Democrats’ assertiveness

THE Democrats aren’t much wrong when they say that President George Bush has been ignoring Congress for six years. He perhaps could afford to do this because he had taken the Republican-controlled legislature for granted. However, since the Democrats’ victory in mid-term elections last November, things have changed dramatically. The Democrats now control Congress and seem to be thoroughly enjoying the predicament of a president who is coming increasingly under criticism on Iraq and other foreign policy issues from some of his own partymen. The vitriol of the Democrats’ criticism of the White House’s foreign policy handling has led to a counter-attack by the administration on the Democrats’ forays into international affairs and the propriety of some of their actions that seem to have stung the State Department. The Republicans insist that Congressmen should not “cross the line” in their criticism of the administration’s foreign policy, because it is the president who conducts America’s relations with the rest of the world. They also point out that the American constitution provides for a separation of powers, and for that reason all the three branches of the state — the executive, legislature and the judiciary — must work within their respective spheres.

In spite of the separation of powers, Congress must pass all aid bills, and that automatically gives the legislature a say in foreign policy because it can obstruct the administration’s policy towards a given state by slashing aid money or rejecting the bill. This is inherent in the checks and balances built into the American constitution. What the Republicans object to, however, is the kind of policy initiative taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Not only did Speaker Pelosi visit Syria — one of the members of what President Bush calls the “axis of evil” — she offered “our good offices” to help start the Israeli-Syrian peace talks and, more provocatively for the State Department, said the road to Damascus was “a road to peace”. Apart from Vice-President Dick Cheney’s severe criticism of the Pelosi visit, one of the Republican hawks, Mr John Bolton, said a Speaker was not supposed to “conduct or articulate” foreign policy and that her visit to Damascus could create “misperceptions”.

While every Congressman has the right to speak his mind on foreign policy, the “conduct” part of the criticism may be valid, since foreign policy in America — ignoring the differences in shades — is a bipartisan affair. However, the Iraq misadventure and the over 50,000 US casualties (the Pentagon’s figure) were a major factor in the Democrats’ victory last November, and they are justified when they say that they have a mandate from the people on the Iraqi situation, especially on a pull-out of American troops from that country. “Engaging” Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group, was thus one of the purposes of Speaker Pelosi’s visit.

Unfortunately for President Bush, even some Republicans share the Democrats’ criticism of his Iraq policy and believe in talking to Syria. As Republican Senator Arlen Specter said in a TV interview, America must hold its “friends close and … [its] enemies closer”. Talking to Syria will not only help Washington in its Iraq policy, it could break the deadlock on the Israeli-Syrian front of the Middle East process and perhaps help pave the way for a revival of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

No progress on Siachen

IT is highly disappointing that the India-Pakistan talks in Islamabad last week did not produce the long-awaited agreement on Siachen. The two sides have paid heavily to maintain their positions on the glacier that is believed to be the highest battleground in the world. Frostbite rather than hostile fire has taken more lives and military experts are not even unanimous on the strategic importance of this area. On the eve of the talks, much optimism for a breakthrough had been expressed. Hence the failure of the talks to produce any results comes as a serious let-down. The only positive aspect to have emerged from the dialogue is that India and Pakistan have agreed to take up the Siachen question in their next round of talks. But this is an open-ended assurance since it has not been specified when the negotiations will take place. They have also reaffirmed their commitment to the ceasefire of November 2003 which continues to hold. That at least ensures that no military skirmishes will take place that are always a potential danger to peace.

Since 1989 the two sides have agreed in principle that the glacier must be demilitarised. It is a different matter that they cannot agree on the modality of disengaging their troops from these undemarcated heights that have been a bone of contention since 1984 when Indian forces moved into the area to occupy two passes. Apparently the point of disagreement is the authentication of the positions held by the troops of the two sides. Pakistan is reluctant to do that, fearing that New Delhi will interpret this move as a final endorsement of its territorial claims. For its part, India has refused to pull back its troops without the authentication taking place. Finding a via media between the two extremes has been a major challenge. It appears that the schedule proposed by Pakistan that would combine disengagement with authentication has not found favour with the Indian military establishment. The stumbling block is the historical mistrust between the two countries. It is this that now needs to be tackled with more confidence-building.

