Manmohan-Gilani Meeting: Indo-Pak Talks Resume

Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh on 29 April met his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani for the first substantive dialogue in nine months during which he is understood to have conveyed India's deep disappointment over Islamabad's inaction to punish perpetrators of Mumbai attacks. Singh and Gilani met in this picturesque Bhutanese capital, Thimpu on the sidelines of the 16th SAARC Summit, their first meeting after their controversial engagement in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt in July 2009. Before beginning their meeting, which began almost 40 minutes later than the originally scheduled time, Singh and Gilani shook hands and greeted each other warmly.

Ahead of their 29 April meeting, the two prime ministers had shook hands twice on 28 April during the opening day of the Summit and took a stroll together at the insistence of other leaders. During the meeting, Singh is believed to have conveyed to Gilani India's strong demand for action by Pakistan against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack.

India had suspended the Composite Dialogue process after the Mumbai attacks and has linked its resumption to action against terror. The prime minister is also understood to have sought an update on Pakistan's investigation and trial in the Mumbai attacks case in that country. While the Indian delegation consisted of External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, the Pakistani delegation included Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and others.

Joint Statement
The Joint Statement issued after the meeting had triggered a major controversy in India over reference to 'threats' in Balochistan, where Pakistan has been alleging Indian hand in terror incidents. The statement also appeared to delink the composite dialogue process from action on terrorism by Pakistan. India had suspended the composite dialogue process after the Mumbai attacks.

The Indian side is believed to have focused on the 'core' concern of cross-border terrorism and highlighted its unhappiness over Pakistan having not done enough on this front.

Singh is understood to have pointed out that the threat of terrorism emanating from Pakistan continues to loom and Pakistan had not taken any concrete steps to eradicate this to create conditions for resumption of substantive dialogue.

Pakistan has arrested seven of those accused in the Mumbai terror strikes but Singh had publicly expressed his displeasure on the mastermind of attacks against India like JuD chief Hafiz Saeed -- still roaming freely in Pakistan. The Prime Minister is also understood to have raised Hafiz Saeed issue with Gilani.

Water and Power Projects
The two leaders also had two brief encounters earlier this month in Washington where both the Prime Ministers were to attend the Nuclear Security Summit. On both occasions there were handshakes and pleasantries exchanged. Pakistan had earlier this week stated that the dossiers handed over by India during the Foreign Secretary level talks in New Delhi on 25 February did not contain any evidence to book Saeed.

The Pakistani side is also believed to raise the issue of water-sharing. Pakistan has been alleging that India was violating the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 by building a power project on Kishanganga river in Jammu and Kashmir, a contention rejected by India.

Foreign Secretary-Level Talks
During their meeting, Dr Singh and Gilani decided that the channels of dialogue between the two countries should be kept open to restore 'trust and confidence' in the bilateral relationship. Terrorism and the 'slow progress' of Pakistan's probe into Mumbai attacks formed part of the agenda of the discussions which were held at the 'Bhutan House' here on the margins of the SAARC Summit.

'The prime ministers held very good talks in a free and frank manner. They agreed that cooperation between the two countries is vital for the people of South Asia to realize their destiny. The Indian prime minister expressed India's concern over the slow progress of Mumbai trial in Pakistan to Prime Minister Gilani. The Indian prime minister told Gilani that India was willing to discuss all issues of mutual concern through dialogue but the issue of terrorism is holding back the progress.

Nile Water Sharing Agreement Talks Collapse

The stream of articles on the Nile Basin Initiative has been negative, pessimistic and even somewhat abrogating. The saving grace of this faultfinding exercise is that it draws attention to the prerogative of the Nile Basin countries to tackle seriously the mounting challenges the mighty river they share hurls at them and the opportunities it presents. The extraordinary Nile Council of Ministers (NileCom) Conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh is no exception.

Unfortunately, matters took an ugly turn at Sharm El-Sheikh with participants failing to reach agreement. The gloves came off, Egypt insisting on veto powers over any new irrigation projects undertaken by the other nine riparian nations. After a marathon 15 hours of deliberations, the only agreement that was reached was on minutiae in order to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

Cornerstone of Nile Basin Cooperation
And so it is with the region's embryonic 1959 Nile agreement between Sudan and Egypt, which remains to this day the cornerstone of the Nile Basin cooperation projects, much to the consternation of some upstream nations. Egypt and Sudan insisted on safeguarding what they see as their national interests with the seven upstream countries threatening to go it alone. 'The Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement must clearly acknowledge Egypt and Sudan's historic share of Nile water,' Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Mohamed Nasr El-Din Allam reiterated in Sharm El-Sheikh, in reference to the 1959 agreement.

The core problem is the perceived 'unjust and unequal distribution of Nile water resources' by upstream riparian nations and the reluctance of downstream ones -- Egypt and Sudan -- to concede concessions. Sudanese Irrigation Minister Kamal Ali appealed for calm, urging the upstream countries to continue negotiations to secure a comprehensive cooperation agreement. Egypt backed him. But there are changes afoot.

Political and Economic Realities
Globalization opens the door to fresh political and economic realities. The most momentous and consequential of such groundbreaking events, is the rapprochement in recent months between Egypt and Ethiopia, the country that supplies 85 per cent of Egypt's water. Egypt, the primary user of Nile water, traditionally felt its interests threatened by Ethiopia's ambitions to construct dams to generate hydroelectric power. Yet there are tremendous transformations in the offing. Egypt no longer has an agriculture dependent economy, and Ethiopia has to date an inadequate hydraulic power and enormous hydroelectric potential.

It is against this backdrop that the Egypt-Ethiopia Council of Commerce was established on 30 December 2009, which turned the bilateral Egyptian-Ethiopian relation from 'distrust to a friendly cooperation,' as Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zennawi so succinctly put it. Of the four major tributaries of the Nile, three originate in Ethiopia -- the Blue Nile (or Abbai), Sobat and Atbara. Be that as it may, Nile Basin nations need to start talking more about employment, food security, agricultural and manufacturing industries and stop obsessing about water and tributaries.

Yet, those habits persist. The challenge is to make this week's Sharm El-Sheikh conference qualitatively different. Ethiopia in particular and other upstream nations are resentful of the lack of the financial support by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank for their Nile projects. They are also peeved that Western donor nations have supplied Egypt with billions of dollars -- the US government has provided $60 billion of assistance to Egypt compared to less than $4 billion to Ethiopia since 1950.

Water Sharing System
Certainly the system of sharing Nile water as it stands looks dysfunctional. There is a plethora of duplicating and overlapping organizations and initiatives concerning water sharing in Nile Basin nations. There is the Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-Tech) as well as NileCom. There is also the International Consortium for Cooperation on the Nile (ICCON) as well as the Nile Basin Initiative. The goal of the Sharm El-Sheikh conference was to work out a comprehensive agreement on the allocation of Nile water resources among the Nile Basin states.

It was not a bad idea by any stretch, although the Nile Basin Initiative is not the liveliest of regional organizations and the going is sometimes laborious. Certain countries still have a knack of sticking the boot good and proper to their neighbors. What is the best and brightest thing about the contemporary Nile Basin region? The traditional reticence of some of the African delegates was tested when four African delegates at the Sharm El-Sheikh conference reportedly withdrew from the talks in a huff and a puff.

Critical Point for Egypt
Control of the utilization of the waters of the 6,670-km river, the world's longest, has long been a bone of contention in the Nile Basin. Egypt will not sign any deal before its conditions are met. The requirements include the commitment to the early notification mechanism before the construction of any projects in upstream countries and that all decisions are to be finalized unanimously and not through majority voting. This last point is critical as far as Egypt is concerned because the upstream riparian nations tend to concur on issues that Egypt objects to. The Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement must clearly recognize Egypt and Sudan's historic share of the Nile Waters. The other seven upstream nations bitterly disagree.

Nile Basin nations are called upon to put aside differences in order to secure the Nile Basin Initiative for the sake of enhancing sustainable development in the region. Egypt in its capacity as current chair of Nile Basin Executive Council is pulling no punches. Assistant Foreign Minister for African Affairs Mona Omar disclosed that Egypt is calling for a 'consensus formula.'

Meanwhile, she also announced that Foreign Minister Abul-Gheit is scheduled to visit Ethiopia later in the month for the Egyptian-Ethiopian Joint Committee. The 1,530-km Blue Nile (Abbai) is key to Egypt's national security, and the Ethiopians understand the strategic importance of their country to the Egyptians. The River Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), International Consortium for Cooperation on the Nile (ICCON), the Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile- Tech) and the Nile Council of Ministers (Nile Com) will survive the altercations at Sharm El-Sheikh.

Walkouts and Bitter Disputes
The debate about who should get what and when will go on for years. Participants were hoping that the days when the problems of quibbling about sharing the waters of the Nile are over. The countries of the Nile Basin might be locked in a bitter dispute over sharing and harnessing the waters of the Nile, the world's longest river, but they at least are still willing to meet on a regular basis to iron out differences.

The walkouts and bitter disputes sadly show that this week's Extraordinary NileCom meeting was not qualitatively different to earlier meetings. 'Ten years ago there was an atmosphere of mistrust, suspicion and doubt. Today the Nile Basin countries are open to each other and ready to collaborate more closely together. This is an achievement to be cherished, nourished and nurtured all the way,' noted Tanzanian Vice-President Ali Mohamed Shein. Wish that was true. The Nile Basin Initiative might yet metamorphose into something more meaningful only by harnessing tremendous political goodwill. Whose water is it anyway?

Indian Intervention in Balochistan

Is the US now planning to carry out drone attacks on Balochistan, much like it has done in Waziristan and other agencies of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)? Will the Taliban Shura - whose chief is said to be Mullah Mohammad Omar, who, according to the US and Indian propaganda, has taken refuge in Quetta - be the target for these possible attacks? Have India's activities and shenanigans in Balochistan increased from earlier on? Are the Indian agents being employed in Balochistan becoming the US' ears in regards to the Taliban Shura?

These are the questions that face Pakistan, and that have overwhelmed it. Prominent US newspaper The Washington Post wrote on September 30, 2009: 'The Taliban Shura in Quetta and the surrounding areas are planning attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan'. Pakistan has strongly denied this, but the US ambassador stationed in Islamabad, Anne Patterson, said in an interview: 'We are worried over the presence of the Taliban Shura in Quetta. We have in the past had our focus centered on Al-Qaeda, but for Washington, the Taliban Shura now heads the list'. So, is a new fight now coming to the fore in Balochistan?

Pakistanis are trying to steer clear of this fight, and it will only be best if the US avoids drone attacks in Balochistan. But the main question is: How can we be safe from Indian intervention and violent activities in Balochistan? If Pakistan is crying out on all forums in the world that India is interfering in Balochistan and backing rebellious elements there, it is certainly not being said in jest. There exists evidence, and this evidence is being presented by India and its eminent journalists, thinkers, former diplomats and military analysts. For instance, the article that former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar wrote on September 6, 2006, immediately after Nawab Akbar Bugti's assassination, is both venomous in regards to Balochistan's domestic situation and a reflection of India's intervention and aspirations in Balochistan. Bhadrakumar wrote: 'Just like India wants to make (Occupied) Kashmir a part of itself at all costs, no matter how heavy the damages to life and property, Pakistan, similarly, wants to maintain its 'occupation' in Balochistan - no matter how much blood there has to be spilt'.

Prevailing Political Circumstances
This commentary is certainly provoking, though this former Indian diplomat knows very well that the political circumstances in Occupied Kashmir (Indian-administered Kashmir) and Balochistan are entirely different. Yet the said Indian Hindu deliberately steered clear of this reality and indulged in a wrong debate.

The following is not an accusation made against India for the sake of making one: that nearly 600 Baloch youth are being trained under Indian supervision in Afghanistan to carry out disrupting activities in Pakistan. Moles say that two wings of the Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), namely CIT-X and CIT-J are running the camps for the above-mentioned Baloch youth. Famous Indian military expert, Praveen Swami, says: 'When in the past Pakistan had shenanigans carried out in support of the Khalistanis in India, RAW had CIT-X and CIT-J carry out explosions in Karachi and Lahore, in reply. These wings of RAW were shut down in the tenure of I K Gujral, but both may now be employed again to teach Pakistan a lesson'.

B Raman has added to these comments by Swami - and this is actually an intimation of the fact that India may have certain 'motives' for intervention in Balochistan, and that these are impliedly being admitted to. B Raman is a former RAW agent and now a prominent defense analyst. He says: 'There has been a significant decrease in the number of Hindus in Balochistan. This is an outright cruelty and an act of seclusion against them by the Establishment of Pakistan. During the construction of the port at Gwadar, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had forcefully removed the Balochi Hindus from there. India is quite distressed about such measures by Pakistan against the Balochi Hindus'.

If we read this provoking statement by a former agent of the Indian secret agency together with the statement of former Indian Navy Chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, it clearly opens up the layers to India's intervention in India. He was serving as chief of the Indian Navy when Mehta on January 24, 2008, said: 'The Gwadar Port has a strong adverse impact on India's strategic matters'.

A crushing and effective reply should have been given to this, but former President Pervez Musharraf and his supporters stayed mum. Such criminal silence can indeed be expected from a head of a state and a­ (former) head of the Pakistan Army who, for the sake of his own interests, becomes India's panhandler.

Every body knows that the Indians are behind whatever is being said against Pakistan in the name of a 'Baloch voice' and about the 'independence of Balochistan', over the past more than half a decade. But it is upsetting to see that Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz, as president and prime minister respectively, could not only not put a stopper to this voice from India, but could not raise their own voices against India either.

Independence of Balochistan
The centers under Indian supervision in Afghanistan called 'Missions in Pakistan', which prepare and distribute literature on Balochistan, are another tragic subject. It is the effect of this very literature and Indian intervention that made Nawabzada Brahmdagh say during a discussion with BBC on August 26, 2009: 'If India helps us in the independence of Balochistan, we shall accept'. It should be noted that there are 31 cases against Brahmdagh Bugti - ranging from murder to treason. Pakistan is fully assured that this mister is acting against Pakistan with all sorts of help provided by India.

