|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere |
| July 19, 2001 DESPITE AGRA 'FAILURE', MEDIA RELIEVED THAT LEADERS MET/WILL MEET AGAIN |
The "failed" summit meetings between
Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee and Pakistani President Musharraf generated
reams of commentary, mostly from the Indian Subcontinent. The majority of writers was relieved that,
although the leaders achieved "no significant breakthrough at Agra...they
[will] meet again and thrash out their concerns afresh." While others universally viewed the summit
against the backdrop of the Indo-Pak nuclear rivalry, Indian and Pakistani
editorialists concentrated, instead, on the thus-far intractable core issue of
Kashmir. Indian commentators
insisted that peace was impossible as long as Pakistan continued to support
"cross-border terrorists" carrying out a "proxy war"
against India in Kashmir. Pakistani
observers declared that a settlement would materialize only when the Indian
side realizes that "the key is not just Kashmir, but the Kashmiri people,
whose aspirations have to be satisfied." Salient
themes follow:
MEETING LOW EXPECTATIONS: Most editorialists, even
while acknowledging the "failure" of a summit at which "the two
sides couldn't agree on anything including a joint communiquT," felt that
Messrs. Vajpayee and Musharraf had shown "commendable courage" in
tackling bilateral issues face to face. They were credited with providing the foundation for "an edifice of
peace and tolerance that may take many years to build." From the outset, expectations for progress
at the summit were muted. Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau had asserted that the
parties "won't be able to achieve
the predicted 'breakthrough' in the 50 year old Kashmir conflict."
MISSING NUKES: Journalists from the
summit countries mentioned the nuclear dimension of the Indo-Pak rivalry only
in passing. Others, however, contended
that it was the nuclear question that lent such urgency to New Delhi-Islamabad
rapprochement. A Bangladeshi editorial
asserted that by "having made atomic bombs, Pakistan and India have raised
the stakes dangerously for the entire region." Similarly, London's independent Financial Times viewed the Agra Summit positively, as a
"sign that both countries are at last facing up to the awesome
responsibilities that their nuclear status entails."
TWO DAYS, TOO LITTLE TIME TO AGREE: While Indian and Pakistani writers reported that
the two sides came "very close to clinching an agreement" at Agra,
their analyses made it clear that a two
day summit couldn't bridge the "chasm...over the key issues of Kashmir and
cross-border terrorism." Editorials illustrated the parties' vastly different perceptions of
those issues. The centrist Indian
Express, for example, asserted that Pakistan would need to relinquish its
"main bargaining chip," i.e., its "support to cross-border
terrorism." Conversely, Pakistan's
second-largest paper, Nawa-e-Waqt, declared that "Pakistan should
give more patronage to jihad movements," since "India will not agree
to anything within the context of a dialogue unless it is brought under
pressure through jihad and diplomatic campaign."
EDITOR: Stephen Thibeault
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 50 reports from 11 countries, July 15-19. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region;
editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Life Beyond Agra"
The nationalist Hindustan Times ran this
by senior Congress leader and former External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh
(7/19): "The general had won the
media war and lost the diplomatic one. He sees life in black and white terms. No grey areas for him. You
either agree with you, or you don't. If
you don't, so much the worse for you. He failed to comprehend the depth and strength of our secular,
democratic polity. He has much to
learn. As for us, do we deserve this
meandering feebleness [of Indian officials], this leisurely incoherence, this
dissolving vision, this unforgivable diplomatic unpreparedness, this imprudent
reticence, this hazy grasp of reality? No, we don't. For heaven's sake
put up a better show at the next step of the steep Indo-Pak staircase. Keep the peace process alive and keep your
powder dry, Atalji. The road to peace
is narrow and slippery."
"Road To Peace"
The centrist Asian Age held (7/19): "The fact remains that the two leaders
might have appeared committed to the process, but their colleagues had second
thoughts which managed to end the two-day summit without even a written resolve
to meet again. The United States has
also come out in support of the summit and has taken a magnanimous view of the
end result, pointing out that the meeting itself was a major beginning. The two leaders will now have to ensure that
the future does not get eclipsed by the same issues that have kept the two
countries apart for over 50 years."
"Engaging Pakistan: After Agra"
Strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan commented
in the centrist Hindu (7/19): "The long-term success of India's engagement with Pakistan will
depend on a four-pronged strategy.... First, India needs to overcome the parity syndrome.... If India can lift itself up, it can get a
totally different perspective on Pakistan.... Second, India must always retain the initiative...in inviting Gen.
Musharraf, taking unilateral initiatives in the run up to the summit, and in
handling the outcome, India has shown a different temperament today. India has finally begun to discover the
value of taking unilateral steps that might help redefine the context of the
ties with Pakistan.... Third, India
needs to separate its Pakistan policy from emotionalism.... India should not expect dramatic advances in
its relationship with Pakistan. Instead, it must concentrate on a process of patient engagement that
would let one concrete step follow another. Finally, India needs to work with the broader global forces to transform
the relations with Pakistan. India has
a great advantage in letting the forces of globalization transform the economic
and political context of Indo-Pakistan relations. It is in India's strategic interest to promote regional economic
integration in the subcontinent and facilitate cross-border and trans-national
projects such as natural gas pipelines.... India needs to work closely with the major powers to prevent its
neighbor from heading down the path of a failed state. India alone does not have the power to
transform the internal dynamics of Pakistan. Only a cooperative endeavor between India and the major powers can
produce stable arrangements that will help Pakistan overcome its current
internal difficulties. A Pakistan at
peace with itself and its neighbors will dramatically transform the regional
situation."
"Kashmir At Breakfast, Lunch And
Dinner"
The centrist Pioneer ran this by former
Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan G. Parthasarthy (7/19): "New Delhi's approach in dealing with
General Musharraf has been both mature and
restrained. It is however important to ensure that restraint is not mistaken for
weakness across the border. Further, the diplomatic pressure on Pakistan needs
to be maintained as long as jihadi outfits operating from its territory, or
from Taliban controlled Afghanistan, continue to act with impunity, whether in
Kashmir, the Ferghana Valley or Chechnya. It would be nanve to believe that the optimism voiced after the summit
by Jaswant Singh in Agra, or by Abdul Sattar in Islamabad, is in any way going
to weaken the nexus between the ISI and the jihadi outfits they support."
"And So To The Sticking Points"
The centrist Telegraph ran this by
columnist Achin Vanaik (7/19): "We
will probably have to settle for the hope that more skilful diplomacy, a
greater sense of urgency on the part of the two governments, and stronger
public pressure/sentiment, can all combine to produce another modest step
forward. Maintaining this momentum may
then eventually lead to that self-questioning which alone can end the
self-righteous hypocrisies of both governments and much of their elite backing. That alone will bring about the conditions
in which a lasting, because just, peace for all, including Kashmiris, might be
forged."
"Open Strategy Of A Covert War"
The Mumbai edition of right-of-center Gujarati
daily Gujarat Samachar observed (7/19): "India has once again fallen prey to its old habit of acting first
and planning later even in as serious a matter as a summit meeting. India should be on its guard at least now,
with a frustrated Musharraf grappling with failed talks, and Hizbul Mujahiddin
giving a clarion call to its militants to step up violence across the
borders."
"Flogging A Dead Horse"
Mumbai-based, left-of-center Marathi daily Maharashtra
Times commented (7/19): "Despite the belated talks in both the Pakistani and Indian camps
of the two heads of state achieving a meeting of minds at the Agra summit, the
chasm between the two sides over the key issues of Kashmir and cross-border
terrorism has remained as wide as ever. What is then going to be achieved by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee
making another trip to Pakistan and repeating the history of failed talks? The horse is dead. But neither side has the courage to say so."
"The Elusive Extra Mile To Peace"
The centrist Hindu declared (7/18): "A positive spin preferred by India to
explain the slow collapse of the Agra summit is that Prime Minister...Vajpayee
and President Musharraf, have begun a new journey towards a peaceful resolution
of the differences between the two countries.... Shorn of all the evocative rhetoric and persuasive
rationalization, the sad story is that both Vajpayee and Musharraf allowed
themselves to remain unduly hostage to their known positions on the major contentious
issues--the status of Jammu and Kashmir and cross-border terrorism in the
State.... Their inability to craft
either a nuanced declaration of updated principles or a less ambitious joint
statement is certainly a matter of profound regret among the people on both
sides.... Avoidable indeed is the
blame-game of the type inherent in...[Indian] Defense Minister Singh's
spotlighting Pakistan's uni-focal' view of the Kashmir issue and the Pakistani
spokesmen's account of India moving away from an almost agreed text. A glimmer of hope...is the indication in
both New Delhi and Islamabad that Vajpayee may not go back on his acceptance of
Musharraf's invitation to visit Islamabad."
