Keeping the peace process alive

The POST, Sun, Aug,10, 2008.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

It is indeed a good omen that the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in their first meeting firmly decided to move keep the Indo-Pak peace process alive and move forward. Meeting on the sideline of 15th SAARC Summit at Colombo, the two leaders decided to carry forward the four year old peace drive instead of allowing it to become the victim of periodic adverse developments.

While both prime ministers agreed to stress the need to overcome problems that may surface from time to time and move forward. It was also reported that the Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani agreed to order an independent inquiry of last months bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul provided if the Afghan President provided evidence of Pakistan’s involvement.

Following the bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul last month, the Afghan president in its usual indecent haste accused elements based in Pakistan as responsible for the bombing without advancing any evidence. Even in his speech at the 15th SAARC Summit President Karazai stated that terrorism has institutional support in Pakistan-implying Pakistan’s ISI was involved but failed to come up with tangible proof.

It is intriguing that neither the Americans nor the Indians initially accused Pakistan or Pakistan based elements’ involvement in the embassy bombing though the Afghan officially did not hesitate to point finger at the Pakistan. Later both the Indians and Americans began to blame ISI’s involvement.

What is interesting is the fact that neither of them has so far advanced any convincing proof. Blaming game was initiated by the Afghan official only to be followed by the Indians. Now the Americans appear to be taking the same line of accusation. The evidence that is being advanced by the American newspaper revolves around intercepted communication between the alleged Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who alleged to have carried the attack.

One eminent and astute western observer of the regional developments while examining the story convincingly stated that there are plenty of clichés but not a shred of hard evidence in the published story. ‘There is not one bit of information can be verified or even checked for accuracy. No names are named. There are declaration by anonymous’. The question that is being asked here revolves around the notion whether or not the Americans, the Indians and the Afghans are colluding with each other in order to pressurize the Pakistanis. Are the Americans advancing pushing Indian agenda? Do the Americans have some hidden agenda?

Systematic accusation against Pakistan has given birth to many misgivings and probing answered questions. First question revolves around possible collusion? Initially the Afghan take the centre stage and accuse Pakistan, and then the Indian foreign secretary in the first session of the fifth round categorically stated that the peace process is under stress and finally the American CIA join the chorus. It certain generates the appearance of systematic string of accusations.

But none of them is so far willing to advance some convincing proof. Pakistani prime minister offered to conduct an independent inquiry provided some tangible proof is given. While Pakistan’s offer and cooperation needs to be appreciated, it is imperative that the accuser must provide evidence and stop indulging in a systematic pressurization of the Pakistanis. It has also been reported that the American officials have not only refused to provide evidence publicly but also refused to comment on the issue by arguing that it is an intelligence matter.

It is not too fetched to assume that many in Pakistan have already started thinking that the collusion exits and if no proof is advanced, then they would be convincing most Pakistanis that not only diversionary tactics are employed to cover their own inability to effectively check the activities of Taliban and their sympathizers but are also pushing some hidden agenda.

Meeting of the President of Afghanistan and Prime Minster of Pakistan on the sideline of SAARC has managed to repair the damaged relationship between the two countries. The outcome of the meeting was that Afghanistan the resumption of dialogue both at a bilateral as well as at the multilateral levels.

There is no doubt that a large number of people in India and Pakistan support the ongoing peace process and it is imperative that the momentum that has been built over the last four years is not allowed to degenerate. Most thinking people are well aware of the fact that peaceful relationship between India and Pakistan can provide the necessary boost not just to the working of SAARC but also help enormously in attaining the desired peace in the region.

No body disputes that there exist many complex problems which are continuously impeding the peace process. While it is not too difficult to assume that the leaders realize the importance of sustaining the composite dialogue, the periodic set backs that may have been caused by unforeseen adverse development must not be allowed wreck the process. There is no doubt that it is in the interests of both countries to effectively sustain the peace process.

Public indulgence in blame game tends to take a very heavy toll of goodwill so acrimoniously accumulated over the years. Therefore it is imperative for both countries to be extremely careful in their public statements. President Karazai’s reassertion of accusation in New Delhi is unlikely to help the peace process between India and Pakistan and may also generate more negative vibes for the ongoing peace improvement efforts between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is no doubt that efforts should be accelerated in order to keep the peace process alive. Given the developments in Colombo during the latest SAARC summit, one can afford to be optimistic about the peace process though the first meeting of the fifth round was somewhat dismal. It is expected the other meetings on various issues would be relatively more productive provided both sides continue to express their determination to take the process forward and avoid unnecessary insinuation loaded statements that are issued following adverse developments.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.