Violence in Parachinar

THE resurgence of sectarian violence in Parachinar in Kurram Agency is a reminder of how important it is to quash the wave of religious extremism sweeping the country. Though Parachinar is no stranger to sectarian clashes, this fresh burst of violence is being attributed to the growing presence of the Taliban. So far 40 people have died in this senseless bout of violence that began last Friday during a Shia procession when some Sunnis allegedly shot at the participants, which led to violence. While the army has been called in and a curfew extended, these are just short-term measures that will prove meaningless if not followed by concrete measures to reconcile both sides. The government’s priority is to maintain law and order but it must also formulate strategies whereby there is no threat of such clashes breaking out again — especially as this area is prone to sectarian violence. It is clear that past strategies — promising to curb hate literature, for example — have failed. The government has not delivered on the madressah reforms announced some years ago, nor has it monitored what is being said in Friday sermons on loudspeakers, which are being used despite a ban. Had it been strict in enforcing its directives, perhaps the situation would have been less serious.

At the moment, tribal leaders are trying to use their influence to stop the fighting but the solution lies in a political dialogue. Religious leaders must make sure that their followers do not say or do anything provocative for the other side. The government must make them realise that anyone caught violating the law will be dealt with seriously. This is what the people who have come out to protest against the violence want as well. Their security must be ensured in every possible way.

A new dynamic in South Asia

THERE is a reasonable chance of a new dynamic taking root in South Asian inter-state relations. It comes out of a gradual acceptance of negotiations as the preferred option; in fact, seeking solutions through a dialogue, however protracted, is beginning to acquire the characteristics of a prized habit.

The new dynamic would be that progress in bilateral talks towards resolution of contentious issues facilitates the project of regional cooperation and, in turn, the gains of working together, more precisely a Saarc dividend, enhance incentives and stakes in resolving or containing bilateral disputes. Such a process may leave a residue of dissatisfaction everywhere but it would simultaneously create a more reliable framework of peace, security and development.

Recent political interaction in the region — various sets of bilateral consultations reinforced by regional meetings — seems to have created a new hope of coexistence and cooperation. At the bilateral level, the scene is marked by stability and continuity of parleys between India and Pakistan even if the exercise of statesmanship that transformed conflictual situations in several other parts of the world still eludes the two countries.

There is a willingness to measure progress, or lack of it, with more candour than before and, what may be more reassuring, at least a dim, misty vision of the destination.

Not very long ago, there were fears that India as an emerging global player was losing interest in Saarc and that, bedazzled by its new-self-image of a shining India about to be seated as a permanent member in the UN Security Council as well as the ninth actor in the slowly expanding G-7, it was relegating regional cooperation to a lower order.

There were notable proponents of the view that it could deal separately with the regional states while concentrating its mind and energy on the big league. One notices a new realism that India will be the main beneficiary of the success of Saarc and that its natural pre-eminence in the region will strengthen its chances to become a major power.

The 14th summit also contained hints that Manmohan Singh’s India is replacing the old Nehruvian era concept of regional dominance by a more sophisticated view of its relationships with the neighbouring states which despite disparity of power and size can contribute significantly to its well-being.

It is not just Pakistan that offers substantial recompense for good relations; the much smaller Nepal and Bhutan can share their natural resources, such as their huge potential for hydroelectric power generation, with India.

In the hour of its creation, Saarc was haunted by the fear that India wanted to draw red lines around South Asia and mark it down as a closed space. Its attitude to the wartime facilities of Sri Lanka’s port, Trincomalee, was a case in point, a factor that might have swung decisions the wrong way in New Delhi as ethnic tensions in that glorious island began to threaten its tranquillity. Now India has played a leading role in adding Afghanistan to Saarc’s membership and, simultaneously, created no obstacles in Pakistan’s efforts to bring China in with observer status.

All member states supported the move to extend the same status to Iran. Meeting on the sidelines of the summit, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan reaffirmed their desire to implement the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project even though it continues to be opposed by the United States.

Before one gets carried away by the optics of the Saarc summit, a reality check on Indo-Pakistan negotiations will illuminate how much more needs to be done for the dynamic mentioned above to become an instrument of desirable changes in the regional situation. One cannot pretend that the current composite dialogue has taken place on the basis of complete equivalence.