"Neither Success Nor Failure"
The nationalist Hindustan Times stated
(7/18): "Instead of moaning over
what did not happen in Agra...it might be better to regard it as neither a
success nor a failure.... In fact, the
references to a re-engagement made by both the sides point to the intention of
continuing the
dialogue.... So, it is not the end of the road for either country if only because
both seem to realize not only the urgency of a reconciliation but also the deep
desire for peace among the common people.... In contrast, the only people who will be pleased at the latest turn of
events are the hawks, especially in Pakistan who have been issuing warnings
against 'trusting' India and pledging to carry on their jihad.... At the moment, there is hardly any
dissenting voice among the major political parties in India on the initiative
taken by Vajpayee to reach out to Pakistan. In fact, Pakistanis, too, seem to admire him for his gestures.... There is reason to believe, therefore, that
the efforts for a rapprochement have not reached a dead end."
"Musharraf's Mindgames"
The centrist Indian Express asked
(7/18): "Why did General Pervez
Musharraf break the confidentiality of summit discussions on the last day? To every-one's amazement his breakfast with
Indian editors...was put on television even though it was supposed to be
off-the-record.... Perhaps to prove to his
own people that, contrary to what Sushma Swaraj had said, the Pakistani
delegation was giving nothing away. Perhaps it was because he felt he was not going to get all that he
wanted in Agra. However, there was one
definite benefit: the televised conference served an important public
information function.... For the first
time a Pakistani leader has spoken of 'solutions' to the Kashmir issue. He pretends to be perplexed by Indian word
games and says it does not matter whether Kashmir is called a dispute or an
issue. But he is being
disingenuous.... Perhaps most
revealing and significant from the point of view of breaking the stalemate on
Kashmir, is the difficulty Pakistani leaders have in banishing the ghosts of
history. Evidently some sort of special
effort is required by both sides to get rid of the ghost."
"After The Walk"
The centrist Indian Express commented
(7/18): "True, there was no
significant breakthrough at Agra, but it must be immediately underlined that
there was no breakdown either.... Thus,
the fact that they have parted to meet again and thrash out afresh their
concerns must unequivocally be declared a substantial gain.... At first glance the meeting point remains as
elusive as ever. A Pakistani assurance
on ceasing support to cross-border terrorism...would clearly reduce Islamabad's
main bargaining counter. India, for its
part, cannot even think of discussing Kashmir without highlighting the immense
damage being caused in the state on account of Pakistan-sponsored
violence. But if the Agra summit has a
lesson, it is this: persistent, patient dialogue can narrow down differences,
the expectation of equivalent return could lead to dramatic
compromises.... But it is a lesson that
will have been disastrously unlearned if India and Pakistan cease efforts at
cooperation till the next time their leaders summit."
"Life After Agra"
Pro-BJP Pioneer editorialized
(7/18): "The Agra summit was,
perhaps, predestined to failure. But it
is to be hoped that the unfortunate manner in which it concluded does not cast
a perpetual pall over Indo-Pakistan relations for the foreseeable
future.... Hopefully, Pakistan
President Pervez Musharraf will utilize the next few weeks to introspect and
ponder the damaging impact of his bellicosity on the summit's outcome.... Astonishingly, the astute general seemed to
nurse the delusion that while he could bamboozle India into conceding his
point, he could get away without accepting any responsibility for the
cross-border terrorism sponsored by him. By pitching his rhetoric so high, the general left himself no escape
route.... Presumably, the Pakistan
president shall now realize that this is no way to conduct international
diplomacy.... Before the two leaders
meet again, probably on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in
September, a great deal of groundwork would need to be done so that the next summit
delivers concrete results. However, no
serious progress is possible unless Pakistan reins in the jihadi forces on its
payroll."
