Beyond US pressure
NO one expected any spectacular results from Mr Condoleezza Rice’s first visit to Pakistan as secretary of state, but the talks she had in Islamabad should, hopefully, lead to what Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri calls “a long-term partnership” between the two countries. At a press conference on Thursday, Ms Rice laid emphasis on the need for democratic reforms in Pakistan and hoped that the election in 2007 would be fair and free. Ms Rice’s concern fits with America’s resolve in the post-9/11 era to “spread democracy”. The military might have held an election in 2002, but the world did not fail to note that the election had been manipulated to ensure the victory of the “king’s party”. Pakistan may have a free media, as rightly pointed out by Mr Kasuri at, but the fact that the army chief is also the ‘elected’ head of state has robbed the country of its democratic credentials. Nevertheless, Ms Rice did not rub the point too hard and lauded “the courage” shown by the government and people of Pakistan in the war on terror. Security issues were not discussed at her press conference, but the US secretary of state called the talks “very productive” and reiterated America’s commitment to the continuation of the current normalization process between Pakistan and India.
Because of the long history of US-Pakistan relations, Islamabad’s policies, where Pakistani and American interests converge, are almost always interpreted as flowing from US pressures. It is true that many Pakistani governments have kowtowed to America and followed policies that seemed to compromise our sovereignty. But that should not inhibit positive action where it is in Pakistan’s interests to act decisively and with conviction. This point needs to be understood in the context of Pakistan’s role in the war on terror and the need for eliminating extremism and religious militancy. Whether motivated by political considerations on driven by religious or sectarian prejudices and hatred terrorism has done enormous harm to the country. Extremism does not merely show itself in terror; in its most insidious form the obscurantist way of thinking tends to strike at the very concept of political, religious and personal freedom and thus of democracy itself. Its frightening rise in the wake of the Afghan war has surfaced in the form of intolerance, bigotry, the persecution of minorities, and the denial of rights to women and children.
Similarly, a forward movement on relations with India is in Pakistan’s own interest. Islamabad needs no prodding from outside powers to grasp the need for a detente with India. Hostile relations between the two countries have not only forced the two to divert a staggering amount of their resources to a military build-up, this mutual hostility has adversely affected the region and has militated against the growth of Saarc into a vibrant regional grouping. While the opposition and the media have the right to correct and criticize the government when and where it is wrong, there is little room for a cynical view of Pakistan’s war against extremism and the ongoing rapprochement with India. Howsoever this agenda is pushed, it has to be pursued for our own sake.
New eruption
THURSDAY’s fresh eruption of violence in Balochistan only underlines the simmering tensions that have held the province in thrall for weeks. It is said that a Frontier Corps convoy was intercepted by Bugti tribesmen blocking the main road to Sui and was fired upon. In the ensuing gun fight several FC men were killed and injured and there were also heavy casualties among the tribesmen and in civilian areas that came under shelling from the other side. Bugti sources say that FC personnel had fired first, although why a convoy consisting of just six vehicles should have invited trouble by provoking the tribesmen is not clear. What took place marks a grave setback to the efforts of members of parliament to seek a political settlement of the issues that have been agitating the Baloch and their leaders. A meeting of the Shujaat committee that was meant to finalize its report on Balochistan and matters pertaining to provincial autonomy was postponed till Monday when news of the clash reached Islamabad. The mere fact that reports speaks of a “ceasefire”, of arrangements being made to evacuate the injured and of efforts to persuade both sides to “go back to their positions” conjures up pictures of a battleground rather than happenings in a part of our own country.
The situation will deteriorate if cool heads do not prevail all round. Threats will only increase hostility, and push even peaceable tribesman to come out on the side of the restive sardars if they see the confrontation as one between the military-led government at the centre and Balochistan. An entire legacy of mutual distrust and misunderstandings, as well as of deliberate neglect, has to be wiped out. The fact that apart from the opposition, even one of the ruling party’s allies, the MQM, walked out in protest against what was described as a “military operation” shows that not everyone is convinced of the government’s present approach to Balochistan. That the province seems to be awash with varieties of deadly weapons is itself enough to cause the deepest alarm and anxiety. It is our earnest plea to the government, the opposition and the Baloch sardars to undertake a sincere effort to create an environment where we can all talk as brothers and set aside our suspicions. The prime minister should personally take the initiative and talk to politicians of all shades of opinion. If such an initiative comes about, it will be expected that the sardars will respond in a positive manner and without setting any preconditions.
If Israel goes along
THE truce announced on Thursday by Palestinian factions meeting in Cairo can help restart the stalled peace process, provided Israel does not spurn this opportunity too. A conditional offer earlier this week to observe a truce against Israeli occupation forces was made by Israel’s sworn enemies, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In return, they demanded that Tel Aviv also halt military action in the occupied territories. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was quick to reject the offer, but now with Egypt’s intercession, it seems he has reluctantly agreed to what he has termed a ‘temporary’ cessation of hostilities. It is this kind of studied reluctance on the part of Israel that has been a major hurdle in the way of restarting a meaningful peace process. Four years of intifada have not helped either side, with Palestinians having lost over 3,000 lives and the Israelis no less than a thousand. All this time Israel has rejected any and all efforts made by the Palestinians and the world community to bury the hatchet and get on with the peace process. Following Thursday’s Cairo Declaration, and last month’s summit meeting at Sharm al-Sheikh, the Egyptian ambassador also returned to Tel Aviv after an absence of four years. It is time Mr Sharon realized that the Arabs have done all they can to make peace and not war in the Middle East.
Knowing Mr Sharon and his belligerent attitude, there is little indication or hope that Israel will respect the latest truce. This is all the more reason for the US to keep an eye on Israel’s delaying and detracting tactics vis-a-vis the peace process. As one of the key architects of the roadmap, President George Bush has a moral and political responsibility to ensure that Israel does not sabotage the roadmap like it did in the case of the Oslo process.