new security architecture, it was decided to rely on the tools inherited from the Cold War. The United States — and the West as a whole — succumbed to the “winner’s complex”.

Europe was shaken by the tragedies in the Balkans. Waves of instability swept through the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa as the struggles for spheres of influence, resources and markets gathered momentum.

Nato’s promise to evolve into a primarily political organisation was not kept. Instead, it moved to increase its membership and expand its zone of operations. A new arms race is now under way. The problems of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation have taken on a new urgency, with the original members of the nuclear club bearing much of the blame for it.

There is a real danger of a new division of the world; the possibility of a new Cold War is being widely discussed. Without regard for the Security Council or for the opinion of other countries, including its partners and allies, the United States invaded Iraq with disastrous consequences. The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis — and to a decline of the United States’ role and influence.

Another consequence of unilateralist policies and attempts to claim exclusive leadership is that most international institutions have not been able to address effectively the new century’s global challenges — the environmental crisis and the problem of poverty. The unprecedented scale of international terrorism and the proliferation of ethnic and religious conflicts are disturbing signs of troubles to come.

Americans have also felt the effects of the administration’s flawed foreign policies. In November the voters made their verdict known, delivering a defeat for the Republicans in the midterm elections. Yet that is a challenge to the entire US political establishment, for Democrats as well as Republicans. There is a need for a correction in the superpower’s policies. Is the administration of George Bush capable of such a correction?

Both in the United States and elsewhere, the prevailing view is often negative. The administration gives ample reason for this view, because it seems to prefer the inertia of the old course. It would appear that all the Bush administration wants is to persuade the world that it is still firmly in the saddle. The president’s recent statements and the plans being discussed in his administration are cut from the old cloth.

The Republican leadership clearly wants to leave to the next president a legacy that would tie him to its policies and make a change of course impossible. If so it is not just a tactical blunder but a recipe for an even greater disaster.

And yet I think the possibility of change is still there. The administration and Congress still have the time to forge it. They should begin with the Middle East. Not only should America start pulling itself out of the Iraqi quagmire, but it also needs to return to a constructive policy in the region. It is essential that the Middle East peace process be resumed, along with a serious dialogue with Iraq’s neighbours.

If America’s leaders have the foresight and the courage to look at the world as it really is, they would choose dialogue and cooperation rather than force. What is needed is not a worldwide web of military presence and intervention, but a restraint and a willingness to solve problems by political means.

After all, the world has changed dramatically even when compared to the early 1990s. It has become even more interconnected and interdependent. New giants — China, India and Brazil — have entered the world arena, and their views can no longer be ignored. Europe is uniting, and its economic and political influence is bound to grow.

Although the Islamic world is finding it difficult to adapt to new realities, its adjustment will continue and this great civilisation will insist on being treated with respect. Finally, the democratic transition of Russia (as well as the other former Soviet republics), for all its considerable problems, is bringing a new, strong player to the international scene.

During the 1990s, which were a difficult time for my country, I said that Russia’s troubles would pass, that it would rise to its feet and forge ahead. This is what is happening now.

Russia’s resurgence, its insistence on protecting its interests, and its ability to play a proper role in the world, are not to everyone’s liking. Strangely enough, when Russia was mired in crisis, the West applauded it; today Russia is accused of rejecting democracy and of having imperial ambitions.

Still, there are no real reasons to fear Russia. My country is facing many problems. Learning new ways and building democratic institutions is indeed hard work. But Russia will never go back. The most difficult part of the road is already behind us.

I have always said that in this day and age we cannot afford to be pessimists. There are many reasons to be concerned and even alarmed. But history is not preordained. A new division of the world, a new confrontation, is not inevitable. A democratic world order is not mere rhetoric. It can be built.

— Dawn/Guardian Service

The writer is former president of the Soviet Union.
presidentgorbachev@nytimes.com

A US torture camp

IT would be the ideal spot for a beachside birthday party. Surrounded by a turquoise sea, palm trees and white sand, the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was five years old last Thursday. Tony Blair calls it an “anomaly” but the evidence is overwhelming.

Camp Delta, which still houses 470 men never convicted of any crime, is a torture camp. That should be the starting point of any debate about what is acceptable in the west’s fight with Islamist extremists. More than 750 men have passed through the camp, with nearly half being released. Many prisoners, past and present, have given consistent and repeated testimony of serious abuses and ill treatment. There is also significant evidence from US officials and government documents of widespread abuse at the camp.

The British detainees known as the Tipton Three allege they were repeatedly beaten, shackled in painful positions for long periods and subjected to sleep deprivation. They were also subjected to strobe lighting, loud music and extremes of hot and cold — all meant to break them psychologically. Other detainees have suffered beatings, sexual assaults and death threats. At least one man has been “water boarded” — tied to a board and placed under water so that he had the sensation of drowning.

According to the Red Cross, the regime at Guantánamo causes psychological suffering that has driven inmates mad, with scores of suicide attempts and three inmates killing themselves last year.

Even US officials are shocked. Last week FBI documents revealed that an inmate’s head had been wrapped in tape for quoting from the Qur’an. Another was humiliated for his religious beliefs and “baptised” by a soldier posing as a Catholic priest. The documents show FBI agents saw 26 instances of abuse in their time at Guantánamo. The FBI is highly sceptical about alleged confessions gained by its military colleagues. A May 2004 FBI memo branded intelligence gained from “special techniques” as “suspect at best”. Indeed, one of the Tipton Three confessed to being in a video shot at an Afghan terror camp alongside Osama bin Laden — in fact, at the time he was working in an electronics store in the Midlands.

But the US should not shoulder all the blame. Some of the material from Guantánamo has been used by Britain’s counter-terrorism agencies. In June 2003 Tony Blair told the Commons: “Information is still coming from people detained there ... That information is important.” George Bush, his aides and the US military define what they have been doing as a special programme using special measures: their position appears to be that as long as blood is not drawn, it is not torture.

One official investigation found an inmate had been sexually humiliated and forced to perform dog tricks on a leash. It said the conduct was “abusive and degrading” but not torture. In a UK court hearing over Guantánamo, a senior British judge, Mr Justice Collins, declared: “America’s idea of what is torture is not the same as ours.” A UN report has confirmed evidence of torture, and Amnesty International has declared Guantánamo “the gulag of our time”. Guantánamo is not the only US torture camp. Bagram in Afghanistan has been dogged by stories of abuse, and there are secret US prisons around the world where it is widely feared new horrors are occuring.

The Guardian, London