Success of SAARC After 25 Years of Establishment

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit is often described as being a mere photo opportunity for south Asian leaders who should actually be using the comatose organization to reinvent regional cooperation in a globalize world. Such pessimism is inevitable if one takes stock of the progress that SAARC has made over the period of time. There exists a SAARC convention to deal with all issues that have a certain salience in the regional context. Yet, even 25 years after its inception the organization is found wanting both in terms of forming a regional identity and of forging any sense of a regional belongingness. This is where the problem lies. Contested national identities constructed by member states have not encouraged an identity based on common socio-cultural heritage to take root.
South Asian countries engage readily and often with powerful states in the international system, yet when it comes to regional engagement, their bilateral relations have remained strained, and are characterized by mistrust and suspicion thus making regional cooperation hostage to bilateral politics.
Gaining Strategic Space
At present, consisting of eight members, SAARC has the potential to expand its membership to include Myanmar. What has been intriguing in the recent past is that while many in South Asia have written the obituary of SAARC as a vehicle for fostering regional cooperation, there are countries who are vying with each other to become part of it as observers. One of the observers aspiring for membership is campaigning for it through its regional proxies. It is too early to say whether SAARC, which could not inculcate a sense of regional solidarity within its membership, will be able to deal with observer countries who are more interested in gaining strategic space rather than in regional cooperation.
The organization has yet not delineated the possible role of the observer countries. In this context it is not clear whether their engagement will benefit the SAARC countries. Some member countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have expressed hopes that the observers would play a positive role. AARC has progressively addressed 'hard' issues that confront the region more than 'soft' issues. If one compares the agenda of the organization when it was formed with its current goals then SAARC can be seen to be slowly moving towards regional integration in the real sense. This integration is beyond having just a common approach to issues like poverty, telecommunication, weather, sports, culture, etc., as was envisaged in the beginning. The translation of its agenda into a meaningful cooperation has also not been possible due to the declaratory approach the leadership has taken and endorsed without having any real commitment towards these goals. The reason could be that the leaders perhaps feel compelled to demonstrate to the people of the region that they are committed to the process of regional cooperation without appearing to be spoilers. There exists popular support for regional cooperation. The people want less rigid visa controls and free exchange of goods and ideas, while keeping the current borders intact. Regional cooperation is a reality. An economic raison d'être is a prerequisite for regional politics in a globalized world where regional cooperation is the only option. The transnational character of problems relating to terrorism, drug trafficking or climate change cannot be addressed individually by countries which share porous and, many a time, un-demarcated and contested borders. The countries of the region realized this but are yet to shed their securitized state-centric mindsets. Regional cooperation without regional commitment Regional engagement among south Asian countries has been minimal compared to their engagement with Western countries. Whether it is security or economics, SAARC countries are more integrated with the global order than with their regional arrangement. There are no underlying economic compulsions that bind the countries of the region as was the case with the European Economic Community (EEC). The countries of south Asia do not have common security concerns to unite them. Threats are mostly seen arising from within the region rather than from the outside. Therefore the problem is: how can the countries of South Asia cooperate with each other when they perceive each other as being responsible for their instability? Because of this mistrust, many of the conventions--such as the Additional Protocol of the SAARC Convention on Terrorism--have become defunct. Each country faces the challenge of terrorism yet South Asian countries have not been able to devise a common approach to it. They neither share intelligence nor is there any commitment to stop cross-border support to terrorist groups. If one analyses the various clauses of the Additional Protocol of Terrorism which criminalised the collection or acquisition of funds for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, it becomes amply clear how the very purpose of dealing with the issue has been defeated because of the double standards prevailing among states in the region. Though SAARC has a Terrorism Monitoring Desk in Colombo it has not yet come out with any report. The SAARC interior ministers' meeting has also not made any concrete suggestions on how best to cooperate. The issue of terrorism has rather been addressed bilaterally. If one studies the speeches of the heads of states at the recently concluded 16th SAARC summit it will be seen that they devoted much time to expounding their countries' achievements in dealing with various socio-economic and terrorism-related problems. Some of these speeches were prescriptive in nature when what was required was how their countries had promoted regional cooperation. The leaders reiterated the importance of regional cooperation without specifying how to take this cooperation forward. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, in his speech put greater emphasis on terrorism and said: 'Until all members of SAARC, without exception or reservation, commit not to allow their territories to be used directly or indirectly to shelter, arm or train terrorist groups . . . the wild fire of terrorism will not discriminate in choosing its target'.1 He also stressed that with current bottlenecks, expeditious overland movement of goods and benefits of a modern transport infrastructure would not be felt. Maldivian president, Mohamed Nashid called for a 'comprehensive review of the on-the-ground effectiveness of SAARC'. He asked for greater dialogue between India and Pakistan and expressed the frustration of the smaller countries of south Asia who have often found themselves hostage to the Indo-Pak conflict. The president said that the 'neighbours can find ways to compartmentalise pending differences, while finding areas on which they can move forward'.2 Bhutan felt that SAARC was losing its focus because of the requirement of close to 200 meetings per year. It therefore suggested a substantial