February 7, 2012
By Mahjabeen Mehboob Raja


Pakistan was founded on the basis of religious nationalism. Its other two neighbors Iran and Afghanistan were never professed as hostile states. But India as non-Muslim neighbor with whom Pakistan had fought a war in beginning of its creation has become a constant threat towards the national security of Pakistan. A high degree of mistrust and insecurity had shaped the political relations between India and Pakistan.

Regarding the issue of national security, Pakistan has embarked upon the policy of arms race since its creation. 60 years of its independence are wasted in this race of national security. Pakistan priorities are defence related not development related. The ‘stated’ defence budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012 is likely to be Rs495 billion, an increase of Rs53 billion or 12 per cent over the previous year’s ‘stated’ budget

Defence budgets have never been debated in Parliament and are always assumed to be a given during the presentation of the annual money bill. Why are we least concerned about debating our defense budget in Parliament?? Is there no need of discussing it?? Or this is the sacred testimonial which cannot be touched??? In the case of India, he is also doing the same. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, presenting the 2011-2012 budget to parliament, set the military budget at just over 1.64 trillion rupees ($36.28 billion), up from last year’s 1.47 trillion rupees. Last year the increase was about 4 percent in military budget. India considers China as his greatest rival. China is the real long-term challenge on the strategic horizon and India’s security planning is geared toward it. India is also worried and anxious about sino-pak relations. Pakistan is uncomfortable over India’s propinquity to Afghanistan.

So the relationship between the two neighboring and hostile countries owes a great deal of mistrust. Terrorism, Indus water treaty and Kashmir Issue are the commonly used issues which hinders in bilateral relations and stumbling peace process between the two countries. November 2008 attacks were across Mumbai, India’s largest city. The sole captured terrorist, Ajmal Kasab claimed the attackers were of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant organisation. Apart from other permanent issues including the thorny dispute of Kashmir which has always been used by India to malign and pressurize Pakistan, water of rivers has become a matter of life and death for every Pakistani as New Delhi has continuously been employing it as a tool of terrorism to blackmail Pakistan. Indian diplomacy of water terrorism could also be judged from a latest development. Reports suggest that India has secretly offered technical assistance to the Afghan government in order to construct a dam over Kabul River which is a main water contributor to Indus River. Pakistan has already been facing with a continued phenomenon of terrorism like suicide attacks, bomblasts etc., committed by the militants who enter our country from Afghanistan where Indian secret intelligence agency, RAW has established training centers for anti-Pakistan activities.

Now granting India MFN status signals a shift in Pakistani Policy towards India. Recent developments like Pakistan’s decision to grant Most Favoured Nation status to India, Islamabad’s appreciation of the Indian cooperation to secure a permanent UN seat, and releasing the Indian Army helicopter that flew across the Line of Control suggests a sense of geniality. The MFN designation means that Pakistan will not impose any special barriers on its trade with India and will treat India as it treats any other country. India has already granted Pakistan MFN status.

Residents of Kashmir are concerned that granting India MFN status will put the Kashmir problem in abeyance. But in this case, it is Pakistan who has to decide its pros and cons. Islamic ideology has to get out of Indo-Pak relations; else problems will continue for ever. What to talk of Hindus, not even a single Indian Muslim supports the so called Kashmir cause. Therefore it’s the will of 180 million Pakistanis verses 1.20 billion Indians. Critical mass of India is so large that she can withstand problems like Kashmir but not Pakistan. Similar size insurgency will rip apart Pakistan, but not India. Therefore in any Indo-Pak conflict it will Pakistan who will suffer the most. Tis best to weigh the enemy more mighty than he seems.

March 31, 2012
By Kuldip Nayar

Pakistan has changed in some ways since my last visit a year ago. Terrorism is absent from most parts of the country. Punjab has not experienced even a single major incident in the last 15 months or so. Above all, terrorism is no more a topic in any discussion. I did not see any armed securityman on the streets of Lahore. Still people do feel uneasy and even insecure, but appear to have reconciled to the circumstances and the conditions.

In the same way, the Taliban do not figure in the daily discourse as was the case last year. It is apparent that fanaticism is not thriving any more, although an appeal in the name of religion has not lessened in effect. The cleric is still a bugbear for all, more so to the liberals who seem to have toned down their voice of dissent.

Sensing that the establishment is not with them, the rightist forces have arrayed themselves on a platform, Council of Defence (DAFA), to pounce upon those who dare to think of peace and harmony. Leaders include Hafiz Saeed who is connected with the terror attacks on Mumbai and the India-baiter Hamid Gul, former ISI chief. They fear that Islamabad may make up with their top enemies, America and India.

However pernicious their hate campaign, there is a genuine desire among the people to have good relations with India. Despite all pressures, the common man on both sides has nourished good feelings towards one another. Yet I have never seen before the surge for friendship which exists today in Pakistan. “We have wasted last 65 years in animosity,” said many leading people. “Let us not waste any more time.”

Burying the hatchet

Elderly persons have a feeling that if the hatchet between India and Pakistan is not buried in their lifetime, it might not happen after they are gone because the youth is indifferent. However, I found many young girls and boys keenly interested in India and want to interact with their counterparts. But their main problem is the visa which is ‘impossible’ to get.

