Indo-Pak dialogue at the NAM Summit: Real progress?
ON 16 July at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, during the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani met for the second time after the Mumbai terrorist attacks. The informal yet important meeting was speculated to be a major step to ending the diplomatic deadlock that has plagued relations between India and Pakistan since 26/11. The 45-minute discussion between Singh and Gilani was preceded by several meetings between the foreign secretaries, and followed by an officially issued joint statement.
Although the very act of both the meeting and corresponding joint statement is an important step forward for Indo-Pak relations, it begs the question whether any real progress has been made because of this public dialogue.
While searching for meaning in the wake of the talks, several issues arise. First, the vagueness of the Prime Ministers' joint statement must be considered. The joint statement made several broad recommendations, suggesting terrorism was the main threat to both countries and that they should work together to combat this and related problems. It outlined an agreement to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence, and reaffirmed both countries' intention to promote regional cooperation. It also mentioned, however, that action on terrorism need not be linked explicitly to the Indo-Pak dialogue process. Furthermore, while it appears as though the Mumbai attacks had been discussed during their meeting, the only mention of these events were Singh's comments that the attackers needed to be brought to justice, and Gilani's corresponding pledge that Pakistan would do everything in its power to ensure just that is accomplished.
While the statement does appear to be a platform from which India and Pakistan can move forward, little was concretely established from which progress can actually be made. Acknowledging these vague remarks alone, however, is not enough to fully comprehend what took place, and instead should be taken in light of the contrasting and more direct statements issued separately by each Prime Minister as well as their respective foreign secretaries.
Independently, India talked tough on terrorism. Foreign Minister SM Krishna called for a visible response from Pakistan regarding the Mumbai attacks, and Singh pushed the members of NAM to establish a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Both leaders specifically explained it was imperative that perpetrators of terrorism and those who aid them were brought to justice. Singh stated that the starting point of any dialogue must be the issue of terrorism and that "so long as Pakistani territory continues to be used for perpetrating acts of terrorism...against India… dialogue process, even if it starts, cannot move forward." This directive stance against terrorism was in stark contrast to the compromising and perhaps soft approach voiced through the joint statement and raises questions about the impact of Singh's contribution.
Gilani, on the other hand, made little mention of the ongoing saga of the Mumbai attackers, stating only that if real progress was to be made in Indo-Pak dialogue, the issue of Jammu and Kashmir must be resolved. Pakistan's foreign secretary also sidelined 26/11 issues, calling instead for a return to the eight-point composite dialogue. As neither Gilani nor his foreign secretary made any mention of terrorism, one could question the extent to which compromise made via the joint statement held any real value outside of polite rhetoric.
Full understanding of the talks, however, cannot take place without consideration of the underlying issues by which Indo-Pak dialogue has been constrained - terrorism policy and persecution of specific individuals responsible for the Mumbai attacks. These key issues between India and Pakistan were not explicitly discussed, which makes for a troubling end to what was to be a productive step forward. No doubt Hafiz Saeed, Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi and the rest of the LeT were on everyone's minds and without substantive action regarding these issues, there appears to be little reason to believe that things may finally move forward between India and Pakistan.
Perhaps we should take the release of the joint statement alone to symbolize the success of the meetings, as it signifies the willingness of the two countries to collaborate and marks a vast improvement in Indo-Pak relations as of late. And, despite the joint statement being vague, the ideas within still looked like a step in the right direction, providing both countries follow through. However, while many argue in favour of such positives produced from the Singh-Gilani discussion, if the response from India's Congress Party is any indication of the general feeling within the country, the joint statement has been seen as a step back, in light of its soft approach to terrorism from Pakistan and its willingness to restart dialogue in the absence of anti-terrorism talks. Furthermore, these potential breakthroughs should not cloud memories of Pakistan's past behaviour, especially regarding 26/11. Actions speak much louder than words, and therefore praise for any developments should not be made based on speculation, but rather only when proof of action is available that demonstrates an actual step forward in Indo-Pak relations. The joint statement, therefore, deserves no praise, as it does not demonstrate real progress between India and Pakistan.
Source: IPCS, New Delhi.
Comments