reduction of activities and meetings to ensure focus.3 The Indian prime minister said that the countries of south Asia need to accept that the glass of regional cooperation is half empty and the institutions are not empowered sufficiently to be proactive.4 The Bangladesh prime minister rejected anyone using the cloak of Islam or any other religion to perpetuate violence and categorically stated that Bangladesh will not let its territory be used for launching terrorism elsewhere.5 Pakistan's prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed, said that SAARC has not made much progress due to historical legacies, differences and disputes while the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, said: 'We often tend to provide priority to our engagements with extra regional actors, without devoting sufficient attention to further developing and strengthening the links within our own regional organisation'.6 SAARC needs to follow a bottom up approach rather than a top down one. In this context good relations between the countries can help regional cooperation rather than the other way round. Moreover, even though there is a people's SAARC at the civil society level, attempts should be made to build synergy between the official SAARC and the people. The reason is that SAARC is yet to connect with people and its agreements and commendable conventions have not touched the lives of the people on whose behalf these declarations have been made. Moreover, issues like terrorism are addressed at a bilateral level. This shows that the countries do not have much faith in the regional approach. Even though there exists a convention on terrorism and an additional protocol, Bangladesh has put forward a proposal for forming a regional task force. India, which has been a victim of terrorism and shares its borders with many South Asian countries, has taken up the issue of terrorism bilaterally. Some issues where bilateralism is adopted even though relevant SAARC conventions exist are as follows. The previous Bangladesh National Party government provided shelter to Indian insurgent groups as strategic assets in violation of the SAARC convention. They were arrested and handed over to India only after the Awami League government came to power in Dhaka. This was largely the result of a bilateral initiative. Bhutan's decision to flush out Indian insurgent groups who took shelter in southern Bhutan is again a bilateral initiative. Similarly, the issue of cross-border terrorism originating in Pakistan was decided in 2004 on the sidelines of the Islamabad SAARC summit. The now defunct Indo-Pak Joint Terror mechanism is yet another bilateral initiative. Both India and Afghanistan have approached the United States a number of times to resolve the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. This is in spite of the fact that Pakistan has been a frontline state and a crucial player in the global war against terror but it has been reluctant to cooperate either with India or Afghanistan. Post-Mumbai, Pakistan could have taken action under Article 7 of the Additional Protocol to confiscate funds of the Jamaat-ul-Dawa. However, this was only done following a UN resolution and under pressure from China and the US. This establishes that the regional approach to terrorism has been a non-starter. SAARC speaks of regional connectivity, but Bangladesh's offer to provide transit facilities to India and the use of its ports to India, Nepal and Bhutan has been entirely a Bangladeshi initiative. In the regional context Pakistan has not allowed Afghan trucks to carry Indian goods from Wagah. They go back empty. India also has been using Iran for its trade with Afghanistan. The concept of the South Asia Growth Quadrangle was another way to carry forward sub-regional cooperation under Article 6 of the SAARC charter. There is an urgent need to reactivate the Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and India cooperation under the Growth Quadrangle. The 16th summit declaration: anything new? As has been the case with past summits, the 16th summit declaration says the leaders 'expressed satisfaction' that SAARC has achieved a number of milestones which are not specified. It is silent on whether these 'milestones' have made any difference to the region. Had that been the case the SAARC leaders would not have lamented the failure of the organisation even 25 years after its establishment. As was pointed out in the summit declaration, SAARC's relevance lies 'in providing a platform for regional cooperation'. However, it is up to the member countries to make the platform effective. It is therefore not surprising that now, after 25 years of existence, the leaders are discovering the need for a vision statement. The declaration further states that the: 'silver jubilee year should be commemorated by making SAARC truly action oriented by fulfilling commitments, implementing declarations and decisions and operationalizing instruments and living up to the hopes and aspirations of one-fifth of humanity'.7 The summit recommended public diplomacy to reach out to different sections of society. Such an aim can only be realized if the countries can implement some of the agreements they have signed and evoke these agreements to resolve problems. For example, in spite of two agreements on terrorism, why is there no cooperation between countries to deal with the menace? The member states reiterated their resolve to cooperate on terrorism and drug trafficking and reaffirmed their commitment to implement relevant regional conventions. Implementation will remain a big challenge as long as state sponsorship of terrorism continues. There are inherent contradictions in what the countries project. While Bhutan speaks of Gross National Happiness (GNH) and promises to hold workshops on GNH in the country, it has denied the right of return to its ethnic Nepalese who fled the kingdom in 1990. Economic cooperation between countries of the region is yet to take off and explains why, in spite of South Asia Free Trade Association (SAFTA) being ratified, regional trade has remained below five per cent. On the issue of energy there is no concrete cooperation for establishing a regional energy grid. India has offered to prepare a roadmap for developing a SAARC market for electricity, which needs enabling markets in the member states. One of the welcome developments has been the establishment of the South Asia Development Fund (SDF) which was envisioned in 2005 by reconstituting the South Asia Development Fund established in 1996.8 To make the SDF viable the countries first need to arrive at a consensus and identify areas where these funds would be used.9 One hopes this would not be bogged down by bilateral and trilateral disputes. The leaders have sagaciously agreed that 'the projects being funded through SDF are demand-driven, time bound and aligned with the developmental priorities of the region'.10 It would, however, take a lot of diplomatic sweating to translate this vision into reality. Perhaps one of the issues that SDF needs to address urgently is to fund infrastructure projects to enhance regional connectivity. The summit also recommended increased public-private partnership for greater intra-SAARC investment promotion efforts. This would help in the speedy implementation of projects as this is an effective way to deal with administrative bottlenecks pertaining to land acquisition, electricity supply and bureaucratic red tape. Intra-SAARC investment for the private sector would also be a welcome development. Given the tardy processes of regional trade and restrictions in foreign investment and long negative lists it will not be easy to attract private capital. To implement the public-private partnership trade it will be important to ensure liberalization, harmonization of standards as well as guarantee that products produced through this partnership would have access to regional markets.