"Offensive Spending"
Foreign Editor Pramit Pal Chaudhuri stated in an
analysis in the nationalist Hindustan Times (7/18): "Musharraf sees the Proxy War Machine
as a prized Pakistani asset. It
accomplishes its twin tasks of keeping Kashmir on the boil and consolidating
Islamabad's suzerainty over Kabul at little cost to the exchequer.... Even at Agra, the general stoutly defended
proxy war. A pet theme is that Kashmiri
militants are not terrorists but freedom fighters.... Musharraf does not want the Proxy War Machine shut down. It keeps India tied down. It keeps Kashmir alive as an issue. And it doesn't impinge on his economic
plans. Or so he continues to think
after returning to Islamabad."
"Agra's Balance Sheet"
The centrist Asian Age held (7/17): "A blame game has begun, couched though
it may be in polite syntax.... There
was agreement between the two sides of the crucial clause committing the two
countries to discussions on a settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir issue, and a
gap on how to deal with cross-border terrorism. It was the gap that defeated the agreement. Has nothing been achieved in Agra? Actually, more than might seem from the
headlines. India and Pakistan have
taken a crucial step forward by finalizing the clause on the Kashmir dialogue,
this by itself could have held up any summit for Heaven knows how long.... What they need to do now is to find a
resolution to India's concern about cross-border terrorism. This should not prove insurmountable for two
leaders who have enough goodwill between them to find a way forward on a
dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir.... The
Agra summit ended on a note that left some trace of hope. The last one-to-one between the two leaders,
a call by Musharraf on Vajpayee, should have strengthened the personal equation
between the two leaders at a time when it is going to be needed most. This was a first meeting between two men who
knew each other only by reputation. The
next meeting will be between two men who know each other far better. Perhaps that will bring the good news that
eluded the subcontinent this time."
"No Frustration, Let There Be Renewed
Efforts"
Left-of-center Calcutta Bengali Sangbad
Pratidin observed (7/18): "People of both India and Pakistan will earnestly want the
reciprocal animosity to come to an end and pray for a permanent solution. It is
for the political leaders to determine how that solution will be possible. They must at the same time keep in mind that
for both countries with millions of hungry people any war is just a
luxury. The first condition for letting
people survive is peace and to establish peace is the responsibility of the
leaders. The urge for peace is,
therefore, much more than emotion. Leaders of both countries should realize that for immediate steps that
are necessary. Otherwise, people will
never forgive them in future. Therefore, instead of failure of the summit, its success should be
highlighted to pave the way for future negotiations to ensure the
peace."
"Yes, Kashmir First"
K. Subrahmanyam wrote in the centrist Times
Of India (7/18): "In spite of
the failure to agree on a joint declaration, the Agra summit...was a distinct
move froward in the relationship between the two countries.... Pakistan, which by adopting military rule,
does not permit its citizens their basic democratic rights tries to project its
unconvincing concern for the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. This dual approach originates from the
Pakistani fixation on the two-nation theory. The general is new to politics and international diplomacy and he has to
learn both international and domestic politics. Therefore, India should persist in the process of re-engagement
it has begun and not allow the small setback at Agra to interrupt this
strategy."
"Pushed Off The Summit"
Mumbai-based, right-of-center Marathi daily Samna
editorialized (7/18): "One didn't
need an astrologer to predict that the India-Pakistan summit meeting was bound
to be a dismal failure.
Neither Pakistan nor India could have afforded
to compromise on their known official positions on the crucial issues of
Kashmir and the cross-border terrorism respectively, compulsions of their
domestic politics being what they are. General Musharraf resorted to
bluff and buster to negate each of India's genuine concerns on terrorist
violence in Kashmir, Indian prisoners-of-wars languishing in Pakistani jails
for the past 30 years and extradition to India of Pakistan-based Mafia dons and
terrorists responsible for the Mumbai bomb-blasts and the hijack of the Indian
Airlines plane at Kandahar. The
Pakistani dictator washed his hands over these issues by equating Kashmir
militants with the erstwhile freedom fighters of the Bangladesh, and blandly
denied the presence in Pakistan of either the Indian POWs or the
Mafia/terrorists wanted by the Indian authorities. If this was what happened at the summit, what were then Musharraf
and Vajpayee discussing for hours on end?"