Trade with India is awaited with bated breath, not only because it would give a break to the deteriorating economy of Pakistan but also because it would provide an opportunity to have contact with India. The bonds of common culture, common traditions and common ethos are convincing more and more Pakistanis that their long-term interests lie with India. This, however, is not the case with the media which I found too involved in domestic happenings like Indian newspapers and television channels. A few businessmen told me that the extremists have already begun threatening them of dire consequences if they entered into any trade relationship with India. Most significant is the news that cantonments have their walls full of slogans against India written in chalk.

No doubt, the general perception is that the army is strong. But I did not find it throwing its weight about as happened even in General Pervez Musharraf’s time. The military seems to have realised that a takeover would not be easy this time. The political parties are daggers drawn but they have let it be known that martial law is out of the question. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif told me they would all stand by the Asif Ali Zardari government if there was any attempt by the army to push it out.

I think the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad was the watershed for the army. People’s confidence in it has been greatly hit. A story doing the rounds is that Zardari had a meeting of top army officials including Army chief General Pervez Kayani and some senior ministers to find out how far Islamabad could go to push America for having killed Pakistani soldiers. The army top brass is said to have indicated that it could not withstand US pressure.

No doubt, the anti-American feeling is stronger than it was last year. But this is primarily because of Washington’s pro-Kabul policy. Islamabad still wants Afghanistan as its strategic depth and is irritated over Washington’s policy to make Kabul strong. That the latter is close to New Delhi aggravates the situation. Kayani is no friend of India but he does not see any purpose in wearing his anti-Delhi feelings on his sleeves. He finds America pressing him to give up hostility towards India. Kayani realises that if Pakistan wants to get the military wherewithal he has to favour steps to lessen the distance with India. The decision to extend the status of ‘Most Favoured Nation’ to India had his nod. What he probably does not realize is that the peace lobby in Pakistan has expanded beyond his estimates.

Sharif has no hesitation in saying that he won against Benazir Bhutto in 1991 on the plank of peace with India. He proposes to raise the same issue in the next election in 2013. Some elements in the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party too see the point. It is not surprising to find Imran Khan not following suit. Maybe, the army, his biggest supporter, still wants to reap some dividends by not settling problems with India.

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.
Source: Gulf News

Zardari’s visit to India and after

April 10, 2012
By Tariq Fatemi

President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to India on April 8 may have started off as a pilgrimage but inevitably acquired the significance of a summit meeting.

While details are yet to emerge, Zardari described the talks as “very fruitful”, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed willingness “to find practical and pragmatic solutions on all issues”. Singh also agreed to visit Pakistan but only when “mutually convenient”. The Summit did, however, provide an impetus to the normalisation process. The challenge, therefore, will be to ensure that momentum is not simply maintained but enhanced, particularly as leadership in both countries needs to wean people away from memories of deep mutual suspicion. After all, their relationship impacts not only themselves, but a region which is home to one-fourth of the world’s population. Happily, most Pakistanis no longer look at India as an enemy; the attitude is one of envy, not enmity. A growing number of Indians, too, favour establishing cordial ties with Pakistan.

The normalisation process, however, has not moved with the resolve expected with the restoration of a democratic government in Islamabad. Admittedly, the November 2008 terrorist strike caused strong outrage in India, prompting Delhi to break off the composite dialogue process. Though a limited restoration was signalled in 2010, the talks have proceeded at a desultory pace, with no movement on issues such as Siachen and Sir Creek, where existing understandings should have led to closure.

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s recent comments appeared to signal a shift in Islamabad’s stand on differences with India, more specifically on Kashmir. While some may question the wisdom of abandoning a historical position without evidence of reciprocal concession, there is growing concern in Pakistan that given its impressive economic growth rate and increasing international profile, India is losing interest in reaching a durable relationship with Pakistan.

While this may appear attractive to some in India, the harsh reality is that though Pakistan will definitely gain from peace, it is also in India’s interest to have cordial relations with its neighbours. But as the dominant power, India would need to show understanding for concerns of its smaller neighbours. Moreover, with Afghanistan entering the ‘endgame’, the urgency of Pakistan and India reaching an understanding on what their ‘objectives’ are in that country assumes critical importance. It would be tragic if, on top of the existing laundry list of disputes, differing Pakistan-India goals in Afghanistan destroy prospects of peace there.

As it stands, Afghanistan has been a historic bone of contention between India and Pakistan with both convinced that the other’s presence would be to its detriment. This pernicious zero-sum game has not served the interest of either country while harming prospects of peace and stability in the region. Islamabad and Delhi would do themselves and the world great good were they to make Afghanistan the launching pad to create mutual trust that has been lacking in their relationship so far. It is also important to ensure that the dialogue process remains “uninterrupted and uninterruptible”, as Indian National Congress Member Mani Shankar Aiyer has emphasised.

Of course, given the level of mutual suspicions, this will not be easy. Moreover, both countries would be wary of taking the first step, especially at a time when serious questions have been raised regarding the political future of both Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh. But their weakness should not inhibit their imagination; instead, it should spur them on to greater resolve.

