Pakistan and India early this month concluded two days of deliberations without any announcement of a breakthrough on any issue related to Jammu and Kashmir except to hint that on Siachen and Sir Creek the ideas, which had been exchanged have created the possibility of resolution of these issues. However, no cut-off dates were announced in this regard. This has been done amidst stepped up operations against the innocent people in the Held Kashmir. Three tests of Akash missile have been conducted in a day and India will fire its most sophisticated ballistic missiles, Agni, soon with a power plant made of composite materials that will considerable reduce the weight of the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) class weapon. Besides, special airborne troops from Russia and India are already engaged in anti-insurgency maneuvers in the Thar Desert.
Foreign Ministers Khurshid Kasuri and Indian External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh met along with their delegations at the Pakistan Foreign Office and again one-on-one for several hours in Nathiagali. Both leaders deliberated at length on Jammu and Kashmir particularly on troops’ withdrawal from the Siachen Glacier but could come to no agreement on the issue. Some of the issues that the delegation level talks dwelt upon included peace and security, including CBMs, Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Wullar Barrage/Tulbal Navigation Project, Sir Creek, terrorism and drug trafficking, economic and commercial cooperation and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields.
Facing the media, before Natwar Singh flew in his private aircraft to Karachi, both the foreign ministers tried to put on a brave face while releasing a joint statement which said, “They have reiterated that possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be explored in a sincere, purposeful and forward-looking manner.” He reaffirmed their determination not to allow terrorism to impede the peace process and resolved to carry it forward and maintain its momentum. President Pervez Musharraf in his meeting with Natwar Singh emphasized the importance of addressing the substantive issues particularly Jammu and Kashmir and achieving tangible progress during the third round of the composite dialogue. The President stated that both countries should build an improvement in relations and the confidence that has evolved. For that the two countries have to approach the problems with sincerity, flexibility and boldness.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in his meeting with the Indian dignitary emphasised that progress on all areas of the composite dialogue should move in tandem and lead to early resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Prepared for the disappointment evident from the watered down joint statement, Kasuri made it a point to emphasize: “We need to have a mature outlook to be able to manage our disputes while trying to resolve them. In other words, we should be and we are engaged in a process of conflict management and conflict resolution.” To a query, Natwar Singh said both sides knew very well their positions on Jammu and Kashmir and this in itself was nothing new. “But what is important is that the atmosphere has changed and so let us not underestimate this. We have touched on all issues and we would like to discuss all these issues”, he said hinting that New Delhi was not averse to discuss all dimensions of the Jammu and Kashmir issue.
The resolution of the Siachen Glacier was one on which both sides exchanged concrete ideas as discussions would continue for reaching a common understanding. “We held discussions on concrete ideas to solve this issue and if there have been an agreement then it would have been included in the joint statement. It would be at this point counterproductive to give details but there has been a degree of understanding.” The joint statement said that the two sides exchanged ideas on the Siachen issue and agreed to continue their discussions so as to arrive at a common understanding before commencement of the next round of the composite dialogue in January next year.
Kasuri reiterated that all was not lost in the two days deliberations as on the issue of Sir Creek both sides agreed for the first time to consider options for the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two countries and to undertake joint survey of Sir Creek. “This should enable us to work for the resolution of this issue in a concrete manner”. But in reality it is very clear that the two sides will only “consider” these options and there is no firm commitment. Both sides agreed that the joint survey should commence before the end of the year and its report will be considered in the next round of the composite dialogue. “Ideas relating to the delimitation of the maritime boundary would also be addressed in the composite dialogue with a view to its early resolution”.
It appears from the joint statement that India is not backing off from the three-nation gas pipeline as it specifically mentions that the two ministers reiterated their commitment to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and agreed that this would contribute significantly to the prosperity and development of their countries. Pakistan and India also revived the Joint Commission and decided to restructure and streamline the work of the Joint Commission in the light of developments that have taken place since its last meeting in 1989. The next meeting of the Joint Commission will be preceded by technical level working groups on Agriculture, Health, Science and Technology, Information, IT and Telecommunication, and Environment and Tourism.
