President Pervez Musharraf’s eight-day visit to European capitals has concluded, giving rise to debates both at home and abroad about whether he was able to achieve goals that he had set before undertaking the trip? Going through the contents of reports emanating from media channels one can safely say that the core objective that President Musharraf wanted to fulfill from the visit was to improve his own image abroad, which he thought might have been damaged after the killing of Benzair Bhutto, the judiciary issue and some anomalies in the on-going election process.

The issue of media curbs was once a bane for him but that problem appears to have been handled ‘effectively’ by the government officials after which all TV channels have been allowed to go on air, though many of them have apparently lost their nuisance value. This was President Musharraf’s second visit to Europe during the last few years, but ostensibly his first as a civilian head of state. His last visit to Brussels and his meetings with members of the European Parliament were part of Pakistan’s efforts directed towards allaying Europe’s apprehensions and persuading them for joint business and investment ventures.

The President had met with the big guns of the EU during his previous visit, such as European Commission’s President Jose Manuel Barraso, Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana, the then EU Parliament President Josep Borrell and the then Belgian prime minister. But his most important meeting was with the EU’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which is said to be composed of mostly pro-Indian MPs.

Their understanding was that India had the ability of overtaking Japan as the third largest economy in the world in the very near future. Mr. Chris Patten, former EU Commissioner for External Affairs, once remarked; “If there is a natural partner for Europe in South Asia, then surely it is India”. This is, I think, the most empathic manner to characterise a relationship between the two sides. Reports suggest that this time the President could address only a handful of members of the foreign affairs committee.

There are conflicting reports about this very significant development. One thing seems to be evident that there were clear divisions among the foreign affairs committee members on whether to allow President Musharraf to address this powerful body or not. Anyway, the President interacted with the committee members head-to-head, which generated a lot of bellowing and caterwauling.

The foreign affairs committee is a powerful internal entity whose recommendations have significant bearings. For example, this committee played a central role in concluding 3rd Generation Agreement with Pakistan back in 2004, after which the EU committed to increase level of bilateral cooperation mainly in the fields of science, technology, economy and trade related matters. The agreement, nevertheless, had to come across many turbulent times during the course of formal approval as foreign affairs committee was acting as the staunchest opponent, desiring to link approval of the agreement with the up-gradation of human rights record and political reforms enabling the democratically elected governments to run day to day matters.

As I pointed out in my earlier piece a couple of weeks ago, 9/11 incidents changed many things. The foreign affairs committee was forced to withdraw its demands and allow smooth passage of 3rd Generation Agreement by the EU parliament. Being privy to such meetings, which took place in Brussels, and a debate on this subject in the European parliament in Strasbourg, I can share with readers the mistrust and doubts the then foreign affairs committee had about Pakistan’s internal situation, especially after the military takeover in 1999 and its persistent opposition to the signing of the agreement. The committee members, while giving an audience to the Pakistani President on January 22, 2008 in Brussels were in fact obsessed with the same kind of feelings about the Pakistan situation, which was quite clear from the questions they put to the President.

All of us know what are those concrete basis. But for the moment, EU’s ‘obsession’ appears to be with holding of free and fair upcoming general elections for which a high-powered European monitoring team has already arrived. The Pakistan President also talked about the West’s obsession with democracy and declared their concerns as unwarranted. While this obsession may be unnecessary, in some cases it is but natural and justified. One needs to give a passionate consideration to the fact why Europe, or for that matter Americans or Chinese, make such statements and observations about our internal affairs and why not countries like Brazil, Mexico, Senegal, etc, with whom Pakistan had re-invented its relations?

The reason is quite obvious that we have had extensive relationships with most of the European countries and of course the US and China, as compared with the Latin American region with which level of our relations has been far lower than anybody’s expectations. The point that I want to make is that the engagement will naturally contribute towards a clash of interests, particularly of those who have higher stakes in a respective country. The EU is the biggest trading partner of Islamabad with many European companies involved undertaking various projects. Europe’s stakes are on the higher side and they are, among other things, genuinely concerned about the well-being of their nationals as well as business enterprises. Therefore, their demand for a stable Pakistan appears quite logical.

Undoubtedly, stability in the neighbourhood, and even within the country, remains a constant source of concern for them, which necessitates some drastic steps to compel both sides, sooner or later, to reconfigure their fractured yet inseparable relationship.

The European leaders gave the impression as if they were not satisfied with Islamabad’s role in the war on terror, to which the President’s response was matching and spontaneous. At the same time, Europe also needs to learn that it is always not Pakistan, or any other Muslim country producing terrorists but they themselves are also equally to be blamed for this. For example, 12 people arrested recently in Spain, presumably on the charges of having links with some terrorist groups, in fact was a step taken hurriedly and without conducting a thorough probe.

Consequently, the authorities have to release some of them soon after the arrest while others will also be freed as this particular case has more to do with settling of political scores than the issue of terrorism. Spain happens to be one of those few European destinations providing safe havens for human trafficking — thanks to some of the Spanish Interior Ministry officials who have been facilitating this business since long. So, if some miscreants are exported or imported as a result of this business, then the respective country must share the responsibility as well.

Tailpiece: Despite all hoopla and mistrust eclipsing relations between Europe and Pakistan, both sides appear ready in addressing the gray areas with a view to bringing normalcy to the strained relationship. It is possible only through enhanced and intensive engagement. Both sides have genuine concerns, which regrettably may drift towards precipice if not checked immediately. Policy makers in Islamabad and Brussels should know they cannot live on mere rhetoric and false hopes. Pakistan needs to show more responsibility because its stakes are higher than Europe’s.

The writer is a bilingual columnist based in Islamabad

http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.as...41739&catid=11