Though terrorism is of huge concern to India, America’s announcement of a $10 million bounty for the arrest or capture of Hafiz Saeed appeared to be an inept attempt to curry favour with India, while ratcheting up pressure on Pakistan for its failure to wrap its foreign policy review. But to have done so on the eve of Zardari’s visit –– of which the US could not have been unaware –– was unfortunate and evidence of its disconnect from the complexities of South Asian politics.

The Express Tribune

April 10, 2012
By Tanvir Ahmad Khan

BY a tragic coincidence, President Zardari left for New Delhi just as a wave of grief over the horrific loss of life caused by a mighty avalanche in the army’s encampment in the dizzying heights of Siachen swept across Pakistan.

Zardari had conferred with Gen Kayani the evening before and, in an appropriate division of labour, the general headed for Skardu to take stock of the relief operation under way in the Gayari sub-sector while Zardari went on a journey that highlighted the imperative of peace with India.

The tragedy in Siachen was a reminder that confrontations between the two effectively stalemated South Asian neighbours have been futile. It is a pity that the Indian army blocks the implementation of the Rajiv Gandhi-Benazir Bhutto accord on disengagement in Siachen. By now, the need for deploying substantial forces in that snow-covered wasteland would have disappeared to mutual advantage.

It is probably academic whether President Zardari’s primary motivation came from the declared intention of prayers and thanksgiving at the shrine of Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti or from his perception that, for a whole range of reasons embedded in the state of bilateral relations as well as in his domestic political needs, a conversation with Manmohan Singh could not be delayed further. We know from the past international initiatives of our president that public and private concerns coexist and mingle effortlessly in his case.

In the history of ‘accidental’ summits between India and Pakistan, President Zardari might have done better than the erstwhile leaders of Pakistan. I accompanied Gen Ziaul Haq during his visit to India, undertaken to defuse the crisis on the borders created by Gen Sunderji’s massive Exercise Brass-tacks.

We watched cricket in the Jaipur stadium, went to the same hallowed dargah in Ajmer and, in between, experienced anguished uncertainty if a meeting with Rajiv Gandhi would at all materialise. It did and a revealing comparing of notes by the two leaders, of which I am the sole witness, helped reverse the momentum towards an armed conflict.

The meeting did not, however, open any new doors for enduring reconciliation. As unilateral gestures go, Gen Musharraf’s dash to the rostrum with an outstretched palm to shake the Indian prime minister by hand at a multilateral conference is mostly remembered for its amateurish nature. Zardari’s pilgrimage may produce better results.

Zardari chose Ajmer Sharif as the focal point of his visit to India, a city known for the inclusive magic of a hallowed shrine that is revered by followers of all religions and that permits saints and sinners alike to connect with its abiding spirituality.

One does not know what Manmohan Singh made of Zardari’s Sufi longings but he would not have turned his face away from the secular potential of his presence on the Indian soil.

He organised a warm welcome followed by a lunch in the style of the Great Mughals, even as millions literally starve in the two countries, spoke amiably of the exclusive meeting with the guest, accepted an invitation, for the nth time, to visit Pakistan and generally indulged the Pakistani president in his desire to introduce his own emerging dynasty to the Indian dynasty that created modern India, got interrupted occasionally and now seeks a renewal of its long rule across the bridge provided by his stint as prime minister under Sonia Gandhi’s oversight.

In Pakistan’s fractious political culture, opinions about the dynamics of Zardari’s approach to India will continue to differ. But his readiness to walk an extra mile to replace decades of hostility by an era of cooperation is sound and timely.

The Indian foreign secretary was quick on April 8 to reassure Indian hawks that Manmohan Singh had, indeed, raised the question of Hafiz Saeed; he also clarified that his prime minister would visit Pakistan at a “convenient” time, a formulation that deserves the riposte that problems of bilateral relations, the complexity of the regional situation, the uncertainties of the endgame in Afghanistan and the interplay of regional politics with that of global powers warrant that the Indian prime minister should make it convenient to continue the dialogue in Pakistan itself.

We have also been informed that, on his part, Zardari talked of Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek.

The part of the bilateral spectrum that can and may be lit up soon is represented by trade. There is by now a genuine possibility that it can be substantially built up without stoking fears of the exploitation of the vulnerabilities of either side, a consideration more applicable to Pakistan’s weaker economy than to India.

Pakistan can expand commerce and India can adjust its infamous non-tariff barriers with considerable assurance that the consequence would be mutually beneficial. It will probably be some time before Islamabad can convince New Delhi that it would be similarly advantageous to resolve more contentious issues and that, in the long run, the two countries should find a settlement in Jammu and Kashmir in close consultation with its long-suffering people.

President Zardari is usually too preoccupied with personal gain to be a political visionary. He has, however, taken an initiative that can energise the lacklustre process of normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India. Paradoxical as it may seem, he is today in a better position to deliver than Manmohan Singh.

The conversation held on April 8 would have better traction if the two leaders make it easier for the other side to move forward. Pakistan has yet to overcome the dark forces of terror that have claimed 35,000 Pakistani lives; this fact of the Pakistani situation warrants that India should not feel threatened from the Pakistani soil.

