Kashmir Policy: editorials in Pak Media, May 6

The Nation, May 6
ISLAMABAD (Online) – Backdoor diplomacy between India and Pakistan has been restored and in this regard a 10-member delegation headed by former army chief General Jahangir Karamat left for India on Wednesday.
The delegation includes Sherry Rehman, Ahsan Iqbal, Jahangir Badr, Najamuddin, Humayun Khan, Shafqat Mehmood and Aziz Ahmed Khan.
According to a private TV channel, Track-II diplomacy between both the countries has been restored after the deadlock that ensued following Mumbai attacks. The governments of US and UK have played a key role in this regard, as per sources.
Sources further reported that the delegation was divided in three groups: one group, headed by the former army chief, would deal with Kashmir issue; the second was on the issue of trade; and the third group would deal with terrorism.
Diplomatic circles are giving much importance to these initiatives because the process of backdoor diplomacy had started in the second term of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and continued gradually but stopped after the incident of 26/11 it was stopped. The resumption of dialogue after such big hurdles is a good sign, the circles believe.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//Politics/06-May-2010/Backdoor-diplomacy-restored

The Nation, May 6

FOREIGN Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi finally seemed to be making the right noises on Kashmir when he informed the National Assembly that Kashmir was the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy and Pakistan desired a peaceful solution to the dispute in keeping with UN Resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. If this means a reversal of the confused Musharraf policy on Kashmir and its attempt to delink from the UN Resolutions, then the present policy is to be welcomed. Presumably the government has once again understood that Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir stems and acquires legitimacy from the UN Security Council Resolutions.
Unfortunately, there are some serious misgivings that also arise in the context of the present government’s policies in relation to Kashmir and India. To begin with, the Foreign Minister’s reference to the “changed ground realities” of Kashmir is the same ominous phrase so often used in the past by leaders determined to shift away from the principle of self-determination. Of course, nothing remains static anywhere so similarly the ground realities in Kashmir keep shifting but there is a constant that has not changed and that is what Pakistan should be highlighting but what the FM has failed to do and that is the fact that Kashmiris today are as adamant to reject Indian occupation as they have been since 1948. Generation after generation of Kashmiri youth continue to sacrifice their lives to rid themselves of India’s brutal occupation. So while the tactical ground realities are constantly in a state of flux, the strategic macro level reality of what the Kashmiris want for their future and continue to reject remains unaltered.
As for the FM’s reference to the composite dialogue being an Indian term of reference, with Pakistan seeking a comprehensive dialogue, the point is that having accepted this nomenclature Pakistan was able to conduct multi-tier dialogues on critical issues simultaneously, including the Kashmir and nuclear issues. Now the Indians clearly want to put all that aside, including whatever progress was made – and certainly there was some – and commence anew dialogue format where they will decide the agenda. Our FM, who spoke vociferously in defence of India’s PM and their innocence on the waters issue, now seems to be preparing to sell us this new Indian dialogue ploy. Clearly he is unaware of the fact that India has just made its intention public of purchasing 126 fighter planes to add to their already massive weapons arsenal to, as the Indian Air Chief put it, “bolster India’s war fighting capability.” So where is the peace that the Indian leadership “desires” according to the Pakistani FM? It is time we awoke to the reality of India’s aggressive designs towards Pakistan and the Kashmiris as reflected in their policies today. Equally important we must never forget that Kashmir remains the essential core issue between the two antagonist states.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/06-May-2010/Kashmir-the-core-issue

The Dawn, May 6

SHAKESPEARE brushed aside semantics by asking, “What’s in a name?” But Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi attaches a lot more importance to the issue. He made it clear in the National Assembly on Tuesday that Pakistan had returned to its “historical” stand on Kashmir. He also said that the dialogue with India will not be referred to as a “composite dialogue” but will henceforth be a “comprehensive dialogue” as Pakistan had originally wanted it to be called. He, however, hastened to add that the eight points specified in the previous format would continue to be addressed as before. One should not worry about these changes in nomenclature as long as they do not indicate a turnaround in the positive thrust in Pakistan’s foreign policy as it has evolved over the years. The fact is that if there is to be peace in South Asia, India and Pakistan must learn to seek peaceful and durable solutions to their disputes. Kashmir — described as the core issue — needs to be addressed and in such a way that the people of the state are included in the peace process, whatever the mutually agreed format. It would be impossible to go back to the specific modalities stipulated in the UN resolutions of 1949 apart from the underlying principle that the wishes of the people should be kept in consideration. The settlement that is agreed upon must have the confidence of the National Assembly. But would it not be unrealistic to expect the two sides to sit at the negotiating table under the media limelight? This would inevitably force them to play to the gallery. That would scuttle the peace process even before it has been resumed.