It seems as if India is deliberately - and for the attainment of some greater goal -provoking its thinkers to spend all their energies in the form of the written word, so that the people of Balochistan may become wary of Pakistan and be inflamed against it. The case of Dr Ajay Sahni can be presented as an example. Ajay Sahni resides in Delhi and is an Executive Director of the Institute for Conflict (Management) and editor of the Asia Intelligence Review. He has in his comprehensive article, 'Is Pakistan Overhyping India's Role in Baluchistan' - which was published in The Times of India - resorted to a weird sort of instigation against Pakistan as regards Balochistan. He says: 'More than a million people were brought in from other provinces and settled in Balochistan so that the Baloch may be beaten on the basis of population. India, being a democratic and civilized country, can absolutely not remain isolated from whatever cruelties are happening to the Baloch in Balochistan'. This is the opinion of an Indian thinker, which in fact could be termed the Indian government's aspirations in relation to Balochistan.

Part of Joint Statement
When there was a meeting between Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt) on July 16, 2009, Gilani, considering it an appropriate opportunity, mentioned the Indian intervention in Balochistan, which was then also made a part of their joint statement. This was like a great diplomatic victory for Pakistan, to which there was great reaction in India. An as extremist and fundamentalist a Hindu party as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) protested against the prime minister in the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha. The prime minister even rescinded from his statement under pressure. A statement by Manmohan Singh in this regard was thus published on July 30, 2009: 'When I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about terrorism from Pakistan, he told me that most Pakistanis believe that India is aggravating matters in Balochistan. I told him that we have no interest in destabilizing Pakistan. If Pakistan has evidence in this regard, we would like to see it'.

India's rescindments are known to the whole world, what difference does another one make. But the commentary that Sandeep Pandey - peace activist and prominent thinker - made on this statement in India is noteworthy too. Pandey said: 'Prime Minister Singh has in his (said) statement nearly admitted to what every Pakistani is mentioning (Indian intervention in Balochistan)'.

Relevance of Non-Aligned Movement And 2009 Sharm El-Sheikh Summit

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) began its political journey in 1955, and it was led from its early beginnings by Egypt, India, and the former Yugoslavia. The political time in which the NAM began its activity was a difficult one. The theme of that time was the strategic conflict between the east, led by the erstwhile Soviet Union, and the West, led by the United States, to take exclusive control of the world's regions of influence in order to reinforce the ideological positions and strategic interests of the east and West.

Prominent and Key Role
The NAM played a prominent and key role in extending a helping hand to the national liberation movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

When the Third World states became liberated from colonialism, the strategic conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union increased in severity. At the same time, Africa suffered what was termed proxy wars between the east and the West, and Angola was a ferocious site for such wars. Among other reasons, these wars hampered the attempts of development and democracy in the African continent.

15th NAM Declaration
The leaders of the two-day 15th NAM Summit, held recently in Sharm El-Sheikh with the theme: "International Unity and Progress", Egypt, decided to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations while making it clear that terror should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilisation or ethnic group.

The issue of terrorism figured prominently in the Declaration which pushed for early finalisation of the draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism mooted by India at the United Nations. The 118-member grouping pledged to strengthen NAM solidarity in combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomsoever committed, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, international law and relevant international conventions.

The Declaration of the 15th Summit stressed that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilisation or ethnic group and that further progress was required taking into account the positions and views of NAM members on issues like formulating a joint organised response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.

India's Stand
The document takes on board the call made by the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to NAM nations that it was time they agreed on a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).

In his forthright speech, Dr. Singh made it clear that terrorists and those who aid and abet them must be brought to justice. Though he did not name Pakistan, it was clear from Dr. Singh's remarks who it was aimed at.

The Indian Prime Minister said that the terror infrastructure must be dismantled and there should be no safe havens for terrorists because they do not represent any cause, group or religion.

The Sharm El-Sheikh Declaration said the NAM nations stood together with China and the G-77 countries to press for fundamental reform of the international economic and financial systems and architecture to address its flaws which have come into spotlight in the wake of the global economic recession.

Future of NAM
This strategic conflict between the east and the West ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian regime, while the United States took a position at the helm of the world in its capacity as the only pole. Afterward, debates were held on the future of the NAM.

However, international events and changes quickly renewed and consolidated the NAM's role, particularly when the United States, under George W. Bush, began a plan with the aim of dominating the world. In light of this unbridled policy by Bush, the world was severely unsettled, and a pressing need emerged to activate the NAM's role.

The draft of the final document or the Sharm El-Sheikh declaration states that the movement's leaders are getting ready to commence a new phase for the movement, in defense of the just regional and international causes with the aim of establishing peace and security and achieving economic development for all peoples. This is a noble task that Egypt will undertake during its presidency of the NAM in the next three years.