Regional Cooperation
SAARC has already established the South Asia Regional Standard Organization. Efforts should be made to make it operational. Bilateral relations between the countries would be crucial to facilitate such investments as private businessmen are unlikely to invest given an environment of distrust which is not conducive for business. For example, bilateral proposals involving investments have already run into rough weather. Even after the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) announced a liberalized policy for investment by Indian businesses there continues to be resistance to Indian investment. An investment proposal by TATA, for example, got derailed due to Bangladesh's internal politics. A common market for south Asia is still in its infancy because of non-tariff and Para tariff barriers. Therefore, unless the tendency to politicize economics does not end, this vision of the leaders of the region will be added to the list of wishful thinking that the SAARC has accumulated over 25 years. The summit also took a decision to declare 2010-2020 the 'Decade of Intraregional Connectivity in SAARC'. It is important that SAARC leaders take steps to implement regional connectivity in order to drive growth, induce better synergy and give a boost to SAFTA.
Observers in SAARC China's growing influence in the region has been a matter of concern for India. China's entry into SAARC in 2005 has been significant and Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan played an important role in facilitating Chinese entry. China's presence is a matter of concern for two reasons. First, there is a growing nexus between China and Pakistan at the heart of which lies the policy to balance India. Its presence therefore cannot be considered neutral. Second, China's presence in SAARC is specifically for gaining strategic space. China has been following a strategy to engage with neighboring countries for defense and economic cooperation. Though China's trade ties with India have seen an upward swing, it has border conflicts with India and Bhutan. The relations between India and China have remained highly suspect. China shares good relations with the neighboring countries whereas India is looked upon with suspicion. In this context China's presence could be a pressure tactic that may be employed on India. A conflicted relationship with China would confine India to the region and prevent it from playing a larger global role. This has been one of the principles of China's engagement in the region. Since SAARC itself has hardly made any progress it is not clear how China can contribute to its progress. Some other observer countries have other interests in the region. For example, Japan is the highest aid donor to the region and the US is heavily engaged in the region to counter terrorism and has a stake in regional peace; Australia has the largest number of immigrants from this region. SAARC will now have to brace for an India-China contest apart from the one between India and Pakistan which was largely blamed for the slow progress of SAARC. The Chinese vice foreign minister said China would 'expand cooperation with SAARC and elevate our friendly and cooperative ties to a new level'.11 It proposes to hold a China-SAARC senior officials meeting. The Myanmar representative said that its geographical proximity, historical and cultural links prompted it to become an observer in SAARC. It also offered to act as a bridge between south and Southeast Asia. However, one has not been able to understand why Myanmar has not applied for membership. The representative of Iran said that Iran's geographical location and extensive transport network enables it to help South Asia in expanding its trade with other parts of the world. Conclusion Regional cooperation in the South Asian region lacks the commitment and dedication that is required to make it a success. Some countries have agreed to cooperate because they do not want to be spoilers while there are others who genuinely believe that this is the way forward. In spite of scathing criticism of SAARC by the leaders of the region on its 25th anniversary, one is not sure whether there would be any fundamental change in the attitude of the countries. Earlier, attempts were made to multi-lateralize bilateral issues but now efforts are being made to resolve some issues like terrorism bilaterally. The countries which do not have bilateral synergy will not be able to make a meaningful contribution to the success of SAARC.
Collective Self-Interest
To quote the Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani: 'Only when we refuse to be held hostage to history, only when we sincerely and assiduously work to build trust, resolve disputes, bridge perceptions and see merit in an enlightened collective self-interest, will we be able to unleash our latent potential'.12 The big question that remains is 'When?' It is a tall order to expect regional cooperation between countries who do not see eye to eye even in bilateral matters.
Each country joined SAARC to forward its interests or to avoid getting sidelined, particularly within the Indo-centric region. Pursuing national interests is desirable but to pursue it under the cloak of regionalism is a recipe designed for the failure of SAARC. A regional identity is essential for the success of SAARC.
People-to-People Contact
If the countries try to undermine regional interests for their narrow political advantage then members can resign themselves to this forum becoming a mere talking shop. Even after 25 years it has failed to connect with the masses. Its promotion of people-to-people contact is restricted to judges, diplomats and the parliamentarians.
SAARC needs to get off its elitist pedestal and adopt a subaltern approach. However, the time to write the epitaph of SAARC has not yet come. In spite of all the misgivings, and non-implementation of various agreements and conventions, SAARC provides greater regional visibility to smaller countries and provides them with the opportunity and responsibility to contribute to the region in a meaningful way. For them even a failed SAARC is more attractive as a platform than being restricted to bilateralism in an India-dominated region.

