28.06.2013 Reviving backdoor diplomacy
The Pakistani government has decided to revive backdoor diplomacy channels with India. The earlier such attempts under the Musharraf regime were on the right track. The parleys between presidential aide Tariq Aziz and veteran Indian diplomat SK Lambah led to the evolution of the famed four-point formula as a workable option to resolve the Kashmir dispute. These efforts came to a standstill due to political instability in Pakistan and eventual exit of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf in 2008. Given the troubled history of Indo-Pakistan relations and the existence of slow-moving bureaucratic machinery, backdoor diplomacy is a feasible route to be adopted. If this back channel diplomacy does materialise, then the Sharif government’s move should be welcomed.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is committed to securing peace and boosting trade with India. However, he faces a formidable baggage of history and the national security paradigm that sees the Indian threat as the gravest facing the country. Taking charge of foreign and security policies is a medium- to long-term objective for the civilian rulers of Pakistan. Indo-Pakistan engagement is also dogged by cyclical events and the menace of terrorism, which brings official parleys to a halt. Hence, back channel communications are also an insurance strategy for the peace process to move forward. There are hawks on the Indian side, too. In fact, there is a lack of consensus within India on a Pakistan policy. The former remains hostage to minor and major issues of terrorism, media hype and public opinion. As India moves to a general election within a year, it would be wise to keep the talks low-key and not raise expectations on both sides.
Pakistan’s security is now dependent on its economic progress and political stability. Normalisation of ties with India and increased regional trade are essential for its growth. Pakistan’s military has time and again acknowledged that the internal threats to the country need to be tackled on an urgent basis. With a new government in Islamabad, perhaps this is the right time to rethink our security policy and revise the “perpetual enmity with India” as an unstated policy goal. We wish all luck to the backdoor diplomacy efforts.
Thank you, Mr Snowden
The not so pleasant whistle-blowing saga, which the US has become caught up in, continues to make headlines the world over. In its latest episode, Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency operative, who exposed US eavesdropping on tens of thousands of emails and other private conversations transmitted electronically, has left Hong Kong where he had been based when he began his stunning revelations and turned up in Moscow. His next destination is uncertain with Ecuador considering his asylum request while Cuba is another possibility. The Venezuelan president has also said that he would consider an asylum request for him.
Mr Snowden’s fate then hangs in the balance. The US is desperate that he be extradited to its shores to face trial for treason. But whether it succeeds or not in getting hold of Mr Snowden, whose story came to the world via a correspondent at The Guardian, remains to be seen. The fact is that the damage has been done. Mr Snowden’s revelations about accessing electronic communications illegally and tapping into internet hubs around the world have exposed American hypocrisy. As a self-proclaimed champion of human rights, the US has always stated that it upholds the right to privacy and has criticised other countries, including China, for prying into the lives of citizens. Being caught doing so has left many faces blushing bright red in Washington.
What we have heard first from Wikileaks, and now from Mr Snowden, gives us an insight into the world of international espionage and politics. Admittedly, most countries of the world are involved in some form of spying, but the fact that the US was involved in it at such a massive scale, as well as its attitude, which shows that it feels it can get away with whatever it pleases, even if it is illegal, is what has come under much criticism. The question now is whether what we have been hearing will change the reality for all of us.