The neo-con led world is changing basic relationships and dynamics amongst nations. Why this could not be achieved earlier under democrats or liberals, the world was tearing itself apart and global terrorist Inc had an open season on Americans, two nuclear nations were on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Sudan was destroying its minorities and ME dictators were giving booties to anyone who could blow children because of their believes, some loonies call this as freedom fight I call it cold blooded act of murder.. It is not a chance but it is result of great foreign policy that history will one day recognize, the group leading America now has made attacks on Americans and terrorism in the name of false demigods a crime, a transgression and lunacy that should have been declared long ago a act against humanity, It is not about middle road it is about confronting evil, in confronting evil like Hitler or Karadzic or Osama their are no middle grounds..
--Only when India and Pakistan cap their military spending, and ‘beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks’, will we know that they have agreed not to use their swords against each other and to stop learning the arts of war
A genuine change of heart —Ahmad Faruqui
The Joint Statement issued by Pakistan and India last Tuesday calls for a ‘composite dialogue’ between senior civil servants of the two countries in February. This has elicited much optimism around the globe. The US Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “We’ll lend our good offices to our Indian and Pakistani friends for a favourable purpose. These good offices could be used to keep this process moving forward.”
Prem Shanka Jha, an Indian analyst, told BBC New Online, “I think this time both the leaders mean business. There is an awareness that time is slipping by and the changed world situation makes the cost of bickering between the sub-continental neighbours very high.” One of Pakistan’s English dailies commented effusively, “The two sides have accomplished more milestones in the last five days than have been possible during the last five decades.”
In contrast to the depressing fallout of the Agra Summit in July 2001, there have been no crabby exchanges between the leaders or the media of the two countries. On the contrary, Musharraf issued a self-congratulatory statement saying, ‘History had been made’, proceeding to heap praise on the man who some regarded as his nemesis, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee. As a born-again peacemaker, Musharraf, seen as the author of Kargil, put it nicely in one short sentence: “It’s victory of moderates in India and Pakistan, made possible by Vajpayee’s vision and statesmanship.”
In a break with past practice, Musharraf offered to stop pursuing the effete and moribund UN resolutions that call for the holding of a plebiscite on Kashmir. He knows that the Kashmiris want independence, not inclusion in Pakistan. The two leaders found a way around the Catch-22 that had bedevilled many prior negotiations, once India agreed to include Kashmir on the list of topics and Pakistan did not insist that the core issue of Kashmir had to be discussed before anything else.
Musharraf reiterated that he would not permit Pakistani territory to be used for supporting terrorism. In the past this statement has been interpreted to refer exclusively to the activities of the Al Qaeda movement and not to the activities of those who were fighting for the liberation of Kashmir. But the same statement appeared to carry more credibility with the Indians this time, since Musharraf had himself been the target of two assassination attempts in the month preceding the SAARC summit. The Indian newspaper, Hindu, argued that the failed assassinations were a ‘dramatic confirmation’ that Musharraf really was cracking down on Islamic extremists.
It is evident that both leaders are seeking to book their place in history as men of peace. They have recently overcome domestic political hurdles and now operate from positions of strength. Vajpayee seems keen on using the rapprochement with Pakistan as part of his campaign for re-election in the forthcoming national elections. Musharraf, for his part, wants to undercut hardliners by reassuring Pakistanis that he has their best interests at heart and will not concede ground to the Indians, particularly over Kashmir. In addition, there is strong but indirect US pressure on both countries.
Despite the positive rhetoric that has come out of the mini-summit in Islamabad between Musharraf and Vajpayee, it is unclear that the two countries are prepared to make fundamental changes in their strategic culture. Declarations of peace abound in their history, beginning with the Tashkent Declaration of 1966, the Simla Declaration of 1972 and the Lahore Declaration of 1999.
The barriers to peace between India and Pakistan are daunting. Not surprisingly, several Kashmiri groups have denounced the peace talks as a sell-out. “The agreement reached by India and Pakistan is a massacre of the Kashmiri cause,” said Amanullah Khan, chairman of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. It is not only a U-turn by Pakistan but a betrayal.”
The chief of Hizbul-Mujahideen, Syed Salahuddin, warned its operations would continue until India frees jailed militants and proves its sincerity. “India should declare Kashmir a disputed territory, release Kashmiri leaders from its torture cells and call its troops back to barracks. Unless that happens, the mujahideen will continue their operations.”
The peace negotiators from India and Pakistan would profit from reading the papers that were presented in a session organised by ECAAR, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, at the recent annual meetings of the American Economic Association (http://www.ecaar.org/Articles/AEA2004.htm.). Professor Jurgen Brauer of Augusta State University, who is also vice-chairman of ECAAR, spoke on “Why is Peace so Difficult to Obtain.” Brauer noted that no one should expect anyone to present a ‘real gift of peace’ to anyone else. He argued, “Peace may be seen as an example of an incomplete market. Prevention of violent conflict by negotiation is cheaper than providing peacekeepers or paying the costs of human, physical and environmental damage if armed conflict occurs. Peace surely is worthwhile in economic terms since the benefits outweigh the costs, and yet violent conflict occurs.”
Brauer’s thesis is that peace only comes about when leaders who represent the legitimate voice of the belligerent countries sign peace treaties. These treaties need to be fair and just, which is often difficult if the two sides have unequal bargaining positions. At the same time, peace cannot be imposed from outside by a third party. The treaties should be enforceable, which is very difficult since there is no world government and the UN is not in a position to enforce any of its resolutions without the cooperation of the US. And, as evidenced by its interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its earlier incomplete interventions in Somalia and the Balkans, the US only acts in its self-interest and is not interested in delivering a genuine ‘gift of peace’.
Current US interest is focused on stamping out terrorism before it strikes the US and on preventing nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Such motivations may be sufficient for preventing armed conflict between the two South Asian neighbours but they may be insufficient for resolving their deep-rooted differences that are caught up in their national identities.
That will require a genuine change of heart for, as Marechal de Saxe wrote in 1732, “The human heart is the starting point of all matters pertaining to war.” Only when India and Pakistan cap their military spending, and ‘beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks’, will we know that they have agreed not to use their swords against each other and to stop learning the arts of war. Then, and only then, will they be ready to reap the long-awaited peace dividend that has eluded them for only too long.
Dr Ahmad Faruqui is an economist and author of “Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan”. He can be reached at faruqui@pacbell.net |
