equiliz3r
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 478
- Reaction score
- 0
Talks based on economics
THERE has been a significant shift in the positions of most countries involved in the current Afghan conflict. The process started with President Barack Obamas speech on Afghanistan last December.
Another important development has been the decision by New Delhi to give up its position that it would not talk to Pakistan on the resolution of issues souring ties unless Islamabad took to task those who masterminded the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November 2008.
On Feb 4, New Delhi proposed the resumption of talks at the foreign-secretary level but did not suggest an agenda. The response from Islamabad was quick. The Foreign Office spokesman said that if India dispensed with its traditional inflexibility there [was] a possibility of moving ahead. Pakistan has always believed that it is only through genuine and meaningful talks that Pakistan and India can resolve their disputes.
On the same day P. Chidambaram, Indias home minister, said in New Delhi that the handler of the group that penetrated Indian defences in the 2008 Mumbai attack may have been an Indian. When we say he could be an Indian, he could be somebody who acquired Indian characteristics. He could have been infiltrated into India and lived here long enough to acquire an Indian accent, familiarity with Indian Hindi words , he said.
On Feb 5, Shahid Malik, Pakistans high commissioner in India, met Nirupama Rao, Indias foreign secretary, to discuss the timing and content of the high-level meeting between the two countries. All possible issues which are of concern to Pakistan or India will be discussed, he told the press after the meeting. Kashmir is an issue we have been raising with India at every possible opportunity and forum. Terrorism will certainly be one of the areas of discussions because we have issues relating to terrorism and this is something that affects Pakistan.
The news that India was prepared to restart its dialogue with Pakistan, begun in 2004 but suspended in 2008 after the Mumbai terrorist attack, was received in Pakistan with a mixture of relief and triumph. Most policymakers were of the view that the position Pakistan had taken following the Mumbai carnage had been vindicated. Its neighbour had begun to recognise that there was no official Pakistani involvement in the attacks.
The terrorist activity by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in 2009 was a clear indication that Pakistan was also a victim of terrorism. Hundreds died in attacks on major cities and in several small towns in the NWFP.
The fact that there was some disagreement over the content of the dialogue once it began is a good indication of the nature of the relationship between these two countries. Even relatively minor issues became contentious. India initially indicated that it only wished to discuss terrorism while Pakistan wanted to go back to the composite dialogue which covered most contentious issues that had caused so much hostility between the two South Asian neighbours.
This may be a good time to completely change the framework within which India and Pakistan have been discussing their relations ever since 2004. Then, at the sidelines of a regional summit, Gen Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had agreed that the two countries should attempt to resolve their differences through dialogue. In the context of the history of India-Pakistan relations this was a major breakthrough.
As was always the case, Islamabad wanted to focus on the issue of Kashmir. New Delhi was in favour of discussions that covered the many reasons for continuing tensions between the two countries. These included territorial issues other than Kashmir. For a number of years India and Pakistan had been fighting over the Siachen glacier in the eastern part of the disputed territory of Kashmir. There was also a dispute over Sir Creek on the western side between the two states. The Indians suggested that movements on these issues would build confidence and ultimately lead to the resolution of more difficult problems, including Kashmir.
The two countries are now debating once again the content of the dialogue expected to be resumed in late February. According to a newspaper report, the issue of what should be the right approach to the Indian initiative was discussed at a brainstorming session at the foreign affairs ministry in Islamabad where some concern was expressed that unless the composite dialogue was fully restored, Pakistan should not participate in the discussions.
However, the diplomats left the final decision to the politicians who, it was said, might be able to think outside the box to find a way to depart from the entrenched positions in the two bureaucracies. The Indian position dealt with terrorism as the main focus of discussions and Pakistans position was that the entire relationship should be on the discussion table.
If thinking outside the box is to be encouraged my suggestion would be that Islamabad should base the dialogue on an entirely new consideration: how to bring about greater economic integration between the two countries.
The objective should be to develop a stake for India in the Pakistani economy and also in its stability. This would entail a number of things including unhindered flow of trade between the two countries, encouraging the private sectors on either side of the border to invest in each others economy, the opening up of the border that separates the two parts of Kashmir to trade and movement of people, and grant of transit rights to each other for trade with third countries.
As the experience of Europe shows, economic integration among states with a history of hostility towards one another is a good way of easing tensions. Taking that approach would constitute real thinking outside the box.
THERE has been a significant shift in the positions of most countries involved in the current Afghan conflict. The process started with President Barack Obamas speech on Afghanistan last December.
Another important development has been the decision by New Delhi to give up its position that it would not talk to Pakistan on the resolution of issues souring ties unless Islamabad took to task those who masterminded the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November 2008.
On Feb 4, New Delhi proposed the resumption of talks at the foreign-secretary level but did not suggest an agenda. The response from Islamabad was quick. The Foreign Office spokesman said that if India dispensed with its traditional inflexibility there [was] a possibility of moving ahead. Pakistan has always believed that it is only through genuine and meaningful talks that Pakistan and India can resolve their disputes.
On the same day P. Chidambaram, Indias home minister, said in New Delhi that the handler of the group that penetrated Indian defences in the 2008 Mumbai attack may have been an Indian. When we say he could be an Indian, he could be somebody who acquired Indian characteristics. He could have been infiltrated into India and lived here long enough to acquire an Indian accent, familiarity with Indian Hindi words , he said.
On Feb 5, Shahid Malik, Pakistans high commissioner in India, met Nirupama Rao, Indias foreign secretary, to discuss the timing and content of the high-level meeting between the two countries. All possible issues which are of concern to Pakistan or India will be discussed, he told the press after the meeting. Kashmir is an issue we have been raising with India at every possible opportunity and forum. Terrorism will certainly be one of the areas of discussions because we have issues relating to terrorism and this is something that affects Pakistan.
The news that India was prepared to restart its dialogue with Pakistan, begun in 2004 but suspended in 2008 after the Mumbai terrorist attack, was received in Pakistan with a mixture of relief and triumph. Most policymakers were of the view that the position Pakistan had taken following the Mumbai carnage had been vindicated. Its neighbour had begun to recognise that there was no official Pakistani involvement in the attacks.
The terrorist activity by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in 2009 was a clear indication that Pakistan was also a victim of terrorism. Hundreds died in attacks on major cities and in several small towns in the NWFP.
The fact that there was some disagreement over the content of the dialogue once it began is a good indication of the nature of the relationship between these two countries. Even relatively minor issues became contentious. India initially indicated that it only wished to discuss terrorism while Pakistan wanted to go back to the composite dialogue which covered most contentious issues that had caused so much hostility between the two South Asian neighbours.
This may be a good time to completely change the framework within which India and Pakistan have been discussing their relations ever since 2004. Then, at the sidelines of a regional summit, Gen Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had agreed that the two countries should attempt to resolve their differences through dialogue. In the context of the history of India-Pakistan relations this was a major breakthrough.
As was always the case, Islamabad wanted to focus on the issue of Kashmir. New Delhi was in favour of discussions that covered the many reasons for continuing tensions between the two countries. These included territorial issues other than Kashmir. For a number of years India and Pakistan had been fighting over the Siachen glacier in the eastern part of the disputed territory of Kashmir. There was also a dispute over Sir Creek on the western side between the two states. The Indians suggested that movements on these issues would build confidence and ultimately lead to the resolution of more difficult problems, including Kashmir.
The two countries are now debating once again the content of the dialogue expected to be resumed in late February. According to a newspaper report, the issue of what should be the right approach to the Indian initiative was discussed at a brainstorming session at the foreign affairs ministry in Islamabad where some concern was expressed that unless the composite dialogue was fully restored, Pakistan should not participate in the discussions.
However, the diplomats left the final decision to the politicians who, it was said, might be able to think outside the box to find a way to depart from the entrenched positions in the two bureaucracies. The Indian position dealt with terrorism as the main focus of discussions and Pakistans position was that the entire relationship should be on the discussion table.
If thinking outside the box is to be encouraged my suggestion would be that Islamabad should base the dialogue on an entirely new consideration: how to bring about greater economic integration between the two countries.
The objective should be to develop a stake for India in the Pakistani economy and also in its stability. This would entail a number of things including unhindered flow of trade between the two countries, encouraging the private sectors on either side of the border to invest in each others economy, the opening up of the border that separates the two parts of Kashmir to trade and movement of people, and grant of transit rights to each other for trade with third countries.
As the experience of Europe shows, economic integration among states with a history of hostility towards one another is a good way of easing tensions. Taking that approach would constitute real thinking outside the box.