There are many issues that need to be sorted out between India and Pakistan if the political climate in the region is to be made conducive for amicable talks. Thus Afghanistan, terrorism and the water issues that affect the two countries directly call for a regional understanding as they are so closely related. Islamabad and New Delhi should waste no time in initiating their dialogue so that confidence-building gets under way. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/kashmir-policy-650

The Business Recorder, May 6

EDITORIAL (May 06 2010): The next round of talks with India may not be in the framework of the Composite Dialogue, but all eight subjects, including Kashmir that formed its agenda, would be on the table. The assurance was given the other day by Foreign Minister Qureshi in his statement in the National Assembly, as doubts swirled about in the Capital that the Composite Dialogue forum has been sacrificed in barter for the much sought after Gilani-Manmohan Singh meeting in Bhutan.

Even if so – and that is quite likely given the minister’s claim that the phrase ‘Composite Dialogue’ had an Indian origin – the most critical subject on the agenda of the Composite Dialogue, Kashmir, would be discussed head-on with the Indians. Pakistan is returning to its “historical and principled” stand after “wavering” by the Musharraf regime for 7-8 years when ‘reliance was put on the back-channel diplomacy, without taking parliament into confidence’.

Whether Foreign Minister Qureshi’s stance, so vehemently taken on the floor of the National Assembly, was a disapproval of back-channel diplomacy or an explanation for abandoning the Composite Dialogue forum, one could guess and say it was both of it.

Back-channel diplomacy was General Musharraf’s hobbyhorse, and if former foreign minister Kasuri’s recent disclosures are any guide, quite a bit of “progress” had been made towards resolving the Kashmir dispute. Kasuri says 90 percent of the spadework had been completed and a “final Kashmir settlement was just a signature away, once India and Pakistan decided to pull the file from the rack”.

But where is that back-channel file? Is there a back-channel file at all “beyond Musharraf’s pronouncements of unreciprocated unilateral gestures of flexibility?” And, who will pull it off the rack? Former foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmad would like to know. Qureshi denies if there is such a file in the Foreign Office.

And, according to Shamshad Ahmad, “that is what always happens when shady deals are struck at non-institutional levels”. Not only General Musharraf’s back-channel diplomacy negatively impacted Pakistan’s known position on Kashmir, it also triggered debate for options other than Settlement of the Kashmir dispute under the UN resolutions.

So much for the back-channel diplomacy, which to say the least, was hardly an honest way of dealing with an issue of momentous importance to millions of Kashmiris and a billion of others in South Asia. Of course, a few CBMs were put in place but they too have gone with the wind as harsh ground realities catch up.

As for the Kashmir and other issues, with India everything seems to be back to square one, leaving Foreign Minister Qureshi with no option but “to recover from the damage done to Pakistan’s case then”. May be, given Pakistan’s present difficulties, there are ‘friendly pressures’ to adjust with India, and to concede its interference in Afghan affairs.

May be the Indian pliability, as exhibited in the Bhutanese capital, is driven by the same incentive and consideration. In that backdrop one may err on the side of believing that the bonhomie witnessed on the margins of the 16th Saarc summit was essentially a transitory thaw.

Having relegated Kashmir to the backburner of back-channel diplomacy, India, of late, is sparing no effort to turn Pakistan into a bone-dry desert, as we see helplessly from across the border. Here, too, Pakistan is becoming a victim of a kind of back-channel diplomacy by agreeing to successive rounds of meetings and talks, in defiance of the Treaty, which clearly defines as to what constitutes a dispute to be resolved by third-party arbitration.

The fact is that both the problem of Kashmir and the violation of Indus Waters Treaty by India have a strong international context; they bypass the United Nations. We need to look afresh into this aspect of our disputes with India and invoke international law at the world forums. No doubt, it would be a long haul task but this is the only right way to deal with India. www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1053008&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate=