A VIOLENT boundary incident with the potential to push already tense bilateral relations into further tumult, the fallout from the killing of Iranian border guards in an attack last week appears to have been handled diplomatically by both sides. In an unscheduled, day-long trip to Islamabad, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif met the top political and military leaders in the country on Wednesday. Following meetings with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa and Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, the Iranian foreign minister appears to have received a number of assurances from Pakistan that the state is both willing and able to address Iran’s security concerns. To be sure, the long, remote and sparsely populated border with Iran poses a number of problems for both sides. Over the years, both Pakistan and Iran have urged the other to do more to secure the frontier, curb smuggling and human trafficking, and crack down on dissidents operating on either side of the border. But the 11 deaths in an attack last week by Jaishul Adl, a Sunni militant group active in Sistan-Baluchistan, Iran, was both a particularly serious incident and took place at a time of heightened Pak-Iran tensions.

The decision by Pakistan to formally participate in the Saudi-led Islamic Military Alliance, allow former army chief Gen Raheel Sharif to lead the IMA and revisit allegations of Iranian interference in Balochistan following the conviction of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav appears to have contributed to a fierce initial response by Iran after the Jaishul Adl attack. Diplomacy, however, appears to have prevailed and the credit must go to both sides. Unlike Afghanistan and India, Iran expressed its concerns through diplomatic channels and demonstrated it was willing to follow up with meaningful interactions. Where Afghanistan and India have acted petulantly and refused to talk to Pakistan, the Iranians quickly sent a high-level delegation led by its globally respected foreign minister. A full day of meetings yielded a clear set of understandings for both sides and cooperative solutions in the form of better border coordination and an increase in the strength of border forces by Pakistan. Moreover, the meetings were an opportunity for Pakistan to allay Iranian concerns about the IMA. Neither the border problems nor the overall strategic concerns will be solved overnight, but it is a welcome sign that Iran and Pakistan have turned to greater diplomatic engagement.

For Pakistan, two things will be of importance. First, when it comes to concerns about foreign interference in Balochistan, the Iranians have shown they are open to diplomatic engagement at the very highest level — Pakistan should do the same. Second, border management should be an ongoing undertaking by both sides and communication channels up and down the chain of command should be kept open. There is simply no alternative to dialogue and diplomacy.




WITH three different parties ruling the four provinces, one would have thought that the public would have benefited from a competition in good governance. Unfortunately, overall indicators remain poor and progress towards a healthy, educated society has been tardy. Just the fact that there are some 22 million out-of-school children in Pakistan and the country continues to be a reservoir for the crippling polio virus is indication enough of how little priority we attach to such issues. Still, it would not be fair to overlook the positive points — few though they may be. For instance, the Sindh government that can be justifiably criticised for its abysmal neglect of civic issues has spearheaded some of the most forward-looking legislation in the country to strike at the foundations of regressive traditions such as underage marriage. In the same way, Punjab, though slower than Sindh to legislate on key human rights issues, has focused on alleviating transport problems for its people — even though the difference between the urban and rural parts of the province remains visible. For its part, the KP government, which is often accused of soft-pedalling militancy in a province that is on the front lines of the battle against terrorism, has introduced a number of initiatives for improving people’s lives.

KP’s record is of interest here and perhaps much of the PTI government’s blue-sky thinking can be attributed to its enthusiasm as a newcomer to power — unlike the PML-N and the considerably jaded PPP. It is, perhaps, too soon to say whether its efforts have achieved what the government intended — that will be decided by the electorate in the next elections. But there is little doubt that KP certainly has its goals and optics right as the advertisements about its various programmes indicate. Take the Sehat ka Insaaf campaign and interventions for mother and child health, or the tree plantation drive. Or the most recent initiative communicated through the press: raising awareness about and providing interventions in government schools for children with dyslexia. The provincial government promises, starting next year, remedial therapy and policy-level options. How well it follows through on its pledge remains to be seen, but even the realisation of a problem that is little discussed in the country is laudable. The other provinces would do well to follow KP’s lead and come up with workable schemes aimed at improving public life.




WHILE Israel’s rejection of it makes sense from the point of view of the long-term Zionist project, the policy document unveiled by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) also evoked criticism from the Palestinian Authority, which reminded the Hamas leadership that wisdom had dawned on it 43 years late. Released to the media on Monday by Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, due to retire soon, the document shows a degree of realism and adjusts if not repudiates some fundamentals of its policy contained in its 1988 founding charter. Back then, its aims were radical and reflected the deep frustration in a large section of the Palestinian people over the continued occupation of their land and the hastened pace of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Identifying itself with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas’s objectives had included the liberation of the territory between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean and the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, all this being part of a confrontation between Muslims and Jews worldwide. Its military muscle and charity networks also added to its appeal to the Palestinian people and enabled the militant movement to capture power in Gaza through the electoral process in 2006.

However, Monday’s documents outlining Hamas’s “principles and general policies” mark a major departure from the 1988 charter and call for establishing a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 war borders. More significantly, the document makes no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now anathema to Egypt and some Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia. Released two days before President Donald Trump was to meet President Mahmoud Abbas, the documents attempt to create a soft image for Hamas and seek its entry into the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. While a PLO spokesman ridiculed the Hamas policy shift, saying it did what the PLO had done decades ago, all sides should realise Palestinian unity is now needed more than ever before. The PA and Hamas should bury the hatchet and fight together for a sovereign Palestinian state.

Published in Dawn, May 5th, 2017

https://www.dawn.com/newspaper/editorial

__________________
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling ,but in rising every time we fall". (Nelson Mandela)