Pakistan-China Friendship: Gilani Visits Beijing

Reiterating friendship with Pakistan during the recent visit of Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, China warned in clear terms that the international community should respect integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan and should not forget its contribution to the war on terror. China has announced to supply 50 JF-Thunder warplanes to meet Pakistan's defense requirements. It has also announced 700 million yuan as aid for reconstruction of the flood-affected area and 100 million yuan loan on soft terms. It has signed nine memorandums of understanding in banking, trade, industry, agriculture, information technology sectors, and implementation on Saindak projects.
Strained Pakistan-US Relations
The announcement and the agreement that China made during the visit of Prime Minister Gilani, where he met his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao regarding Pakistan's defense and economic assistance are the outcome of the everlasting Pakistan-China friendship that has become a strong bond over the past 60 years and it is not in the power of anyone to break or weaken this chain now. The Pakistani prime minister paid visit to China at a critical time when relations between Pakistan and the United States were at their lowest ebb because of the Abbottabad operation and drone attacks. As a result of the US intervention and its strategy to keep Pakistan under constant pressure, and its desire to use the country according to its own will in the so-called war on terror, the Pakistan-US relations have become strained.
Since it was impossible for India to remain silent in this situation, it also started hurling threats to Pakistan. The Indian Air Force chief first issued a statement that his country can launch surgical strikes in Pakistan in self-defense. At the same time, India unleashed a propaganda campaign against Pakistan. In their separate statements, Indian Defense Minister A.K. Anthony and Home Minister P. Chidambaram strongly criticized growing relations between Pakistan and China, China's unilateral announcement about Pakistan's defense, and defense agreements. They announced to counter it by enhancing their (India's) defense preparedness. India's criticism of Pakistan-China relations and announcement to enhance its defense capabilities under the pretext of growing relations between China and Pakistan makes it clear once again that India wants to become mini-super power of the region. It has full support and patronage of the United States in its ambition and the defense and strategic agreements concluded between the United States and India during the visit of the US President Barack Obama to India last year are a clear proof in this regard.
This is a scintillating reality that China is a time-tested friend of Pakistan and Pakistan's integrity and stability is the cornerstone of China's regional strategy. However, as General (retried) Hamid Gul, former chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence, has said, that in spite of being deep and close friend, China will not fight for us because it is against the foreign policy and strategy of China.
Difference between China and the United States is that the Untied States neither follows any principle or international regulation for its interests, nor does it refrain from landing its troops in any region or any country. Similarly, clandestine acts in all the concerned and important countries, through CIA under preplanned objectives and targets, are also an important part of the US policy. On the other hand, China has neither committed flagrant aggression in any part of the world despite all sorts of international pressure and expectations, nor any report about China's clandestine activities came to light. In the backdrop of this clear situation, expectation on the part of the Pakistani rulers that China will physically come to the assistance in case of any possible the US or Indian aggression will be tantamount to committing suicide.
Similarly, China's economic policy is also crystal clear. China does gladly extend technical assistance and manpower to friendly countries but making a country beggar in the name of aid is not part of its economic policy. Since China's economic and political system has its foundations in communism, and since making weak segments and countries economically and financially strong is its prime objective, China always supported Pakistan in such projects that may help it stand on its own feet. According to reports, when Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani requested for immediate financial aid in view of financial deficit and fiscal hardship in the next budget, the Chinese leadership turned down this request with great love and politeness saying giving cash contribution (alms) to friendly countries is not part of China's financial policy. Since the Pakistani rulers have developed the bad habit of getting direct financial aid from the United States, the United Kingdom, World Bank, and the IMF on stringent conditions, and now that these institutions have hinted at stopping aid to Pakistan after the Usama Bin Ladin episode, and some severe conditions are being attached, for further aid, the Pakistani rulers, as usual, tried to steer the drowning boat of country's economy to safety by visiting China. However, like a good and genuine friend, China gave it the recipe of getting rid of the aid once and for all and expressed the desire to assist through investment instead of giving cash aid.
China's Support to Pakistan's Sovereignty and Integrity
It is the impact of the way, in which the Chinese leadership expressed it friendship with Pakistan in clear terms in the current testing time, like the past, that India did not take much time to change its harsh tune against Pakistan. The same change can be seen in the statements of the US leadership. The United States had persistently been talking to Pakistan in threatening tone until clear and emphatic announcement by China but once the Chinese stance came to light, many US officials, including Hillary Clinton, have stated that Pakistan had no knowledge, at official level, about the presence of Usama Bin Ladin in Abbottabad.
Similarly, the visit of Senator John Kerry and Marc Grossman, US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, to Pakistan immediately after Prime Minister Gilani's visit to China, and formal announcement about launching joint operation in future indicates that the Chinese announcement to declare Pakistan's sovereignty and integrity as cornerstone of its foreign policy played an important role in pacifying the US outrage and anger.
Lesson for Pakistan From China's Progress
Doubtless, China is our time-tested and all-weather friend but it is unfortunate that neither we learnt any lesson from China's progress and everlasting friendship nor did we make any meaningful planning to achieve self reliance. Despite excellent relations with China at official and government-level, attention was never focused to promote people-to-people contacts in t between the two countries.
Since all personal interests of our aristocracy are linked with the West and the United States, we are tied in bonds of friendship with China under strategic compulsion but unfortunately, despite all out friendship and sympathies of China, the hearts of our aristocracy throb in unison with the west and the United States in spite of their threats and deceptions. This is the very basic reason that in spite of all sympathy and sincerity on the part of China, everlasting relation of friendship could not be established between the people of Pakistan and China that should have been established.
Demand of Situation
Time has come for Pakistan to stand on its own feet and break the begging bowl of the West and the United States and make model of China's progress our ideal. By doing so, Pakistan can start journey on the great highway of progress and prosperity.
For this new journey, Pakistan will have to promote our political, defense, economic, and commercial relations with its neighbors and genuine friendly countries like China, India, Iran, and Turkey on priority basis instead of its distant relatives such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

