More of the same?
Khalid Saleem
The situation as regards the composite dialogue between Pakistan and
India is murky to say the least. One pens this in grief rather than
anger, because one had put by a great deal of hopes and aspiration on
this process. The process may have had its ups and downs but one had
ample confidence that the leaderships of this somewhat unfortunate
region would rise to the occasion and present to their expectant peoples
what they had been clamouring for all these past years. This, it now
appears apparent, has not happened. From all appearance, we are where we
were at the start of this blessed exercise. All that the two sides have
been doing is – to use military parlance – marking time. Are we to
conclude then that this is what the peoples of South Asia deserve?
What hit one between the eyes was the news item the other day relating
to the projected meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the two
countries. This was going to be the first high-level meeting since the
change of regime in Pakistan. One had high hopes that perhaps the
elusive political will would at long last put up its appearance and
surprise the peoples of these expectant lands. But it is obvious that
this is not going to be it. Far from it! It appears that the much
suffering man in the streets will have to brace himself for more of the
same. One continued to nurture one’s illusions until one saw this news
item tucked away in an unobtrusive column that broke the glad tidings
that the Indian Foreign Minister had plans to bring with him a fresh lot
of CBMs. Aren’t there more than enough of them as it is?
As one said, the situation is somewhat murky. Very little is reported
about the outcome of the so-called back-channel diplomacy being indulged
in by the two sides, except for inspired articles once in a while in an
obvious effort to keep the interest alive. One would like to assume that
the luminaries who indulge in this commendable exercise would have
produced a rabbit or two out of their undercover hat by now, but one can
hardly be certain of this or anything else for that matter. As it is,
the man-in-the-street can hardly be blamed for laying great store by the
secret parleys that apparently have been going on unannounced in various
exotic locations.
Now with the new dispensation in Islamabad, one just does not know
whether one is coming or going. All one can hope for is that the poor
chap (man-in-the-street, that is) is not in for the disappointment of
his life. One may well risk being branded as old fashioned but one has
always held on to the belief that successful diplomacy can never be
conducted by displaying one’s hand in advance nor, indeed, by leaning on
the crutch of the media to further one’s cause. Admittedly, diplomacy is
the art of the possible. It would be advisable, nonetheless, to make it
a point in negotiation not to reach out for the moon nor, alternatively,
to be content with a view of its reflection in a muddy pond. A skillful
negotiator would never stoop down to telling a deliberate lie. Such
recourse would obviously undermine his credibility. There would appear
to be little harm, though, were a negotiator opt to “withhold the
truth”, should the circumstances so demand. Simulation and dissimulation
have come to be accepted as norms of international diplomatic behaviour.
Having made these rather disjointed remarks, one can perhaps now move on
to take a cursory look at the progress or otherwise of the much vaunted
India-Pakistan ‘composite’ peace dialogue. At the risk of being brusque,
one must point out that the composite dialogue process between India and
Pakistan appears have run out of steam. One must also admit to being
more than a little disappointed at the “result” of the meetings so far
of the negotiating groups relating to the six subjects of the “composite
dialogue”. All the Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) that were put on
the table and, by and large, put into operation have singularly failed
to create a dent in the brittle state of relations between the two
countries. At best, these CBMs are neither here nor there. Let us take a
cursory look at some aspects by way of illustration.
In the meetings of the negotiating groups, two significant issues taken
up were those relating to Siachin and Sir Creek. On neither of these has
there been any forward movement. Both these issues have major
implications in so far as normalization of relations between the two
countries is concerned. The Siachin issue will not only have an impact
on whatever future dispensation is to be agreed upon by India and
Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir, but also has a direct bearing on the
future equation between the subcontinent and China.
The significance of the interim boundary agreement arrived at between
Pakistan and China in the sixties cannot be ignored. India’s insistence
on “recognition of ground realities” in Siachin could knock the base out
of Pakistan’s case vis-à-vis China on the boundary question. Any
understanding on the Siachin squabble will have to be enmeshed with, and
become an integral part of, any eventual settlement of Jammu and
Kashmir, presuming that such a denouement is on the cards. Because of
this aspect, whichever side is obliged to make a significant concession
on Siachin will have lost a major bargaining chip in the ultimate
stakes.
The issue of Sir Creek, that is due to come up for discussions shortly
for the umpteen time, is of particular importance since it will have a
direct impact on the India-Pakistan maritime boundary and, thereby on
the demarcation of Pakistan’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). A possible
agreement on Sir Creek could well be a litmus test of honourable
intentions of the two sides. The South Asian region has suffered a lot
due mainly to self-inflicted wounds over the past five decades and more.
The question that presents itself begging for an answer is: will the
leaderships of the two countries rise to the occasion and tackle the
root cause of the underlying disease, rather than being content with
paying lip service to mere alleviation of the symptoms? One can only
wait and see. |