Building peace with neighbours is not a game; it is an undeniable demand of our times. If the interlocutors of April 8 dedicate themselves to this task, they would find the saint of Ajmer Sharif on their side. An accidental summit may become an important milestone in the quest for peace and progress in our blighted region.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.
-Dawn

April 10, 2012
By Tasneem Noorani

THINKING that I should know, someone asked me why I thought the Pakistan government has been so prompt and ready to give MFN status to India. Even though I know a few things about this issue, I was stumped.

Trying to figure out a credible answer, I thought of the eight ingredients of the Composite Dialogue initiated between India and Pakistan in 2004. No concession has been offered or hinted at by the Indians so far in any of the components. Not even for some easily doable ones, like the Sir Creek issue, to set the pace for improving relations.

Even some ‘softer’ gestures were all in the negative. For example, Pakistani cricketers continue to be banned in their IPL as ‘punishment’ for the Mumbai incident. The conciliatory and somewhat naïve initiative of the chairman PCB for starting India-Pakistan cricket was spurned. Recently, there was news of India refusing to send their hockey team for a tournament.

Even on the matter of trade, Indian’s track record has been somewhat enigmatic. They gave us the MFN in 1996, when their exports to us totalled $94.5m and ours to them $40.7m. We have not yet given them the MFN, so logically the balance of trade should have tilted in our favour over these years.

The facts, however, are that Indian exports to us in 2011 were $1,743m, an 18-fold increase, while our exports to them have gone up to $264.3m only, a six-time increase.

As for our exports to them, nothing is going to change with the current dialogue, since we already have the MFN status from them. The non-tariff barriers that Pakistan has been pointing out since 2004 when the Composite Dialogue was started are the main stumbling block, but Indian interlocutors shrug their shoulder every time it is mentioned.

No one is denying the benefits of trade, especially with a regional country which is likely to become an economic power. There will be a possible decrease in the import cost of some items due to reduced freight costs. There will be possible diversion of imports; what we currently import from China, (about $7.5m) could be imported from India. The import of Indian goods currently being done through Dubai will start coming directly, thus reducing costs.

All these advantages are on the import side. There is no plan by the government or the chambers on export to India. Indian businessmen overwhelmingly hold the perception that there is nothing Pakistan can export to them except gypsum and rock salt, and some agricultural products. This perception is neither refuted by our side, nor is there any concrete strategy. As a matter of fact the Ministry of Industries, whose role it is to safeguard and facilitate Pakistan industry, appears not to be in the loop on this issue.

There is a well-founded apprehension in some quarters that the influx of Indian goods and of Indian businessmen without reciprocity might lead to a backlash from extremists. A perfectly good opportunity could turn into a disaster. Even though Pakistan has announced the MFN status, there is still time to prepare for the paradigm shift in trade relations with our neighbour.

The non-tariff barriers that are so often pointed out to the Indians are never denied by them, but explained by saying that they apply equally to all countries. Anecdotal evidence refutes this narrative. Pakistan imports are given ‘special’ treatment by Indian customers, etc. There are reports of Indian importers being questioned by RAW. In any case, that argument does not help our industry.

There is a need for the government to prepare a list of items in which Pakistan has a competitive edge. It has to prepare lists of items where with its facilitation Pakistan can become competitive. It needs to commission studies to map the actual non-tariff barriers faced by Pakistani exporters.

These studies should have been done and publicised before signing the agreements. However, it is not too late. If such studies have been done, they should be made public. The relevant committee out of the three set up through the recent bilateral agreements should take up the issue of non-tariff barriers with Indians with time lines for removal.

There is no doubt that the current Ministry of Commerce led by an able secretary has been able to push the initiative of trade through a myriad of committees very competently and with a passion, so critically lacking in most of the bureaucracy these days. The easy part has been to give access to India. The difficult part is going to be to ensure that our textiles get a fair deal, our fans which outsell Indian fans internationally find a major market in India or for that matter our tractors, which are reported to be better in quality and cheaper because of the exchange rate advantage, are accepted by the Indians.

While Pakistani industry may not have the diversity of the Indian industry, it has the advantage of a much bigger market at its disposal. So if India sells 20 items worth a couple of billion dollars, for Pakistan even if two items are allowed by India to enter its market, they can get a market of half a billion because of the size of the Indian market and the exchange rate advantage.

Opening trade with India can only be sustained if in the public perception it enriches both countries. It will be foolish to let an opportunity turn into a disaster.

The writer is former secretary commerce.
-Dawn

April 11, 2012
By: Dr Haider Mehdi

Of course, you are an adult and you will have to make your own decisions from now on. But let me share something with you that I consider important: We are a community-oriented people and our faith is our culture. Drinking is against our values. I hope you will not do something that is considered inappropriate in our society.”

The above quote was my father’s advice at the time of my departure for studies abroad. My late father was a student in England from 1933 to 1936. He said that his father (my grandfather) said precisely the same words to him when he was leaving home to go overseas.