PAKISTAN: "Sweeping Up"
The center-right Nation editorialized
(7/19): "Foreign Ministers Abdul
Sattar and Jaswant Singh have done a reasonably good job of sweeping the debris
of the collapsed Agra Summit under the carpet. It is reassuring to learn from the similarity of their basic messages
that the Summit did not break down irrevocably, and that whatever may have
transpired in Agra on Monday and on Tuesday in Islamabad and New Delhi, both
countries are intent on taking a positive view of events.... With hindsight, the Agra Summit was perhaps
doomed not to produce an agreement. Two
days was probably not enough to produce an agreement on Kashmir.... There is no easy solution to the Kashmir
issue, and it requires great wisdom and statesmanship on the Indian side to
realize that the key is not just Kashmir, but the Kashmiri people, whose
aspirations have to be satisfied. Hopefully...Mr. Vajpayee and his colleagues reach that realization."
"Summit's Domestic Fallout"
An op-ed by Syed Talat Hussain in Karachi-based,
independent national Dawn asserted (7/19): "The two sides came very close to clinching an agreement but
then moved apart, going back to their traditional positions. In the midst of the vows to meet again and
keep talks going lies the hard fact that Agra has little to show for itself by
way of tangible foreign policy results. For the time being, attention has to be focused on the failed summit's
domestic impact.... Agra is unique in
the sense that it does not have any substantive effect on General Musharraf's
position at home. His domestic
challenges and tasks are not any tougher or easier in the wake of the Agra
summit. The opposition to his rule is
not any stronger now than it was before he left for Agra.... There is little advantage that the
opposition has gained out of the Agra debacle. At home he is still the man in charge because in Agra he gained nothing
and lost nothing."
"The Jaswant And Sattar Versions"
Nasim Zehra observed in the centrist national News
(7/19): "The meeting at Jaypee
Hotel, which lasted 85 minutes, was the only time when Musharraf and Vajpayee
met completely alone. They were even
without note-takers. The two reportedly
had a very candid exchange of views and finally emphasized the necessity to
continue to work towards improving relations."
"Agra Summit: It Was Kargil 2"
Zahid Malik wrote in the rightist,
English-language Pakistan Observer (7/19): "After witnessing the high-tension parleys during my six-day
stay first in New Delhi and then at Agra, I would categorically say that the
Summit was a resounding success from Pakistan's point of view. It was in fact Kargil-2, in the sense that
while the daredevil action of the Mujahideen groups in 1999 inflicted a big
jolt to India and reactivated the Kashmir issue, the superb performance of
General Musharraf during his three-day tour of India has given a new impetus to
the dispute both at bilateral and international levels."
"Agra Dialogue: Maneuvers to Tone Down
Failure Impact"
Second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt
editorialized (7/19): "The
dialogue can be described as useful in the sense that for three to four days it
brought world-wide attention of the Kashmir dispute. The Indian people came to know about their government's
atrocities in Kashmir and they realized Pakistan's stand on the Kashmir
dispute.... If General Musharraf keeps
on saying that the dialogue process has gone ahead, it will be like giving
India breathing space to attack Pakistan anew and try to push it into
diplomatic isolation."
"Full Story of Inconclusive Dialogue"
An op-ed by Mujibur Rehman Shami in pro-Muslim
League Pakistan stated (7/19): "General Musharraf was not a commander of a defeated army nor were
his POWs in Indian clutches. Going back
on the declaration was not an obligation for the General. This is the point that Indian extremists
could not understand. They thought that
the General would fear returning empty-handed and would thus agree on an
imprecisely worded declaration.... However, General Musharraf and Abdul Sattar returned, without breaking
the dialogue process, leaving a bewildered India behind."
"Demonstration Of Rationality"
Popular Din opined (7/19): "The deliberate efforts by Pakistan and
India to minimize the negative fallout of the culmination of the Agra
conference is encouraging and is a demonstration of the resolve to end the rift
between the two countries.... Today
India needs a leadership that could rescue its people from emotionalism and
show them reason."