It began with a declaration that put a disproportionate onus on Pakistan to prove its credentials as a peace-maker. New Delhi’s diplomacy kept the focus on “cross-border terrorism” with a spectral presence of Kargil always in the background. Pakistan has had to work overtime to secure a level playing field. It is only now that India is beginning to relent by its guarded confirmation that interference by militants from the Pakistani side of the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir has died down.

For the Pakistani negotiators, this should set the stage for a solution of the core issue of Kashmir. But here too the Pakistani side has not been able to recover negotiating equivalence. It is not just the traditional advantage that a status quo power has over the other one seeking a more equitable modification of it. The Indian advantage has come, additionally, from the gap in the political systems prevailing in the two countries.

Democracy gives Indian diplomacy coherence, a quiet strength, while the lack of it simply denies the same quality to the Pakistani negotiators. The top leadership of Pakistan has thrown seeds of possible solutions in a random manner hoping that somehow the result would be a continuous field bearing a rich harvest. More often than not, the Indian side has been able to crush these seeds before they could even sprout.

Future progress would, therefore, need clear benchmarks to inspire confidence in the process. An elementary test would be the successful culmination of the talks – despite the recent setback -- on Siachen through all stages of negotiations and implementation of decisions on the ground.

Saarc is frequently mentioned as a project of great potential but limited achievement. It has been equally customary to blame the shortfall on the failure of India and Pakistan to settle differences and disputes left behind by the colonial era. In 22 years of its existence it has by now held 14 summits.

Much of what was said by the assembled heads of state and government at the New Delhi summit was ritual reiteration of lofty goals highlighted at the past gatherings. Nevertheless one noticed a deeper shared concern about its unfulfilled promise and perhaps a greater resolve to make regional cooperation work.

There was no pretence that the bitter legacy of the past has somehow vanished but there was a marked change of style and rhetoric. Issues that inhibit progress were brought up only in discreet references and were almost invariably not named. The subtle caveats that hinted at them were not difficult to decode. Shaukat Aziz probably meant Kashmir when he emphasised the linkage between peace, security and development and urged the fellow leaders to go beyond mere conflict management.

In speaking about the need to move from declaratory statements to implementation, Manmohan Singh could well have complained about continuing difficulties with Pakistan on ‘operationalising’ the South Asia Free Trade Area. Making Afghanistan’s debut as the eighth full member of Saarc, Hamid Karzai hinted at Pakistan’s responsibility to reduce its problems as a landlocked country by providing overland transit to India in addition to port facilities. He also politely implicated Pakistan in the internal turmoil in his country.

In clear recognition of the increased economic vibrancy of the region, Japan, South Korea, United States and the EU were present to support regional cooperation. China, in particular, indicated its readiness to invest substantially. It has the largest accumulation of capital that the region can get a share of if political considerations do not become a hurdle.

Pakistan’s prime minister rightly stressed the need for an energy ring to counter the coming crunch in that crucial sector. Its emergence would probably bring a greater guarantee of peace than a raft of non-aggression pacts in the region.

Recent Saarc conferences had brought to surface apprehensions of the least developed countries in the family that the free trade area agreement may adversely affect their vulnerable economies. India came up with a reassuring decision that by the end of 2007, they would enjoy duty free trading privileges with even a review of “sensitive lists”.

This is a notable broadening of the earlier policy of entering into bilateral free trade arrangements with them. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called it a new asymmetrical openness as India does not demand reciprocity. India must now engage with other countries earnestly including the question of non-tariff barriers.The summit declaration announced the implementation of the Saarc Development Fund. Ambitious thoughts about cooperation in combating chronic poverty in member states found a prominent place in the declaration. It also reflects readiness to draw up a roadmap for a customs union.

Another decision that in the course of time may play a crucial role in dismantling misperceptions and misrepresentations of the past aims at the establishment of a South Asia University. Both India and Pakistan acknowledged improvement in the security situation and in the reduction of tensions while admitting that there was still a long distance to traverse. Terrorism was clearly recognised as a joint responsibility and the members states undertook to abide by an additional protocol for mutual cooperation.

The years ahead will show how far this interplay of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy creates a new and comprehensive South Asian order. Regional states still face similar problems rooted in a common past and also emanating from accelerated participation in globalisation. Resolution of differences will facilitate regionalism while the promise of mutual cooperation — a rich Saarc dividend — should act as an incentive to settle historical disputes. More than a billion people will judge if their ruling elites have the will to seize the moment.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.