British Prime Minister's Pakistan Visit

Pakistan and the United Kingdom on 5 April formally launched 'enhanced strategic dialogue' aimed at strengthening ties in security, trade, health and education sectors. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and his British counterpart David Cameron, while addressing a press conference after a day-long interaction that also covered the UK-Pakistan National Security Dialogue and a meeting with the heads of parliamentary parties, vowed to enhance bilateral investments and encourage their private sectors to help increase bilateral trade from 1.2 to 2.5 billion pounds by 2015.

Prime Minister Cameron termed the Pakistan-UK ties 'unbreakable' and said the two sides focused on trade, security and education sectors. He said he had also increased Pakistan's market access to Europe.

Security Issue

On the security sector, Cameron said that the two sides agreed on police services and intelligence cooperation, besides discussing the importance of Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship. He said that both the countries shared the need of having a peaceful, stable and democratic Afghanistan. 'Pakistan suffered greatly in tackling terrorism and extremism,' he said, adding that there was a huge fight being waged by the Pakistani Government against terrorists and the United Kingdom had a share in combating terrorism.

Education Sector

On education, Cameron said that the United Kingdom had launched a new package to help Pakistan in imparting education to four million children, training to 90,000 teachers and provision of six million text books.

Responding to a question on spending a huge amount on Pakistan's education, Cameron said his coalition government had increased the overseas budget by 7.7 per cent of the gross national income as it was in the interest of the United Kingdom to support the poorest in the poor countries in education, maternal health and in fighting poverty.

Terming illiteracy a root-cause of terrorism, Gilani said that the focus was on education in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and remote areas. He said that more than 30,000 Pakistani students were in Britain for education and called for extending more scholarships. Asked about the visa issues, the British Prime Minister said that the processing had been shifted out of Pakistan 'to make it more efficient.'

Extradition Treaty

When asked about return of former President Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan, David Cameron said that the two countries did not have any extradition treaty and also a 'proper application' was needed to be made to proceed in that regard.

Regarding Pakistan's role on extremism and terrorism, Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistan had rendered unprecedented sacrifices and lost more soldiers and civilians than the combined losses of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Trade Relations

Pakistani President Zardari sought closer ties in other areas, pledging to boost bilateral trade from £1.9 billion a year to £2.5 billion a year by 2015, and announcing up to £650 million over four years for education.

The aid money will help four million children go to school through providing training for 90,000 teachers and six million new textbooks. Cameron promised to continue to advocate for Pakistan to gain enhanced trade access to the European Union, including through GSP.

Strategic Dialogue

The Pakistan-UK strategic dialogue was a significant step and was vital for both sides, for this region and for the world as a whole. The need for the two sides to gear up to achieve the objectives that the two countries have set for both countries in the declaration of enhanced strategic dialogue.

The national security dialogue, comprising political, military and intelligence tracks will lead to creating a better understanding in bringing about clarity on issues of global, regional peace and security.

Peace and Stability in Afghanistan

About the Afghan issue, the president said peace and stability in Afghanistan was necessary for regional peace and emphasized on the Afghan-led peace process in the country rather than foreign led. The president said an appreciation of the dynamics of human relations by the international community was no less important than machines and weapons.

Future ProspectsTo start a new era in the relations between Pakistan and the United Kingdom, the governments and people from both the sides should clear up the misunderstandings of the past, work through the tensions of the present and look together to the opportunities of the future.

Pakistan-India Dialogue: Effects on Afghanistan

In the second week of April 2010, during the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit, in addition to meeting leaders of other countries Pakistan's Prime Minister also held a meeting with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh. The meeting was held on October 29 at the time when Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai also held meetings with Pakistani and Indian leaders in a bid to help improve ties between these two countries.

Mumbai Attacks Case
After the Mumbai attacks in 2009 when relations between Pakistan and India deteriorated and the series of meetings halted, the two countries at the time did not agree to hold talks even on the mediation of the United Nations. Each summit of SAARC concludes in the interest of all participating countries. On the sidelines of this summit, bilateral meeting between Pakistan and India is considered beneficial for both the countries. Here we discuss and write to see what will be the interest of Afghanistan if good relations exist between Pakistan and India?

The communiqué of SAARC meeting between Gilani and Manmohan says that Pakistan's Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was also accompanied by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Qureshi held a meeting with his Indian counterpart, S M Krishna. In addition to this prime ministers of both the countries were accompanied by their aides as well as other high level officials.

Now, first we look into the meeting of the leaders of Pakistan and India, and then we will think on the aspect of Afghanistan. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after a long term of bad relations, once again agreed to start composite dialogue between Pakistan and India. Although the issue of Mumbai incident was raised by the high-level Indian officials, the agreement to start composite dialogue helped end last year's tension. In addition to this tension, agreement was reached to hold talks. Leaders of both the countries acknowledged that holding talks can resolve disputes between the two countries and this will be in the interest of not only India and Pakistan but also for the region. During the meeting and talks, which continued for about 50 minutes, it was also stressed that both countries will stop using their soils against each other. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani met with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh at the time when conclusion of SAARC Summit was announced. With the conclusion of SAARC Summit, leaders of both countries agreed to hold bilateral meetings and to continue talks between the two countries.

Eliminating Terrorism
Last year this meeting was held at Sharm al-Shaykh. In that meeting also, leaders of India and Pakistan met but the issue of Mumbai incident remained unchanged between them and India continued blaming Pakistan of harboring terrorism and establishing terror camps in Kashmir and other parts of India. Whatsoever was discussed in this meeting but India raised the issue that Pakistan harbors terrorism. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, that whenever ties between the two countries deteriorated, Bangladesh is affected first and on political aspect the damage to Bangladesh should be given more attention because on the issue of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India fought a bloody war in 1971 and after that Bangladesh was separated from Pakistan.

On neighborhood basis, though, Afghanistan has no joint border with India but on political basis Afghanistan needs more relations with India than Pakistan. This need has emerged because of the current warring situation in Afghanistan. In comparison to Pakistan, relations with India are more important for Afghanistan because India has no religious, cultural, and ideological ties with Afghanistan. If on political basis Afghanistan does no make ties with India, then it India, in the form of an enemy can inflict damage of any type to Afghanistan. At the time when Pakistan and India were at war for the liberation of Kashmir in 1965, ties between India and Afghanistan were better.

Political Rivalry Between India and Pakistan
In the face of these good relations a number of Pakistanis were of the view that India was carrying out aerial attacks on Western Pakistan from Afghanistan's side and border. Therefore, because of the bad relations between Pakistan and India, ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan also deteriorated. Indian observers claim and expressing their views, during literary gatherings, that Pakistan has not got good neighboring relations with Afghanistan. But the Pakistani people and Afghanistan say that India pursues its interests in Afghanistan and want to deteriorate ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As Pakistan and India now want to improve their relations and for this purpose they agreed to hold dialogue and meetings. This situation is in the best interest of Afghanistan because, although, Afghanistan has suffered damages because of the attacks by foreign armies, it also experienced losses in the form of education, culture and population because of political rivalry between India and Pakistan. Whenever Pakistan wanted, it has boosted reconstruction work in Afghanistan for improving friendship. India has changed the minds of a number of Afghans toward conspiracies against Pakistan. India has three objectives to achieve against Pakistan; it wants to change the minds of Persian-speaking people and to augment its influence and increase its supporters in Afghanistan.

Hatching Conspiracies
Since 2001, India has made pledges with Afghans for making five dams in Afghanistan. It is stated that three important dams will be constructed in Mazar-e-Sharif, Ghazni and Kunar and later will plan the construction of two other dams in Helmand and Parwan provinces. So far neither the dam was built on the waters of River Amo in Mazar-e-Sharif nor any power plants were installed at Sultan Band to provide electricity to Ghazni and Wardak and also no embankment was made at the river in Kunar. Parwan and Helmand Province have already been discussed later in the plan. But even if there are good ties between India and Pakistan, they prove helpful for Afghanistan.

The first thing is India should refrain from hatching conspiracies against Pakistan and Afghanistan and the second thing is it should not oppose awarding contracts of works and constructions in Afghanistan to Afghanistan; India should itself compete in the reconstruction work in Afghanistan. In this way Afghanistan will be reconstructed as the result of good relations between Pakistan and India. Relations will be better between these two countries and its benefit will go to Afghanistan also.

Pakistan Conducts Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missiles

Pakistan has conducted successful training launches of short-range ballistic missile Hatf-3 Ghaznavi and medium-range ballistic Missile Hatf-4 Shaheen-1. According to the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), both missiles can carry conventional as well as nuclear warheads to respective ranges up to 290 km and 650 km.

Testing Operational Readiness
The two separately conducted launches of the missiles were carried out at the conclusion of the annual field training exercises of Army Strategic Force Command, aimed at testing the operational readiness of strategic missile groups equipped with Ghaznavi and Shaheen missile systems.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani witnessed the missile tests. General Tariq Majid, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral Noman Bashir, chief of the Naval Staff, Lieutenant General retired Kahlid Ahmed Kidwai, director general of the Strategic Plans Division, and other senior military officials were also present.

Recognizing Pakistan's Status
Addressing the troops in the exercise area, the prime minister congratulated them on displaying a high standard of proficiency in handling and operating the state of the art weapon systems. The prime minister said Pakistan's armed forces are fully capable of safeguarding Pakistan's security against all kinds of aggression.

The prime minister emphasized it is time for the world to recognize Pakistan as a De Jure nuclear power with equal rights and responsibilities. He also demanded that Pakistan be given a nuclear supplier group waiver for civil nuclear energy cooperation.

Government-Judiciary Standoff in Pakistan

The government decision of 13 February on the appointment of judges is being strongly criticized by all. The government wanted to appoint Chief Justice Khawaja Shareef of the Lahore High Court as a Judge in the Supreme Court, and Justice Saqib Nisar as the Chief justice of the Lahore High Court. The government issued the notification for these appointments, but it was immediately nullified by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court.
The court announced 18 February as the date for further hearings on the subject. The relations of the judiciary and the executive were strained, but the politicians and the common people never expected that the President's Camp would take such extreme action. However some reliable sources have revealed that this drama went exactly according to script because the script-writers wanted to take the country toward midterm elections.

Degradation of Values
Even this confrontation may take us toward midterm elections. This vague and murky situation can definitely damage any one party. President Asif Ali Zardari may have to quit. To defuse the situation, some ministers have given confusing statements which, I am afraid, may not work out.
In a previous column I pointed out that the time has come when people are beginning to lose patience. Incongruous policies are increasing the problems of the common people. Price hikes, injustice, the law and order situation and denial of merit have made the life of the common man very miserable. Look at the miseries of the people. When they do not find any catharsis, they tend to commit suicide or come out on the streets in retaliation against social deprivation. In fact, many start selling their own children. The stone-hearted elites of this society are not pushed at all. I have been to many countries, both developed and under-developed, but no where in the world have I seen people selling their own children. It is the lowest possible limit of degradation of the values of our society.
The rulers of Europe and America truly serve their people. If some one commits suicide due to hunger or poverty, the complete society is shaken up. People come out on the streets and make life miserable for their rulers. People in those societies cannot even think of selling their children. The European Union has recently passed a resolution which will be enforced in all its 27 member countries. The resolution states that all human beings are equal, no one is superior to another and the protection of the honor and self esteem of every individual is the responsibility of the state. But our rulers have deformed the shape of our own constitution. One does not find even a single amendment in favor of the poor masses.

Signs of Good Governance
Now, people are talking about mid-term elections and there is a hue and cry to remove all those people who are responsible for the current fiasco. When we look for signs of good governance or concern for the welfare of the people, all governments look alike. I have seen the previous governments of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) as well. Now I am seeing the third government of the PPP struggling for its survival. Of the two parties, the period of the PML-N looks comparatively better. The Pakistan Muslim League can fare even better provided it discontinues its policy of a One-Man-Show, and allows space so that democratic norms may germinate within the party.
It is still a mystery why the government rejected the summary sent by the Chief Justice. I am afraid some forces in the government may want to remove the President from office or dislodge the democratic government. Double agents are within the rank and file of the government, but the rulers have been unable to recognize them. And, by the time they do, it will be too late. The present situation is ideal for these intriguing forces. These forces will be successful in killing two birds with one stone.
However, the Opposition is also preparing for the final round. Nawaz Sharif's press conference of 14 February 2010 was a clear indication of these preparations. This time he openly criticized President Zardari and labeled him a threat to democracy. His statement gives an indication that political forces are now at the brink of losing patience. These forces believe that in the presence of President Zardari, Pakistan may not be able to develop good relations with other countries.

Impression of Confrontation
On 15 February, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani addressed parliament and spoke at length on the appointment of the judges. The crux of his speech was that the Parliament also holds weight and, on sensitive issues, the position of the Parliament is superior. But his statement that the judiciary was restored through an executive order, which awaits ratification by the parliament, created a stir. In a sense it was a threat to the judiciary that the executive order could still be reversed. After this statement the political barometer shot up. It gave birth to yet another legal debate.
The impression of confrontation between the government and the judiciary must be defused immediately. In this connection, the government should cancel the notification issued on 13 February 2010 and accept the recommendations of the Chief Justice. In the war of Titans the winner will be the one who enjoys the support of the masses and stands firm on moral grounds. Due to sheer bad luck and incongruous policies, the government may not succeed in its goals.

Resumption of India-Pakistan Summit Talks

As a consequence of the India-Pakistan summit talks held on the sidelines of the 15th Non-Aligned Movement [NAM] summit in the Egyptian city of Sharm al-Shaykh, it seems the possibility of a change taking place in the tense environment in this region has brightened. During the summit talks between Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, the two countries have delinked the bilateral India-Pakistan talks from the issue of terrorism. The initiative taken by India on this issue is bound to lead to a positive outcome.

Joint Statement
Earlier, India has been emphasizing that unless Pakistan brings to justice the accused of the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008, the prospects of talks with Pakistan were ruled out. On this occasion, the Indian Prime Minister stated in no uncertain terms that the composite dialogue between the countries is still subject to the earnestness on Pakistan's part in its counter-terrorism endeavours.

The noticeable point is that a considerably encouraging reaction has been received from Pakistan for the success of the summit talks. Describing the shift in the Indian strategy on bilateral talks as a pleasant development, Pakistan has termed the summit talks satisfactory. In the joint statement issued at the end of the summit talks, it has been accepted that talks is the only way to make headway.

During the two-hour-long meeting, the two leaders admitted that the composite dialogue process could not be linked with counter-terrorism action. The two sides have agreed to create an environment of mutual confidence and reliance so that an amicable atmosphere for resumption of the dialogue process could be created. It is also satisfying to note that the vexed Kashmir issue has not mentioned in the joint statement.

Nevertheless, it is worth consideration that the Prime Minister Dr. Singh made it clear in the joint statement that India is willing to hold talks on any issue. The Kashmir issue also figures in the composite dialogue.