My personal belief is that the majority of Pakistanis and Muslims all over the world, for generations, have remained steadfast in observing the cultural norms of their societal values. The point is that culture is a sacred trust. It is an identity of a people, a society, a nation, and cultural violations or assaults on a community’s sacrosanct values, be that from within or externally organised, lead to societal conflicts on a micro level, and at a macro level, and cause antagonism and strife amongst nations. Externally planned cultural interventions, as are being organised on a massive scale all over the world by the US-led Western establishments, are a major cause of present-day global conflicts.

In fact, in the historical context, colonialism was not only a physical occupation; it was an attempt at cultural oppression of the occupied people and societies. Only a decade ago, Pakistan was once again (in the aftermath of colonialism) a victim of precisely planned foreign cultural aggression – indeed, explicitly organised by a close collaboration between external and internal political actors – and this continues today.

Dog-loving, Havana cigar-puffing and Johnny Walker whiskey-sipping General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, in his conceptually flawed, completely ignorant, absolutely arrogant, self-centred and blatantly disrespectful attitude and mindset toward his native societal norms and values, romanticised an American-sponsored cultural assault against his own people and nation. Musharraf’s “enlightened moderation” doctrine was a meticulously prepared Bush-Blair cultural invasion of Pakistan. It was this notion that coined the term “Islamic extremism” and gave birth to the war on terrorism. Musharraf’s doctrine of “enlightened moderation” was an unleashing of psychological warfare against the Pakistani people to make them “hate” themselves, their traditional norms and values, and reject their cultural imperatives as contradictory to contemporary concepts of “modernisation” and as a basic cause of their backwardness.

Musharraf, with his ego-centric and personal cultural animosity towards common societal values, claimed that he was promoting a “modernisation” agenda for his beleaguered and backward nation. But the point is that “modernisation” and “westernisation” are absolutely two different concepts. Modernisation is a process of comprehending the dynamics of a contemporary technological civilisation and using the knowledge in the service of human advancement and socio-cultural-economic enhancement. Rejection of a society’s cultural norms is not required for “modernisation” to take place. On the other hand, “westernisation” compels a rejection of one’s native values and a transformation of native culture by heavily influenced Western views and attitudes toward daily existence and socio-cultural-political-economic perspectives on life.

Little did Musharraf and his US-West geopolitical and cultural patrons know (or even appreciate today) that they can bomb a country into the Stone Age, destroy its infrastructure, kill its people in millions, and yet a nation’s cultural subjugation, its cultural enslavement and its cultural subordination is not possible. It is precisely for this reason that the US-Nato is on the verge of a military-political defeat in Afghanistan, as the US-West was defeated in Vietnam. The US has been politically frustrated in its own backyard in South and Latin America and elsewhere all over the world – and the US-West’s grand designs will continue to be thwarted everywhere.

When Musharraf staged the military coup, I wrote several letters and warned him that the US would seek his help to destabilise and invade Afghanistan. It was pointed out that this course would be destructive for Pakistan’s future and it has been proven to be so. At the time, my view was that Pakistan had a golden opportunity to exert a transformational influence on the geopolitical system and steer it towards giving political resolutions to political issues, rather than to the US-West’s military adventurisms. But Musharraf had flawed judgment – and the rest is history being witnessed in today’s Pakistan.

Now, years later, Pakistan has a similar opportunity knocking at its door. With Obama’s re-election in sight, Nato supplies blocked, Taliban forces being militarily and politically undefeated in Afghanistan, the US-Nato on the verge of a military-political defeat, and massive Pakistani public opinion against US-Nato’s presence in Afghanistan and American intervention in Pakistan’s affairs, there is a golden opening and space to readjust Pakistan’s traditional alliance with the West, most specifically with the US.

The ball is in Pakistan’s court now in shaping and transforming the present geopolitical system largely dominated by the US and the West. In the process of a major foreign policy paradigm shift in Pakistan, it will have to distance itself from past alliances and take up new policy directives based on the convergence of shared common cultural heritage with neighbouring nations. For a lasting national and regional peace, Pakistan will have to nurture and initiate an innovative and inventive foreign policy. Pakistan will have to go beyond the scope of its traditional and present foreign policy parameters, and conceive a visionary and imaginative doctrine for its role in global political affairs.

In this context, it needs to take prompt steps to call for a “political confederation” between Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran and set up a regional organisation to coordinate a three-nation defence and foreign policy strategy, foreign trade agreements, and domestic development programmes. This could be later expected to extend to Central Asian Islamic nations. Indeed, cultural imperatives and alliance amongst people of common heritage are bound to have mass support and liberate these nations from antagonism of foreign cultural and political domination.

In terms of immediate foreign policy readjustments and realignments, Pakistan needs to espouse a fresh foreign policy doctrine for a lasting peace in the region. It should cease being a partner in the US-Nato so-called war on terror. Pakistan should not open Nato routes for the supply of lethal military equipment to Afghanistan. Drone attacks will have to be stopped completely and immediately. The US-Nato will have to pay appropriate compensation for the damages to the country’s infrastructure and pay taxes for the transportation of essential non-military supplies to its forces. Pakistan will have to be a participant in all peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban and other political actors in the conflict.