"Failure Of Agra Summit"
An editorial in the Karachi based right-wing pro
Islamic unity Urdu daily Jasarat held (7/18): "The
failure of the Agra Summit between the leaders of India and Pakistan has added to the tension and
strained relations between the two countries. We have once again reached the verge of war because now the
jihad in Kashmir will be further
intensified; both sides will accuse each other for the failure of the talks and a media war will be launched. This will occur despite the fact that both leaders sincerely wanted to lead
the negotiations in success and they
had developed an understanding at a personal level. Yet the
extremist elements in the BJP headed by L. K. Advani and the bureaucracy succeeded in sabotaging Vajpayee's peace initiative."
"Agra Dialogue Failure"
An editorial in the pro-Muslim League Urdu daily
Pakistan said (7/18): "Congratulations to President General Musharraf for upholding
Pakistan's principled stand. The
decision to meet All Parties Hurriat Conference was also a positive
one.... Indian external affairs
minister Jaswant Singh's statement is encouraging in that Prime Minister
Vajpayee's visit to Pakistan still stands and that the non-declaration of a
joint communiquT did not mean failure
of the dialogue.... The Agra dialogue's
failure has provided us with the argument that the Kashmir dispute cannot
be resolved without the interference
and mediation of the UN or another third party. We should start convincing the world in this respect."
An 'Inconclusive' Summit"
An editorial in the Peshawar-based, independent,
Frontier Post held (7/18): "President General Musharraf's departure from Agra was in
sharp contrast to the manner of his
arrival.... The interaction between
President Musharraf and Prime Minister
Vajpayee appears to have been largely positive but failed to move the process to even a minimum satisfactory
conclusion. This interaction is
scheduled to resume on the sidelines of the UN General Sessions Assembly
in New York in September, and the invitation to
Mr. Vajpayee to visit Pakistan later
this year still stands.... The situation is fraught with new risks. One such
risk is that the tensions along the LoC and the freedom fighters' actions inside Indian-held Kashmir may
escalate in the days ahead."
"Bang & Whimper At Agra"
An editorial in the Karachi-based, independent
national Dawn said (7/18): "One only hopes that the intense disappointment the two sides
are now feeling will give way to some
pragmatism. After all, the sentiments
in favor of peace, stability and
cooperation, which were expressed by the leaders of India and Pakistan during the weekend, cannot be brushed
aside as mere wishful.... This is also
a time when a new pattern of global politics is emerging as China and Russia join in a friendship treaty. In
this situation, it is not wise for
India and Pakistan to remain locked in their decades-old confrontational posture."
"Agra Dialogue Failure"
Second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt
editorialized (7/18): "The failure
of the Agra dialogue has upheld the view that India will not agree to anything
within the context of a dialogue unless it is brought under pressure through
jihad and diplomatic campaign.... The
logical result of this situation should be Pakistan giving more patronage to
jihad movements and launch a diplomatic campaign to apprize the world about the
Indian character."
"U.S. Concern Over Agra Talks Failure"
Sensationalist Khabrain held (7/18): "The Bush administration had high hopes
of the Agra dialogue.... Its having
expressed concern over the dialogue's failure is a good omen, provided America
helps in resolving the Kashmir dispute in keeping with the UN
resolutions."
"Hopes Remain Alive"
Islamabad's rightist, English-language Pakistan
Observer commented (7/18): "All said and done, Foreign Ministers of both India and Pakistan
have once again raised hopes for the continuation of a peace dialogue and, as
for Jaswant's announcement, Vajpayee will be visiting Pakistan at a mutually
agreed upon date. It is hoped that
better sense will prevail upon the Indian Prime Minister in parting ways with
his government's rigid stance on certain issues. This particularly relates to providing the Kashmiris with an
opportunity for attaining their right of self-determination through UN
resolutions that call for a free and fair plebiscite in the held
Valley.... Better that India fulfills
her promises made from time to time vis-a-vis Kashmir at the earliest so that
Mr. Vajpayee...can stand with his head held high in the comity of civilized
nations."