While India is carefully treading in spreading its chessboard to tame Pakistan on its terms, Islamabad needs to be extra careful in extending hands of friendship and come to accepting Indian demands only on equal terms. It looks that India is gaining time and in the course of time piling up arms and building up diplomatic relations with its friendly countries in order to take Pakistan to bowing before its desired diktats.
On the other hand India is trying to psychologically pressure Pakistan in the aftermath of earthquake. It is fabricating stories that Indian soldiers had crossed the Line of Control in Kashmir to help repair an army bunker. “This is totally fabricated and there is no question of any Indian soldier crossing the Line of Control”, chief military spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan told AFP. “Our fighting bunkers are completely intact because their construction is very robust,” he said. The army suffered its casualties in living accommodations far away from the LoC. However, the propaganda through Indian media is still going on. They say Indian soldiers crossed a bridge when a few Pakistani soldiers shouted for help to clear the debris.

How long audiences remain riveted to images emerging from a disaster?
Susan D. Moeller

We are again seeing photographs of bodies lined up so that relatives can come and claim them. The images of covered corpses, stunned faces, keening mothers, tumbled homes, nature awry are this time from Pakistan. We know that because of the clothes of the survivors, the mountains in the background and the fact that it is October. In August the global tragedy was Hurricane Katrina, and the bodies weren’t under rubble but floating obscenely in New Orleans’ toxic flood. In December the sprawled bodies in awkward, disconcerting color were the victims of the Asian tsunami.
The late critic Susan Sontag wrote that “atrocious images haunt us.’’ But “painful, stirring images supply only an initial spark.’’ How do we stay interested after the bodies have been recovered and the funerals are over, during the years-long process of recovery? The first week after Hurricane Katrina struck I fielded a number of calls from reporters around the United States who were worried: Was their audience going to turn away, tired of the misfortunes, exhausted from hearing only heartbreak? I told them what President Franklin D. Roosevelt had observed: “Individual psychology cannot, because of human weakness, be attuned for long periods of time to a constant repetition of the highest note in the scale.’’
For a few days or maybe even longer, audiences can be riveted to images emerging from a natural disaster. Such pictures are compelling in part because they suggest practical needs that the public can fill by donating to a charity. The media’s challenge is to get the audience beyond the simple initial horror and immediate reaction and somehow sustain attention for the complex follow-up story. It has turned out that many in the media have been up to that challenge. The hurricane and tsunami stories have taught lessons not only to governments and relief agencies, but to editors and reporters. Until this year, most observers in the media thought of natural disasters — hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions -— as “simple emergencies.’’
Simple emergencies call for a straightforward humanitarian response: The providing of food, shelter and medical supplies. Their duration is short-term, often measured in months. This all seemed to justify hit-and-run reporting: Cover the drama and leave the cleanup for the experts. Distinct from that in the jargon of disaster relief is the class of “complex emergencies,’’ man-made disasters in which humans are at fault: Civil war, ethnic cleansing, refugee migrations. Such emergencies demand not only humanitarian relief, but also social, political and even military attention. They typically drag on for years, even decades.
But the aftermaths of the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina have made abundantly clear that even in times of natural disasters it is not enough for relief operations to hand out water bottles and throw food parcels and tents off the back of a truck. The media seem to have learned that in today’s world there really is no such thing as a “simple emergency.’’ In the first few days of Hurricane Katrina, the US media covered the story as if it were just any old hurricane: Get your reporter live, with the whipping winds and flooded streets as a backdrop, to do a standup on just how bad this one is. No wonder the media were worried about compassion fatigue: The public had seen all of that many times before.
Then, embarrassingly, the media learned that they had been covering the wrong story. The story was not the broken levees, but why they were broken. The story was not how many people were left in New Orleans, but who was left in New Orleans. Since then, the story has been about the awarding of contracts and the coordination of recovery efforts among dozens of government agencies. The story also has been about the relief of man-made suffering and poverty and the exposure of entrenched brutality and corruption. I again began to field calls from reporters about compassion fatigue. This time the question to me was: How could the public be made to care about an earthquake a world away, even one that has killed tens of thousands? Horrible earthquakes in the past 10 years have killed thousands: Kobe, Japan; Izmit, Turkey; Bam, Iran. How could journalists get audiences to care about one more natural disaster?
The answer, of course, is that this newest global calamity is not just another “simple’’ disaster. It is a complex emergency that is, and will turn out to be, about much more than the obliteration of homes and schools and roads and bridges. The earthquake in Pakistan, like the hurricane in the Gulf Coast and the Asian tsunami, will be found to have shattered a government’s carefully erected constructions about the responsibility it takes for its citizens.

New initiatives in SAARC
Sobia Nasir
 
Pakistan would present new proposals and initiatives in the forthcoming South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit being held in Bangladesh in November this year to make the organization more effective and vibrant. This was stated by Pakistani Premier Shaukat Aziz, who is also the Chairman of SAARC. Pakistan is committed to extend full cooperation and assistance to the members of the SAARC for achieving the goals of development. Although the people living in the SAARC region had the potential but there is a need to utilize it in a better and organized way. The Pakistan Action Plan to implement SAARC Social Charter was a significant milestone in the short history of SAARC. The Charter would accelerate economic growth, social progress, and cultural development besides reducing poverty in the region as well as promoting welfare of the people through improvement in quality of life. It would also help to provide opportunities to all individuals to realize their full potential and underscore the commitment of Pakistan to work together with member states for the welfare and well-being of one-fifth of humanity living in South Asia. Pakistan’s commitment and devotion to implement SAARC Social Charter is in right direction and would provide strength to other regional partners as well. Appreciating the goals set in the Charter, PM Shaukat Aziz said that Pakistan would make all out efforts to meet and exceed these goals with a view to improve the living standard of the people in the country. The Pakistan Plan of Action articulates response to the SAARC Social Charter and it would focus on developing and maintaining social infrastructure, environment, socio-economic development etc.
The SAARC should be made more active to ensure progress and prosperity in the region for the benefit of one-fifth of the world population. The SAARC Secretariat should be broadened so that it could play an important role in promoting harmony, cooperation and assistance among the member states. The SAARC Secretariat needs more manpower to carry out programmes in an effective manner. Similarly, the SAARC Charter also needs to be modified. The SAARC Charter should also include the security-related issues hampering the peace and prosperity of the South Asian region for a long time.
Nations in South Asia share cultural, historic and social traditions and it is natural for them to join hands to address the economic and social needs of their peoples through the interaction of ideas, values and philosophies. However, there is an ample need to address the security-related bilateral issues in the SAARC Charter. At the moment, there is no such provision whereas, it should have been so as the SAARC provides the best forum whereby all the South Asian states gather at one point for the collective development of the region. The political, territorial disputes and water issues engulfing the South Asian countries should be discussed at priority.
The absence of discussion regarding security related bilateral issues in the SAARC Charter is mainly due to the ‘big brother’ India who does not want to discuss any other issue rather than the economic one in the SAARC summit. India aspires to become a regional economic giant. For this reason, India aims to derive maximum economic benefits from SAARC members. Having territorial, water and political disputes with all of its neighbouring states, India is not ready to utilize the forum for resolution of these conflicts.
It is high time India should realize the trouble it is creating by not solving bilateral disputes with its neighbouring countries of Nepal, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Bhutan, and Pakistan. Instead of implementing hegemony in the region and avoiding the settlement of border/ river disputes with its neighbours, Indian government should be wise and bold enough to come on table talks with all of her neighbouring states. India should not hesitate to negotiate outstanding disputes with SAARC members in the on-coming summit in November. Indian government should broaden up its perspective and adopt a flexible approach in this regard. In fact, the SAARC charter should include the discussion of bilateral issues between its member countries as it can provide an opportunity and suitable forum for resolution of bilateral disputes and achieving peace in South Asia.