In return, Pakistan will have to ensure the safe exit of the US-Nato forces from Afghanistan. It will have to provide logistic, strategic and political help in the final settlement of the Afghan conflict and assist in accelerating the peace process. Pakistan will have to organise confidence-building measures amongst all conflicting parties and help in the making of global coalition partners in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

This is a revolutionary foreign policy agenda. The question is: Will Pakistan fail once again in its quest for a national lasting peace?

Developing a culturally-based foreign policy strategy is the only way to go forward now!

-The Nation

April 11, 2012
By: Dr Kamal Monnoo

The debate on or whether or not to grant the MFN status to India still continues to occupy the Pakistani minds, both in the government circles and the private sector. As things stand today, we already enjoy a MFN status with India and now granting a MFN status in return to India basically implies further opening up of our economy to the Indian products. In theory, opening up of an economy is mostly considered to be beneficial as it promotes growth and, in this context, the most frequently quoted example is that of Singapore, which successfully resurrected its faltering growth by undertaking a new set of revolutionary economic reforms back in 2005 that further liberalised the Singaporean economy. However, as we know that as markets/economies open, competition stiffens and the fresh challenge comes in successfully managing the evolving situation through good governance cum sound economic management – something that cannot be counted as Pakistan’s forte!

There still exists some confusion about clear linkages between trade and growth, and then between growth and poverty reduction or with growth’s correlation to the real life benefits for the poor. Ironically, the new person nominated by the US to head the World Bank, Mr Jim Yong Kim, also belongs to the school of thought, which believes growth does little to help the poor and Mr Kim also published a book in 2000, arguing this case. However, given a sort of prevailing global consensus on the positives of growth, one feels that there is no need for our government to suddenly wake up at this stage to start debating clarity on growth and its linkage with enhanced trade, but instead it simply needs to ponder upon the traditional weaknesses and reasons for why it is taking us so long to get our act together and stamp our rightful mark on trade at all levels, regional and global?

A lot of studies at present are also being conducted by academics at home on the merits and demerits of a MFN status to India and on what sort of trade potential actually exists if the trading regime between Pakistan and India is well and truly liberalised. Personally, while these exercises may provide good material for a classroom discussion but, in practical terms, they serve scant little than just stating the obvious. The point being that it does not require any rocket science to determine that trade, if conducted fairly, is a win-win for all stakeholders and also it is of little practical consequence whether the potential is gauged at $6 billion or $10 billion (Chambers of Commerce and Industry by the way have floated a figure in excess of $20 billion), because when figuring out our future trading strategy with India what we should really be concerned about are the following factors:

a) Trends of mutual trade.

b) Pakistan’s repeated failure to strategise and convert sectoral comparative advantages into tangible performance.

c) India’s role in sabotaging Pakistan’s trade growth within SAARC (even after SAFTA). On a per capita basis, Pakistan is the least traded country in SAARC.

d) Pakistan’s continued weakness in intelligently thinking through and then professionally drafting agreements that going forward are, i) Implementable and ii) Can be successfully monitored.

e) Water issues.

f) The drafting and oversight mechanism relating to the three proposed agreements:

i) The Customs Cooperation Agreement, to avoid arbitrary stoppages of goods at each other’s ports,

ii) Mutual Recognition Agreement, for acceptance of certificates of internationally accredited laboratories, and

iii) Redress of Grievances Agreement, for resolving matters in case of any disagreements.

g) Critical DNA difference between a Pakistani and an Indian – we relish imports, while the subconscious Indian mindset is still anti-imports!

What is even more worrying is that, in spite of being granted the MFN status by India way back in 1996, our share of exports in the total bilateral trade has consistently declined. In fact, there have been periods where our value of exports per se has simply registered a decline; whereas, Indian exports to Pakistan since 1996 have never posted a decrease in value terms! Obviously, something somewhere is not right and now once the MFN to India is also granted, we will need to be extra careful, because if we are yet again not able to prudently address the underlying anomalies (whatever they might be, e.g. NTB’s, political, tariffs, infrastructure, travel restrictions, communication, security/terror, etc) the balance of trade will tilt further in India’s favour. In my humble opinion, what the Government of Pakistan needs is a good team based on an amalgam of private-public human resource that has the competence, capacity and the authority (mandate) to work out the details and seek bottle tight guarantees on how trade will be fairly conducted between the two South Asian giants in future. Now how this dream team can be assembled remains a puzzle, since the government in its appointments continues to display a total disregard for merit or professionalism and almost all private sector bodies (Chambers, Federation of Chambers, Export Associations, etc) appear to be hijacked by interest groups – in recent memory, I can’t recall a single international quality research paper being released/published by any of the private sector trade or industrial associations!

Having just returned from the Entrepreneurial Conference at the sidelines of the BRICS in Delhi and the Boao Forum for Asia in Boao, China, let me confirm that more and more countries (and especially India) are trying to model themselves after China, meaning “The shift of ‘National Economic Vision’ from playing a support role for policy realisation to instead becoming the principal guiding force behind all national policy formation.” Also, the current focus by almost all emerging economies is on growth and employment generation, and there seems to be broad agreement between them that these can primarily be achieved through three things: business, trade and innovation; with China, as always, taking the lead and moving a step ahead by further linking its growth with ‘Green’ (meaning environmentally friendly) and ‘Sustainability’, in its just released 12th economic plan.