Pakistan states that the Indian Prime Minister has expressed willingness to hold dialogue with Pakistan on the all issues, including all pending disputes. The term "all pending disputes" is being linked with the Kashmir issue. Indians are happy that the leaders of the two countries have met for the first time after four years and the joint statement issued on conclusion of the meeting does not carry any reference to the Kashmir issue. They think that their demand for putting the Kashmir issue into cold storage has been accepted.

In their summit meetings, the two countries have been announcing modes and dates of the future talks. However, perhaps for the first time, it has been decided in a meeting of two Prime Ministers that their Foreign Ministers will hold the next meeting, which is likely to take place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2009. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries will hold mutual talks whenever needed and hand over reports to their respective Foreign Ministers. In this way, the level of the future talks between the two countries has been brought down. Usually, in their meetings and contacts, the ministers finalize schedule for meetings at the prime ministerial or presidential level, but here for the first time, the announcement has been made contrary to that.

Positive Results Expected
With bilateral talks, the prospects of easing of tension between the two countries have brightened. The top leaders of the two countries had also held talks in Russia last month. As such, the summit meeting in Egypt seems to prove instrumental in bringing about a change in the scenario.

Nonetheless, the success of the present summit meeting depends on to what extent the two countries succeed in the implementation of decisions made in the Egypt summit. The relations between India and Pakistan cannot be promoted just with the will of any one country.

Undoubtedly, both the countries will have to make equal contribution to it. Moreover, it is a positive development that the political leadership of the two countries has come forward for bilateral talks instead of adding to tension.

Prospects of Talks
During the meeting between Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and the Indian Prime Minister in Russia, a number of decisions were made on bilateral issues, but no appropriate response has been made by Islamabad on them. Now, if strict steps are not initiated by Pakistan to prevent violence after the Egypt summit talks, it is likely to cause tension between the two countries. It is the responsibility of both the countries to comprehend the problems facing each other, and come forward to resolution of bilateral issues with an open mind.

Moreover, the bilateral talks should not be confined to mere paperwork. It is the joint responsibility of the two counties to promote an atmosphere of peace and friendship. People of this region have already suffered a lot. It will be better to let the people of both the countries live in peace.

Hillary Clinton Visits India

It is said that the notion continues to prevail among common people in Indian that the US is a selfish country that can go to any extent to maintain its global "supremacy." It can launch an invasion against any country and it can resort to bloodshed of innocents in order to retain its hold over the world. Hence, expansion of democracy and ideology carries no significance for it.

However, there is another belief that is prevalent among the Indians that the US can do anything to grind its axe. Any country not yielding to it aligns it with itself. It makes the unyielding country yielding to it and breaks up that country that can be severed. It is recognized as a supporter of countries such as Pakistan, which fall victim to the military dictators and can adopt any tactics in order to nip the menace in the bud that can pose a threat to it.

Impact of Tension between India and Pakistan
In fact, the notion prevalent among common Indians about the US is based on their experiences during the past half-a-century. India and Pakistan in the South Asian region have never been friendly to each other. The two nations in their bid to amass maximum arms served as a sandwich between the US and other big world powers. Amid sale and purchase of arms, conflicts and confrontations among them, and lack of mutual trust, and attempts to occupy Kashmir, these countries provided highly suitable chances to world powers to intervene in their internal affairs.

The US used Pakistan in the ouster of the Russian troops from Afghanistan, and when the Taliban whom it used for the expulsion of the Russian forces from Afghanistan and later on for staging a coup there, turned hostile toward it, it sought Pakistan's support to crush them. However, this time around success evaded the US. Its main reason is that Pakistan is no longer solely dependent on the US and has gone under the influence of China.

Emerging India's Status
Meanwhile, India is an emerging superpower because its image is constantly emerging as a peace loving and a dynamic country. In view of its rising image and prestige, the US also has molded its policies in favor of India. The US is scared of the mounting Chinese influence in the South Asian region and is exploring the support of India with a view to check growing influence of China. Although the proximity of the US with India in defense and trade is in India's interest, yet the latter needs to be wary of the possibility of becoming a puppet in US hands, although it can become its good ally in trade.

Developing Indo-US Relations
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is currently on a visit to India. Her trip to India is to certainly broaden and deepen the US relationship with India. During her visit, several agreements are to be signed and the plans would be evolved for the implementation of the US-India civilian nuclear agreement. She arrived in India as a Secretary of State of the Barack Obama Administration, but the Indian experience of the Bill Clinton Administration has been bitter, although time has undergone a sea change now.

Hillary expressed doubts about Pakistan’s commitment to the war on terror. Urging Pakistan to root out terror outfits like the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hillary said that based on the last six months, there has been a greater effort and commitment on Pakistan’s part to tackle the global threat of terrorism. However, it is too early to tell the outcome of the commitment from Pakistan.

Hillary has said the disputes between India and Pakistan should be looked at with "fresh eyes" and that Kashmir should "certainly" be on the agenda of discussions between the two countries. She said that the meeting between the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009 has ignited the hope that both countries will pursue a dialogue again.

On the Kashmir issue, she affirmed the position of the US that it wants India and Pakistan to resolve all such issues bilaterally and that Washington is ready to support the steps that both countries take together.

India is fast emerging as a dynamic country on the world map. Hence, there is the possibility of it being exploited by the US for its vested interests. India welcomes the friendship offered by the US. However, it has been India's independent foreign policy not to accept narrow strategies of the US.