Hopes for Peace Still Alive in the Subcontinent

by M.M. Ali

Earlier this year many thought sanity had prevailed in the subcontinent when two new prime ministers, Inder Kumar Gujral of India and Mian Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan, agreed to resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations. But then India, according to American intelligence reports, deployed nuclear-capable, medium-range Prithvi ballistic missiles on Pakistan's borders, putting almost all major Pakistani cities at risk.

No wonder U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) rushed to ask President Clinton to appoint an emissary to mediate between India and Pakistan to help resolve the endemic Kashmir dispute "the way he has appointed an envoy to mediate between Turkey and Greece on the Cyprus question."

Pakistan lodged a protest against India and Pakistani Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub warned the Indian action could trigger a renewed arms race in the subcontinent. India denied that it had deployed the missiles. Some 10 years ago the United States let it be known that its space technology gave it the capability of reading the license plates of cars moving on the streets of Moscow. Today, it is no secret that U.S. satellites orbiting the earth can monitor movements anywhere on the planet. Despite denials, photographs do not lie.

Nor is it in the U.S. interest to compromise the credibility of India by such a disclosure, especially when the two nuclear-capable countries were returning to the table to resolve long-standing issues, particularly over Kashmir, through peaceful negotiations. So why would New Delhi do what it is accused of doing?

There are several ways of looking at India's action. Yes, it has agreed to hold talks with Pakistan on all issues, including Kashmir. First-round parleys at secretarial, foreign ministerial and prime ministerial levels already have taken place, and the second round started on June 19th. By so doing, Gujral has provided evidence of his willingness to work out India's differences with Pakistan peacefully, and by putting Kashmir on the agenda he has made it clear that there are no exclusions.

This stance, however fair in the eyes of the world, has evoked the ire of the Bharatya Janata Party (BJP), India's largest political party, and his young United Front coalition government looks threatened.

By deploying Prithvi missiles on Pakistan's borders, Gujral tells Sharif that although he would rather talk than fight, the two options are not mutually exclusive. His equally clear message to his own countrymen, and particularly to the BJP, is that New Delhi intends to engage in talks with Pakistan but keep its gunpowder dry. A desire for peace, Gujral indicates, should not be interpreted as India's weakness. Another purpose may be to draw out Islamabad to acknowledge possession of the M-11 missiles that it is alleged to have received from China to assuage its own public's fears. Will Pakistan take the bait? Probably not.

A renewed arms race between the two impoverished nations, India and Pakistan, can only exacerbate the economic hardships of the people of both countries and imperil the peace of the region as never before. It is sad but true that the subservience of foreign policy to domestic politics is not limited to the multicultural United States. However, letting short-term domestic considerations dictate missile diplomacy is a very dangerous game to play anywhere, and more so in an area where relations are governed not by understanding but by deep distrust as is the case with India and Pakistan.

These two countries with their teeming millions, most of whom live well below the poverty level, need to concentrate on the eradication of poverty, disease, illiteracy and the development of an infrastructure that can sustain the long-term needs of their peoples. Even expenditures on conventional weapons can cause these countries to make difficult and near suicidal choices.

Whatever the domestic political dividends, deployment of missiles into the subcontinent's half-century-old rivalry brings serious risks and could quickly threaten the peace of the region and of the world. The Kashmir dispute has been described as "a tinder box" that is capable of setting off a major conflagration. With that sensitive issue just put on the table, it is ill-advised to introduce the missile element.

India-Pakistan Talks

If one talks to Indian or Pakistani leaders separately, and especially when they are speaking "off the record," one often encounters realism and even reasonableness. For example, it is reported "on good authority" that when Indian Prime Minister Gujral and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif met in May at the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) conference in the Maldives, they spoke to each other in Punjabi, their mutual mother tongue, although it is not the national language of either of the countries they represent, and even engaged in some colloquial banter, displaying a sudden meeting of cultures, if not of minds.

A significant development in the resumption, after a long lull, of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan is the appointment of "working groups" (task forces) on issues like Kashmir, Saichin, trade, travel, release of civilian detainees, cultural exchanges, etc., to help clear the clouds of mistrust that have mired India-Pakistan relations for years.

Touting the "friendly" environment in which the Gujral-Sharif talks were conducted in the Maldives, Pakistani Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub, during his recent "working visit" to Washington, said: "The two leaders overwhelmed the SAARC meeting." Taking credit for opening up to Indians, Gohar Ayub remarked that his Muslim League government could do it without any political fallout because of the mandate that the people of Pakistan had given to his party by returning it with a vast majority in the national elections that were completed in February. He acknowledged that resolution of the Kashmir dispute may not be at hand, but felt that relations with India could be eased on other issues.

"Kashmir, however, remains the main problem and will have to be tackled without further delay," he added. The Pakistani foreign minister expressed confidence in India's Gujral and hoped that the "working groups" will pave the way toward normalization of bilateral relations. The setting up of a hot line between the two prime ministers is yet another example of their willingness to keep in touch to avoid crises. The reported deployment of Prithvi missiles on Pakistan's borders is a reminder, however, that there is still a long way to go for the two countries to live in peace and harmony.

Not to be totally left out of the developments in South Asia, the increasingly irrelevant U.S. State Department issued a statement that said: "We are working with the governments of India and Pakistan to prevent a deployment of ballistic missiles by either country [which would be] fundamentally contrary to the recent good progress made in their relationship."

Pakistan-U.S. Relations

Speaking at the annual dinner organized by the Pakistan-American Congress (PAC) on Capitol Hill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) observed: "Pakistan has been not only a friend but an ally of the United States from the day of its birth 50 years ago." The more than 25 U.S. senators and representatives who showed up at the PAC meeting agreed that it was blatantly unfair to Pakistan that the United States will neither deliver the F-16 aircraft ordered by Pakistan nor return the $658 million Pakistan paid for them because of restrictions imposed by the Pressler Amendment. Visiting Pakistani foreign minister Gohar Ayub was asked repeatedly what the Pakistan government proposes to do about the deadlock.

Gohar expressed the hope that the U.S. would find a buyer for the F-16s that have been sitting in Arizona for several years and provide the money paid for them to Pakistan. The U.S. had hoped to sell the planes to Indonesia, until Jakarta pulled out of the deal on June 4 as a reaction to U.S. allegations of "human rights violations" in Indonesia and negative U.S. comments on recent elections held in Indonesia, when the majority of ruling Golkar party candidates were declared elected.

Whether the U.S. can find another buyer is doubtful, although Slovakia at one time expressed some interest in F-16s. In the meantime, the Pakistani foreign minister has begun consultations with lawyers about seeking redress in the courts because the statute of limitations on the case expires in February 1999.

According to some legal authorities, the U.S. government was wrong in the first place in agreeing to a sale of arms and aircraft to Pakistan while the Pressler Amendment was in place. President Clinton is on record admitting the unfairness to Pakistan in the matter. Remarked Congressman Dale Kildee (D-MI) at the PAC dinner: "The time lapse of more than six years has shown that Pakistan can live without the F-16s It could probably find a better use for the money, especially now that it is monetarily strapped."