The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and
head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.
PAKISTAN’S policy towards Kashmir (and Afghanistan) is a
metaphor for its governance at home. They are dysfunctional.
We cannot implement longer-term policies, and short-term
policies don’t work. We have tried shorter-term Kashmir solutions ranging from
diplomacy to dialogue to violence.
They all failed as have our several short-lived policies towards
human rights protections, human resource development, socio-economic
development, security, corruption, counterterrorism, institutional reform, etc.
Only longer-term policies can effectively address such fundamental issues.
Former Chinese president Jiang Zemin told a joint session of the
Pakistan parliament that Kashmir was an issue inherited from history and its
solution should be sought in that context.
In other words, it had no short-term solution. Ignoring his
common-sense advice has proved unwise. It has neither alleviated the sufferings
of the Kashmiris nor has it served their freedom struggle.
Even a longer-term strategy may fail for several reasons
including the inability or unwillingness of Pakistan’s leadership to clean up
the country’s image and face down competing centres of power: India’s
well-documented crimes against humanity in Kashmir and its Hindutva pathology;
and the irresponsible indifference of the international community towards the
dangerous and hideous human rights situation in India-held Kashmir.
Pakistan’s reliance on jihadi ‘assets’ has resulted in
comprehensive jihadi ‘blowback’. Its foreign policy is determined by unelected
and incompetent decision-makers who largely operate from behind security
screens.
This has significantly disabled Pakistan’s diplomacy. There are
hardly any international takers today for Pakistan’s case on Kashmir and other
issues. Only an assertive Foreign Office can alter this nonsensical situation.
A bold policy statement
by the PM might signal a departure from our pathetic leadership norms.
A ‘soft state’ is one that knows what it must do but cannot or
does not do it.
Pakistan knows CPEC cannot be a substitute for good governance
including a decent foreign policy. Yet it acts as if CPEC is a magic wand for
all its problems.
The elites of a soft and failing state always see the costs of
state failure as less than the costs of state reform.
Unless Pakistan begins to transform itself it will never be a
credible strategic partner for a successfully emerging China.
The credibility of any policy statement by a leader is judged by
perceptions of his leadership and the image of the country under his
leadership.
A bold and realistic policy statement by the prime minister
might signal a departure from our pathetic leadership and governance norms.
This may be seen as ‘great expectations’. A prime minister’s policy statement
might include:
his commitment to promoting the political and human rights of
the Kashmiri people in accordance with existing UN resolutions;
his hope that both sides will avoid mutually exclusive positions
on Kashmir to enable movement towards an acceptable settlement;
his willingness, despite current circumstances, to seriously
engage with his Indian counterpart to resolve issues of core concern to both
countries and other issues on the agenda of the Comprehensive Bilateral
Dialogue;
both sides will need to implement politically difficult
decisions to build mutual trust and confidence;
he supports the Shimla Agreement as it recognises the positions
of both sides on Kashmir. Accordingly, neither side can require the other to
change its position as a precondition for dialogue;
his readiness, in consultation with Kashmiri opinion, to
consider some of the tentative understandings reportedly reached in the
back-channel talks of 2004-6 to bring about a climate in which progress towards
a mutually acceptable settlement of Jammu and Kashmir is facilitated;
an agreed settlement could be embodied in a new UNSC resolution
that could be unanimously adopted;
mutually acceptable modalities for the participation of Kashmiri
representatives in a Kashmir settlement process need to be worked out;
agreed mechanisms for the maintenance of peace along the LoC
need to be reinforced by strong political leadership in both countries;
the tragic human and political rights situation in India-held
Kashmir needs to be urgently addressed as it is incompatible with an
uninterrupted settlement process;
bilateral and Kashmir-related CBMs need to be restored and
expanded;
— win-win progress may be slow and difficult, but once achieved,
it should be made irreversible;
— the support of public opinion, including civil and political
society, in both countries for sustained progress towards a settlement
acceptable to the people of Kashmir, Pakistan and India, should be a shared and
governing priority;
— a breakthrough towards a settlement of Jammu and Kashmir can
bring about a climate in which major initiatives like a no-war pact, no first
use of nuclear weapons, enhanced trading, transit, travel and tourism
arrangements, joint ventures and significantly increased cultural and media
exchanges become feasible;
— some of these initiatives may be implemented earlier to bring
about a conducive climate for substantive movement on Kashmir; and
— his invitation to the Indian prime minister and suggestion
that work on drafting a joint prime minister statement on the sidelines of the
Islamabad Saarc Summit should commence.
While these points are not new their public advocacy and
implementation would be. There will be criticisms that such a policy approach
is tantamount to abject surrender. This is not so.
Pakistan would neither have to compromise its conventional and
strategic deterrence nor its Kashmir commitments.
What the prime minister would need to do is honestly tell the
nation there are no short-term or military-cum-militant solutions to the
Kashmir dispute, and avoidable confrontation with India entails significant
avoidable costs without helping the Kashmir cause.
But a prime minister beset by a sea of troubles may not wish to
even consider, leave alone pursue, such a policy course. That would be unfortunate
as no breakthrough can be brought about clandestinely.
Meanwhile, Modi’s rank communalism and his rants against
Pakistan appear to rule out any prospect of a positive response.
Nevertheless, there is no realistic alternative to steadfastly
pursuing a consistent and realistic longer-term Kashmir policy if there is
eventually to be normalcy in the Valley and prosperity and security in the
region.
Even our Chinese friends will tell us the CPEC was never meant
to be a substitute for a common-sense national and foreign policy.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and
head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.
Published in Dawn September 13th, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment