Mixed scorecard

The only bright spot in an otherwise fraught regional environment has been the slow but steady improvement in Pakistan-India relations over the past year. Better atmospherics however still outpace the substance. Even in trade liberalisation where there has been progress, delay in addressing Pakistan’s concerns on India’s non-tariff barriers could retard implementation of MFN status for India, aimed for December 2012.

Pakistan and India still have contesting visions about how normalisation should proceed. Pakistan sees resolution of festering disputes as the foundation for enduring normalisation. India accords priority to promoting economic relations and people-to-people contacts.

In early September the two countries’ foreign ministers will meet in Islamabad to review progress in the ‘composite’ dialogue whose second round, under the resumed process, concluded with the foreign secretaries’ meeting in Delhi last month.

These multilayered engagements across ministries on an eight point agenda have imparted energy to the diplomatic process. But while trade has made headway, the dialogue has come up short in other vital areas. Here’s why.

Trade: Trade liberalisation got underway in February 2012 when a ‘positive’ list replaced the ‘negative’ one, significantly increasing the items to be traded. Plans to phase this out by December 2012 are however mired in uncertainty. This is because three MOUs, that are steps towards removal of non-tariff barriers, have yet to become agreements. Delhi is not yet ready on any of these: a) redressal of trade grievances b) customs streamlining and c) ‘mutual recognition’, dealing with harmonising standards. MFN formalisation depends on their finalisation and establishing a more even playing field.

Water issues: This agenda item refers to the twenty-five year old Tulbul Navigation or Wullar Barrage project. In the March 2012 talks both sides reiterated past positions. Pakistan’s effort to raise other water issues was resisted by Indian officials who argued that other mechanisms (Permanent Indus Water Commission) were available to resolve issues and dialogue on this track should remain confined to the Tulbul project. The impasse persisted.

Siachen: No progress was made in the thirteenth round of talks on the 28 year old dispute. Negotiations mimicked the May 2011 round in which Pakistan believed India hardened its position. The main sticking point remained India’s insistence that before demilitarisation Pakistan should agree on authentication of present troop positions and demarcation of the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL). Pakistan’s call for a settlement on principles agreed by the two countries in 1989 and its offer to evolve a withdrawal schedule identifying “present” and “future” positions was rejected. Pakistan’s effort to discuss a non-contentious aspect of Siachen, environmental degradation, was also spurned by the Indians on the grounds that military activity had caused no such impact.

Sir Creek: The twelfth round in June 2012 failed to make headway on the disputed maritime border region. Both sides restated their known positions that invoke different principles, and historical and legal precedents for demarcating the boundary in this Rann of Kutch area. India insists on first drawing the maritime boundary in the middle of the estuary and the land boundary later. Pakistan wants the boundary to lie on the Creek’s east bank and delimitation from the land terminus to lead to determination of the maritime boundary.

Counter-terrorism, narcotics and other issues: Discussions between the interior secretaries in May 2012 saw the Indian side reiterate its concerns over the slow progress of the Mumbai trial, Hafiz Saeed’s activities and alleged infiltration across the Line of Control. Pakistan protested Indian interference in Balochistan from locations in Afghanistan and support for the Baloch Liberation Army. The session did not go beyond mutual complaints. But on narcotics control the conversation was bolstered by mutual commitments to reinforce joint efforts in accordance with last year’s MOU.

On humanitarian affairs both sides committed to flexibility in dealing with prisoners and fishermen who inadvertently stray into the other country’s waters.

Visa regime: The working group established to revise the 1974 visa regime was able to frame a new agreement. This might be signed during the upcoming foreign ministers’ meeting. The agreement eases procedures for businessmen, senior citizens and members of divided families. But the rest of the regime remains restrictive.

Conventional and Nuclear Confidence building measures: The working group on CBMs under the agenda item Peace and Security resumed after a hiatus of four years in December 2011. But its outcome was disappointing. This highlighted the difficulties of building confidence in the security area aimed at escalation avoidance and conflict prevention.

Pakistan’s three nuclear CBM proposals, exchange of information in nuclear safety and peaceful uses of nuclear energy and early notification of nuclear related emergencies (tabled in the wake of Fukushima) found no traction. The Indian side argued that international mechanisms were adequate for this. Pakistan’s proposal for a bilateral declaration on non-deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems also elicited a negative response. The Indian delegation employed the familiar argument that Delhi’s concerns went beyond Pakistan – a reference to China.

On conventional CBMs, Pakistan reiterated a number of proposals none of which saw any forward movement. India renewed proposals for exchange of visits by commandants of national defence institutions and heads of coast guards as well as military bands. Islamabad did not see these as serious ways of building trust.

The only concrete outcome of the talks was to renew the 2007 accord on ‘Reducing the Risk from Accidents Relating to Nuclear Weapons’. This was extended for another five years. Drafts were also exchanged on an agreement on prevention of accidents at sea.

Peace and Security: The foreign secretary level talks on July 4-5 reviewed all segments of the just completed dialogue process. When the agenda item of peace and security was taken up there were no surprises. Both sides restated the CBM proposals made in the experts group meeting. The Indian foreign secretary sought to focus discussion on terrorism, framing his arguments in the light of Abu Jundal’s arrest (accused of coordinating the Mumbai attack) and alleging that revelations showed linkages with Pakistani state agencies. Jalil Abbas Jilani rejected the accusations, urging Delhi not to always take terrorist cases first to the media, which vitiated the atmosphere. Instead he said quiet and candid engagement with Pakistan would yield better cooperation.


Jammu and Kashmir: In the foreign secretaries’ talks, Pakistan reiterated its well-known position on unimplemented UN resolutions, called to involve Kashmiris in the dialogue and end human rights violations and draconian laws in occupied Kashmir. Jilani also proposed a joint working group empowered with a mandate to solve the dispute within a specified timeframe. His Indian counterpart did not accept this, arguing that FS level talks were adequate. The Indian side repeated its position that Kashmir was an “integral part of India” and human rights an internal matter. Reference was made to the 1994 Lok Sabha resolution, which claimed that AJK also belonged to India. This later echoed in remarks in the Indian Parliament last week by the defence minister, in which he described AJK to be in Pakistan’s “illegal and forcible occupation” and its “vacation” being all that had to be resolved.

Discussion on Kashmir related CBMs was more edifying as the two sides reviewed existing ones, identified hurdles in their smooth operation and also considered new measures. These were then taken up in a meeting of the joint working group on cross LOC CBMs last month with the Pakistani side pushing for ways to overcome bottlenecks in travel and trade.

Friendly exchanges: Resuming and building sports links particularly in cricket were discussed in the FS level talks as was enhancing cultural interaction.

These multi-tiered talks did cover a lot of ground. But beyond trade there was more process than problem solving in the dialogue. By de-linking trade liberalisation from the resolution of disputes Pakistan has shown much flexibility. But Islamabad’s expectation of Indian reciprocity on settling outstanding disputes has yet to materialise. The resumption of cricket ties is a welcome development. But it takes more than a cricket match to make peace. Sustainable normalisation and durable peace still rests on addressing contentious issues, not playing around them.


By,
Dr Maleeha Lodhi
Thursday, August 23, 2012

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-New...ixed-scorecard

good to know about all this