Need for strategic restraint

Islamabad's suggestion that India and PaKistan exercise strategic restraint makes a lot of sense. In fact, the foreign office has wisely expressed its distaste for an open-ended arms race between the two countries.

It would be logical for New Delhi to reciprocate these sentiments. Given the fact that India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons and any war between them could be devastating, it is important that they avoid an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between them at any cost.

A long-term approach requires them to resolve the disputes and differences which keep them at loggerheads. The on-going composite dialogue which was launched in January is therefore a step in the right direction. But the deep-rooted conflict, especially on Kashmir, will not be resolved without protracted negotiations.

Until a feasible solution is found and international equations in South Asia are placed on an even keel, efforts should focus on confidence-building measures to minimize the risk of war.

The two governments have in the past agreed on measures designed to minimize the risk of a war breaking out accidentally between them. The agreement to exchange the list of their nuclear facilities at the start of every year was the outcome of the realization of the dangers inherent in the current situation and the need to address them.

That this agreement has been sustained for over 15 years underlines the fact that the two countries can exercise restraint if they want to. Similarly, other measures such as installing hotlines between the two governments at various levels and informing one another about any military exercise either of them might be planning to hold near the border have helped keep tensions down on many occasions.

It is now important that the two governments work towards capping their spiralling defence budgets and negotiate an accord on halting their arms race. At the moment, they are trapped in a paradoxical situation. While they are engaged in a dialogue on the various issues that divide them, they are also busy building up their arsenals of missiles.

Even if India and Pakistan cannot at this stage negotiate an arms reduction agreement, they can at least agree to maintain the status quo in their military and strategic strength.

This would not only be reassuring to the two protagonists since they would not be focussing on an arms race but on issues of peace. The dialogue has on its agenda a number of issues some of which are substantive ones like the Kashmir dispute.

Wisdom and discretion demand that the two sides negotiate concurrently without one appearing to be more important than the others. It is also important that in this critical phase of their negotiations the two sides avoid the glare of publicity which tempts them to play to the gallery back home rather than engage in a diplomatic exercise of give and take, aimed at resolving disputes and differences and bringing peace to South Asia.

Now that a beginning has been made and the climate for a settlement is favourable, the leaderships of the two countries must concentrate on peace rather than war. That means that they must put their arms race on the backburner and step up their quest for a peaceful resolution of all their disputes.

Pentagon spy scandal

Once again an American has been caught betraying his country's secrets to Israel. The secrets related to Iran, which Israel regards as its principal enemy, now that Iraq has been devastated and Americans spend their own money and shed their own blood to keep that country under occupation.

The man, identified as Larry Franklin, took no money from Israel, and acted for "ideological reasons". This, one supposes, places Mr Franklin at a high moral pedestal and justifies his betrayal of his country.

The scandal brings to memory the case of Jonathan Pollard, now in prison for life. He was convicted in 1985 for spying for Israel, and all attempts by Tel Aviv's men on Capitol Hill to have him released have failed. After the Pollard case, Israel promised not to spy on America again. But, as this case proves, old habits die hard.

Also questioned by the FBI are two other Pentagon officials, Bill Luti and Harold Rhode. The latter's modus operandi gives an idea of the way Israeli spies operate in sensitive American agencies.

He was constantly on his cell phones talking to friends in Israel and discussing military plans. This way he was a bad spy. But did not the air around him encourage Mr Rhode to operate the way he did? There are pro-Israeli neocons everywhere in America's policy-making apparatus.

The Pentagon's deputy chief, Paul Wolfowitz, is known to be a Zionist, who hired a fellow Zionist, Douglas J. Feith, and gave him the third most important job, that of under secretary of defence.

Thus no one felt much difference to the Zionist influence in the Pentagon when another known pro-Israeli hawk, Richard Perle, quit following corruption charges. These Pentagon neocons account for the dominating presence of the pro-Israel hawks in the Bush administration.

With so many of its agents in the top places, one wonders why Israel would hire agents at lower levels. To find an answer, one has to explore the labyrinth of the Zionist mind as it has evolved after 2,000 years of unending persecution and Jew-baiting in Europe so that the Zionists trust no one.

Why all this delay?

The PML secretary-general in Sindh, Imtiaz Ahmed Shaikh, recently told a group of women party workers that the League would play its due role in eliminating the primitive tribal practice of karo-kari.

That is good news, indeed, but one wishes that Mr Shaikh had elaborated on how the ruling party planned to go about it, considering that a bill outlawing karo-kari and other manifestations of "honour" killings in the country, has yet to be presented before parliament for voting.

So far this year, karo-kari has claimed the lives of about 70 people, mostly women, in Sindh, though fatality figures are likely to be far higher since many countrywide honour killings go unreported.

It is a matter of concern, therefore, that the government should be seen dragging its feet over the issue. It is believed that a draft version of the bill has been returned to the law ministry with proposed amendments. It has also been reported that the government is contacting other Muslim countries for their views on the "religious" aspects of the subject - whatever they may be.

Unfortunately, these delaying tactics are getting us nowhere, and are simply prolonging the agony of hundreds of "dishonoured" men and women. A finalized bill should be put before parliament without further delay.

It is only when legislation outlawing the reprehensible practice is in place that an effort can be made to transform archaic mindsets, which currently place the dictates of feudal and tribal traditions above the value of human life.

Unless change in attitudes comes from the top, civil society will not be pushed about undertaking reform, and the handful of individuals and organizations that have raised their voices against "honour" killings will be unable to make any progress towards rooting out this scourge.

Perhaps, if our politicians showed the same enthusiasm for a law banning honour killings as they did for the defamation legislation, they might be able to mobilize public opinion against the cruel custom.