China which earlier fixed its growth rate at 7.50 percent is now endeavouring to cross 8 percent and India from 6.70 percent is now working on crossing the 7 percent mark by pre-announcing or rather pre-allocating in their 2012-13 budget the public sector spending priorities that will be funded through higher taxation and transparently directed mainly to areas, sectors and people that fit into the overall vision of Indian growth generation, albeit a growth that also caters to the Indian priority on poverty reduction through equitable distribution.

To conclude, given our WTO commitments and the sane resolve to remain an integral part of the global economic community, for me the debate is not about granting a MFN status to India or otherwise, but about our future game plan to compete with a country that is single-mindedly focused on taking its economic management to the so-called ‘next’ level, while we struggle with a complete absence of governance at home?

-The Nation

This article is wrongly and mistakenly posted by me here, it relates to Pak Foreign Policy/Pak-US Relations..So requesting mods to remove it from here and post it in respective thread...Regards

April 12, 2012
I.A Rehman

FOR once Mr Zardari’s critics seem to have run out of their stock of vitriol. Even those who were sceptical of his one-day flight to India admit that by breaking bread with Mr Manmohan Singh he did not lose anything even if the gains secured by them are not visible to everyone.

A little reflection will show that these gains are not so obscure. If nothing else, the fact that the leaders of the South Asian twins can have a civilised conversation has greater significance than is generally conceded. The Indians, by and large, welcomed the event. The Supreme Court of India too contributed to the spirit of bonhomie and took a step that could lead to a bilateral humanitarian protocol on relief to prisoners/convicts.

At home, Mr Zardari has received support from unexpected quarters. Mian Nawaz Sharif has not only approved his hop across the border but also supported what he describes as promotion of ties with India in a positive way. His wish to play against the Indian cricketers should be added as a strong argument in favour of resuming India-Pakistan cricket competition in home countries. He has also called for talks with India on all issues including Kashmir. This should be taken as a PML-N policy statement voluntarily made while the party chief was under no obligation to speak.

However, the compliments Mr Zardari has received, including the left-handed ones, cannot conceal the fact that on relations with India he has been quite consistent. Normalisation with India was one of the first objectives he had set for his government and he gained nothing by bowing before the storm the hate-India lobby had raised. Experienced diplomats know better than others that accidental summits are rarely fortuitous.

Much planning and patience in waiting for fair winds are required to make a ping pong game or an exchange of pleasantries at a luncheon look accidental. If nothing else, last week’s encounter in Delhi must be seen together with Islamabad’s decision to remove the obstacles to normal trade with India, which is perhaps one of the most significant steps taken by the present government.

This is not the first time that the hope of normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan has been rekindled. If the present opportunity offered by a broad agreement between the PPP and PML-N is not to be lost it is necessary to avoid the mistakes that led to post-accord miscarriages in the past.

The Tashkent Accord and the Simla Agreement were in the interest of both India and Pakistan and were especially favourable to Pakistan — because it got more than it deserved as the losing party in the wars of its making — but they made no positive impact on public opinion in this country. Indeed, hostility towards India increased. The story was repeated
when Mian Nawaz Sharif extricated the country from the Kargil misadventure by forcing himself on Mr Clinton on a holiday. In each case the feeling of having been humiliated on the battlefield did not permit a rational assessment of the settlement. By ignoring the need to educate the people in the imperative of peace with India successive Pakistan
governments have denied themselves the possibilities of building upon peace accords.

What is urgently needed is a frank discourse that should enable the Pakistani people to bury the myth that friendship with India can never be in their interest. It was this mindset that threw up the plea against Mr Zardari’s trip to Delhi on the morrow of the Siachen tragedy although this was the right time for the leaders of the two countries to take a fresh
stock of their costly confrontation in glacier-land and to ponder the consequences of their 1989 retreat from a sane compromise.

To the same mindset can be attributed the plea that the Indian offer of electricity should be accepted only if no price is demanded, because India is producing power from the water it is said to have stolen from our rivers! What about getting help from Britain?

The main problem with this mindset, as has often been discussed before, is that it does not accept the possibility of friendship with India until all disputes with it, especially Kashmir, are resolved.

The un-tenability of this hypothesis no longer needs to be emphasised. India-Pakistan issues will never be resolved in an environment of confrontation. On the contrary, goodwill between the two countries should facilitate the solution of even the most intractable problems.

This is particularly true of Kashmir which is primarily an issue between India and the people of Jammu & Kashmir. Nobody can absolve New Delhi of its sins against the Kashmiri people. Pakistan could only extend them moral support but it compromised its position by trying to solve the issue by force.

Now it is clear to all that Kashmir cannot be solved according to 1947 formulas. To delay India-Pakistan normalisation on this count will be contrary to the interest of all parties concerned. It will prolong the agony of the Kashmiri people; it will prevent the people of Pakistan from realising the importance of peace with India for their progress; and it will
increase the threat to the Indian polity from the merchants of communal hatred.

Fortunately, the Pakistani people have not been totally unable to learn from over six decades of barren confrontation but they have to learn much more about the art of living by the side of a more populous, militarily stronger and economically more advanced neighbour.

Pakistan will gain nothing by competing with India on the latter’s strong points. To do better than India it has to strive in other areas — the quality of governance and achievements in the area of education, public health, scientific discovery and excellence in arts. Ignoring these fields of competition and condemning a large part of the population to hunger,
disease and want in the hope of forcing India to its knees, in one way or another, makes no sense at all.

Of course, the same counsel can be given to the Indians but wise people do not wait for the other to break the ice. The reward for those who take the first step towards peace and justice is sweeter.
-Dawn

April 13, 2012
Mahmood Shah

THE avalanche under which 124 soldiers of the Pakistan Army and 11 civilians have been buried at Gayari in Siachen is nothing less than a catastrophe.

While rescue efforts are still under way, given the realities of the region there is little chance of any of these men being found alive. In all the years that troops have been stationed in Siachen, the weather and inhospitable terrain have claimed more lives than actual combat. Yet this is probably the most tragic event where so many lives have been lost in one go.

The disaster should serve as a wake-up call for Pakistan and India to revisit the Siachen issue, and delve into the logic of why troops are there at all.

The issue started when, in 1984, India quietly deployed troops to an area devoid of any human, animal or vegetative presence.
Pakistan decided to similarly deploy troops there to prevent any further Indian advance.

Initially, a few skirmishes took place over the consolidation of positions around tactically important localities. Subsequently, though, the situation resulted in almost an undeclared ceasefire, with the major challenge being the survival of the men of both countries in such a harsh terrain.

Siachen is the highest-altitude battlefield in the world. Pakistan and India spend billions in order to maintain troops there, with India spending a comparatively much higher amount because its troops are camped on a glacier and have to be supported by a fleet of helicopters.

Yet the costs incurred by the Pakistan Army over maintaining a presence at Siachen are enormous too, even though it has developed a rough road network supporting its main bases.

The difficulties associated with the area are immense. Temperatures go down as low as -50 degrees Celsius, and the rarity of air and associated lack of oxygen pose significant challenges. This means, for instance, that the lift capacity of the special helicopters operating in the area is reduced when they go up to high-altitude posts. Troops need special apparel and gear for survival. Many are incapacitated due to frostbite and other weather-related conditions. There is not enough oxygen to light fires for even cooking purposes.

All this hardship becomes senseless given the fact that the area cannot be used for large troop movements that either country could use to outflank or out-manoeuvre the other. The occupation of Siachen makes no military sense at all.

Under the 1972 Simla Agreement, the line of control between Pakistan and India was delineated up to a point known as NJ9842.
The dotted line then proceeds northeast so that Siachen clearly appears on the Pakistan side. The agreement’s script states that from this point onwards, the line will proceed northwards as shown by the dotted line. This represents Pakistan’s claim in the years-long debate.

In the early 1980s, reports surfaced that some Indian reconnaissance parties had been visiting the area occasionally. Some cigarette packets and food packages found on the main Siachen glacier confirmed these activities. The matter was still under active consideration at Pakistan’s GHQ when news came that the glacier had been occupied by India with an approximately brigade-strength deployment.

As a result, a brigade of the Pakistan Army was immediately sent up. This brigade occupied all the passes giving access to the Siachen glacier, which prevented India from gaining access to areas administered by the government of Pakistan. This position, known as the Conway Saddle, continues to be firmly held by the Pakistan Army (the Indian post in the area is Indra Kol).

There have been a number of rounds of negotiations between the two sides to resolve this issue. The Pakistan point of view has been that we need to revert to the pre-1984 positions while India insists that we first authenticate these positions and then withdraw. This means that Pakistan would cede this area to India.

This, however, is against international law, from the Westphalia agreement of 1648 to UN resolutions in more recent years.
When, in any conflict, a country occupies the territory of its enemy, it must vacate it after an agreement is reached. This was the case after the 1965 and 1971 wars between India and Pakistan, and internationally such as the Israeli occupation of Sinai and other areas.

But India states that in the script of the Simla Agreement, “northwards” means 90 degrees north and ignores the dotted line drawn on the map.

I have been part of these negotiations. Pakistan’s foreign and defence secretaries were proceeding for talks with their Indian counterparts and they asked whether Pakistan could provide any concessions that could provide India with a face-saving exit. I suggested that certain small glaciers in the vicinity of the Nubra river, which issues out of the Siachen glacier, could be granted to them.

Both the sides have come close to an agreement on a number of occasions. Consistently, though, agreement has been prevented by some last minute hitches on the Indian side.

Of late, and particularly after the Kargil debacle, India has been accusing Pakistan of being untrustworthy. In terms of Siachen, though, this is a lame excuse. This high-altitude glacial area cannot be used for large-scale manoeuvres or large troop deployment. The status quo is detrimental for both sides. Perhaps it is time for international guarantors to step in to convince both the countries to call off this madness.

The writer is retired brigadier, former home secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and former secretary Fata.

mahmoodshah@mahmoodshah.com
-Dawn