 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obstructions in peace process |
HOPES that a meeting between Prime Minister Gilani and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Commonwealth summit might provide a fillip to the stalled peace process received a setback after the Indian side did not respond to the road map for the resumption of composite dialogue presented by Foreign Minister Qureshi. This has raised questions about the utility of Gilani's attending the summit and there are reports that he might not visit Port of Spain.
What has hampered the peace process is the seesawing on the part of India, which creates the perception of an absence of consensus in the Indian establishment. At the Sharm al-Sheikh meeting in July between the two prime ministers, India had agreed to de-link terrorism from talks, with Manmohan Singh agreeing that dialogue was 'the only way forward' and 'action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed'.
Soon after his return to India, Manmohan Singh was accused of capitulation by the BJP and put on the mat by the hawkish Indian media. This led Singh to back out of the commitment made at Sharm al-Sheikh. Speaking to journalists in Rajasthan's Barmer district a month later Singh said.
"Relations with Pakistan are currently not conducive for the two sides to have talks at any level." This amounted to volte-face. During the last few weeks Indian leaders have continued to blow hot and cold. While Manmohan Singh has thrice underlined the need for talks with Pakistan without preconditions, union home minister Chidambaram continues to play an altogether different tune.
He has accused Pakistan of sending infiltrators inside Indian occupied Kashmir and extended threats of 'a telling response from Indian security forces.' Addressing a public meeting on Saturday, the minister said, "The Mumbai attacks should be Pakistan's last game. I have warned the country not to play with India."
An American and a Canadian citizen arrested last month in the US on charges of planning terror attacks inside India has provided New Delhi another opportunity to change over to a hawkish mode. While David Coleman Headley and Tahawwar Hussain Rana are still under investigation, New Delhi has decided that they were linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. On Friday, Manmohan Singh complained that Pakistan did not share any information with India on "the Lashkar-e-Taiba terror plot" before it was made public.
It has been suggested by a section of the media, that the security establishment wants a strong line on the revival of dialogue. The way India has stalled talks and continues to point an accusing finger towards Pakistan has naturally led to hardening of stances in sections of society. It is, however, difficult to believe that any possible postponement would have anything to do with this.
There are other reasons that could play a more important role in the decision, the situation in Pakistan being the foremost. With political confrontation on the rise and the NA seized of a number of crucial issues, PM Gilani has too much on his plate. As President Zardari has become increasingly controversial, all-important players prefer to interact with the Prime Minister. He has already played a crucial role in defusing the stand-off over the NRO.
He is now required to pilot a new legislation to replace the 17th amendment and to create a consensus over the recommendations of the Balochistan committee. This could be a reason behind his skipping the meeting, particularly when the Indian side is not willing to make a concrete move towards the resumption of the peace process.
This said, Pak-India détente is too vital an issue to be consigned to the back burner. Pakistan's commitment to end terrorism is too well known and needs no certification. There is a need on the part of India to respond positively to Pakistan's road map initiative. Better relations between the two countries, based on the resolution of core disputes, would help both sides jointly eradicate terrorism, which poses an existential threat to both countries.
|
| |
|
Ending impasse |
AFTER 10 delays, Iraq’s Parliament has finally approved the country’s new electoral law. The elections can now go ahead early next year. It is a pity that outsiders, including inevitably Washington but also unusually the UN, have been critical of the delays. The reality is that frustrating though the prolonged arguments have been, they have resulted in the sort of compromise which, to most eyes, would seem to be the essence of a healthy democratic process.
The two main sticking points — the distribution of seats in ethically diverse constituencies, particularly in the northern city of Kirkuk, and the printing of candidates’ names, rather than their party titles, have been resolved. The Kirkuk results from the vote will be treated as provisional and the allocation of seats ratified by the new Parliament. The MPs also agreed to abandon the closed-list system used in the previous election, by which people who had not actually stood in the election were later appointed to fill seats. Instead there will be an open list, in which every candidate will place himself or herself before the electorate.
This undoubtedly will increase voter confidence in the system because people will be voting for the individual and not simply the party. It may well be that the distribution of votes will be little affected in next year’s vote, but it does mean that charismatic politicians, perhaps running as independents will, in the longer term, be able to make their mark in the hustings.
What has happened is therefore a triumph for political good sense. Iraqi legislators have come together to work for the best interests of their country. It is true that a continuing standoff would have played into the hands of the men of violence whose barbarous attacks have increased of late. But what is more important is that Parliament has brokered the deal on its own terms and not on those dictated by any outside power. The democratic process offers Iraq’s different communities a way to negotiate and work together in both the interests of their particular political constituencies and also in the national interest.
The years of violent ethnic divide proved, if proof were needed, that no one power bloc can dominate the others. The Shiite majority can no more replace the Sunni ascendance that existed under the Baath Party dictatorship of Saddam Hussein than the Iraqi Kurds can seek to break away from the rest of the country. The only way that the country can be run justly in the interests of all Iraqis is by negotiation and compromise.
It must be hoped that after the new elections, politicians will carry this lesson into the rapid formation of a functioning government. With the Americans close to leaving, the country needs to start addressing a wide range of key issues to speed the creation of jobs and the return of prosperity. While it remains a daily cause for concern, the security situation is arguably less important now. Iraqis are taking back their own destiny and most are united against the forces of violence and anarchy.
—Arab News
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
