Indo-Pak talks: a glimmer of hope

The POST, Sun, November,26, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Perhaps the most important feature of India-Pakistan’s Foreign Secretaries meeting on 14-15 Nov. 2006 was the agreement to set up a 3-member anti terror mechanism which was to be headed by Additional Secretary (International Organization) from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and the Additional Secretary(UN & EC) from Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its mandate would be to consider counter terrorism measures, including through regular and timely sharing of information.

The Foreign Secretaries also exchanged views on issues like Sir Creek, Siachin, risk  reduction of nuclear accidents, plight of the prisoners, progress on 1982 Protocol on Consular Access, early finalization of an updated visa agreement, importance of enhancing mutually beneficial economic cooperation, early opening of Consulates in Mumbai and Karachi etc. The two Foreign Secretaries agreed to meet in February 2007 in Islamabad to launch the next round of the Composite Dialogue.

To effectively counter and eventually eliminate terrorism is the expressed objective of international coalition to combat terrorism. The birth of collective approach clearly indicated the enormity of the problem and the need for a joint action. Terrorism has been defined differently by different people that had given birth to many definitions. Confronted with the existence of so many definitions, the international community is still unable to agree upon a comprehensive and universally acceptable definition of terrorism. Perhaps seeking out an all‑encompassing definition appears to be an illusive target.

While no one doubts that all acts of terrorism whether committed by an individual, a group or state authorities are condemnable developments, the question how does one categorizes act in which the loss of lives of non‑combatants have taken place does need more scrutiny. The problem has become even more complex when one realizes that terrorism today is constantly undergoing all kind of mutations. New adversaries, new motivations, and new rationales have emerged in recent years which have increased opportunities and capabilities to launch terrorism on a trajectory towards higher levels of lethality, massive destruction and mass killing. Hence these developments have posed dilemmas and challenges how to employ effective control.

One such approach that has been advanced is the collective approach, both at bilateral and multilateral levels. Taking full cognizance of the utility of bilateral approach the Indian and Pakistani leaders agreed to undertake joint approach. Similarly Pakistan and Britain agreed to set up a joint working group that will promote cooperation between the two countries in fighting crimes and terrorism which recognize no national borders. The US, Afghanistan and Pakistan have already been working towards same end through a tripartite mechanism.

Admittedly security matters are often treated with great secrecy; it would not be easy to assess the success of such approaches quickly. However the fact that such arrangements are being made clearly indicates both the enormity and canvas of the problem which, in turn, influences the affected countries to realize the need for a collective arrangement. It is in congruence with this realization that the two countries have eventually decided to embark upon the much needed collective approach.

As mentioned above the most significant outcome of the meeting was an agreement over the formation of a six member panel for counter terrorism. In many ways this is result of repeated Pakistani offers to investigate jointly. Following the Mumbai blast the Pakistani President immediately offered to undertake a joint investigation but the response of the Indians was somewhat negative. The dismissal of any constructive offer that could facilitate the efforts to reach the truth without giving much considerations certainly amounts to be a negative approach.

While there is no doubt that agreement on the establishment of an anti terror panel is a welcome step, the immediate need is to stop employing the use of blame game. It has been repeatedly witnessed in both the recent and distant pasts that an adverse event or development immediately elicits a strong critical reaction from the other side.  Instead of playing to the gallery, it would be extremely useful to initiate immediately a joint investigation with a view to reach the truth. With the advent of this agreement, it is hoped that the future would see more cooperative approach and less use of the blame game. Instead the exchange of credible evidence and sharing of intelligence would facilitate the procedural mechanism to eliminate the scourge of terrorism.

Apart from the anti terror panel agreement, the two sides also initialed the text of a nuclear safety agreement to control and limit the risk of accidental nuclear conflict. Undoubtedly the nuclear accident by itself could be extremely damaging in areas wherever it takes place. To avoid such disaster, it is imperative that some kind of cooperative mechanism is evolved in order to minimize the dangerous implications of such an undesired development. Equally important is accidental nuclear conflict either by individual’s mistake or mechanical failures which could be misconstrued. A joint mechanism that could immediately look into such development in order to avoid the inadvertent creeping in of the misunderstanding would indeed be part of the requisite fail safe system deemed so essential for the maintenance.

Another issue which is extremely important for both countries to make progress towards its resolution is the ongoing Kashmir dispute. Being an extremely complex dispute which has not only hampered advancement but also, at times, prevented the attainment of desired level of progress, the discussion on issue is indeed encouraging. The Joint statement reflected an understanding between the two secretaries and both agreed to build on convergences and narrow down divergences. This may not prove to be an easy task but if the expressed determination if it manifests into concrete efforts, then there no reason to believe that the dispute would not be solved soon.

The Siachin issue also seems to have been discussed in a frank manner. The published reports indicate that the Pakistani Foreign Secretary have clearly communicated that the endorsement of certain claims would not be suitable for further advancement towards its resolution. It is indeed surprising for many observers to comprehend the unnecessary delay in the resolution of Siachin issue. It would indeed be in order to mention here that the issue was almost resolved and an agreement was worked out between the two countries in 1989 but was not signed because of Rajiv Gandhi’s apprehensions, at the time, that agreement could cause loss of some votes.  

By and large it appears that the two Foreign Secretaries have managed to put the peace process back on the track in accordance with the understanding of both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh worked out at Havana. Undoubtedly it appears that both the leaders must take up the issue whenever the process is confronted with a major roadblock. The government functionaries can only put the process back on the track if they get the green light from their leaders. Therefore it is imperative that both leaders should continue expressing their determination to carry the process forward periodically and do not let the event overwhelm the process in any form.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.