BANGLADESH: "Good Tidings Gone Sour"
The independent, English-language Bangladesh
Observer commented (7/18): "Nobody could deny that dialogue is the best way to defuse
political tension in the region. It has
in fact become an imperative in today's nuclear environment, for, after having
made atomic bombs, Pakistan and India have raised the stakes dangerously for
the entire region. Efforts at nuclear
risk reduction therefore featured prominently at the summit. But on the key issue of Kashmir, over which
the two countries have a long-standing dispute, the leaders failed to reach a
mutually acceptable mechanism to end bloodshed and bad faith. Letting the Kashmir conflict continue to
fester is in nobody's interest. A
mechanism to solve all outstanding issues should be allowed to evolve steadily,
and the nay-sayers in both countries should be effectively neutralized through
concerted campaigns. Enlightened
self-interest demands it. The region's
attention and resources should rightly be concentrated on enhancing the lives
of the teeming millions, rather than wasted in the build-up of military might."
"The Summit Failed, Heralding A Watershed"
The independent, English-language Daily Star
opined (7/18): "Although the
summit could not iron out the differences between the two nations, it heralded
a watershed. In an environment of
regional unpredictability and tension, the summit could be seen as a modest
investment in creating mutual confidence and trust in their relationships. The meeting was an effort to rebuild
bilateral ties on the basis of realism. It may not have changed the psychology and the balance of Indo-Pakistan
relations. But it was a step in the
long process of negotiations between the two sides. Many analysts suggested that the domestic positions of the two
leaders could provide the best hope for a solution of the difficult and sensitive
issue. However, there seemed to be an
irony in the whole story, because the Kashmiri people who are the subject of
the dispute did not have their say at the meeting."
"Fruits Of The Agra Summit"
Independent, vernacular Jugantor
commented (7/18): "The
Vajpayee-Musharraf summit did not succeed. This is no surprise. The summit
cannot be termed a failure because no consensus was achieved on the joint
communiquT. The only alternative for a
cessation of hostility in the subcontinent is an agreement between India and
Pakistan. Will the people of this
region continue to sigh, looking at the globalization process and toward
Europe? The Indian and Pakistani
leaders will have to move forward along with the tension in the
area."
"Agra Summit"
The centrist, English-language Independent commented
(7/15): "The ice is showing signs
of melting, though it is not known precisely what the landmark summit between
the two leaders will produce in concrete terms. It is perhaps not logical to expect everything to be cleared up
in three rounds of talks, particularly if we consider the complicated nature of
the Kashmir imbroglio, which Pakistan wants to be the focal point of the
talks. It is up to New Delhi and
Islamabad to decide how they will set about the rather daunting task of finding
a mutually acceptable solution to the problem, but there is no doubt that
Kashmir is a flash point, which could push the two countries to war once
again. The danger has been multiplied
by the fact that both the countries have acquired nuclear weapons, and the
global community is worried about the situation."
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Aggro In
Agra"
According to the liberal Guardian
(7/18): "In truth, the Agra summit
between the leaders of India and Pakistan represented a modest advance, a
footing for an edifice of peace and tolerance that may take many years to
build. The immediate danger is that
hardliners on all sides of the Kashmir conflict will find in this lack of
concrete progress a justification for expanded violence.... The two countries' agreement to keep
talking, at the highest level, must be honoured. In the meantime, confidence-building measures of the kind
undertaken before the summit began should be pursued. For habitual antagonists India and Pakistan, addicted to enmity
and hooked on hate, mutual rehabilitation means taking one step at a time. Not that General Pervez Musharraf was wrong
in pushing for self-determination in Kashmir, as proposed by the UN. There is no other long-term solution. But he pushed too hard, too publicly. Nor was India wrong in insisting that
Pakistan rein in the militants. But it
has a duty to keep its own soldiers and police in check, too. More bloodshed is in neither country's
interest. More talking is."
"Agra Talks"
The independent Financial Times declared
(7/17): "When India and Pakistan turned
nuclear, south Asia entered a disturbing new era. Mercifully, there are signs that both countries are at last
facing up to the awesome responsibilities that their nuclear status
entails.... The leaders of India and
Pakistan have shown commendable courage in talking peace in Agra in recent
days--in spite of running into problems at the last minute. It is now vital that both leaders argue the
case domestically for sustained engagement and build a real constituency for
peace. The United States has played a
discreet and useful role in bringing the two sides together. Washington appears to have persuaded the
Indian leadership that its country will never be recognised as a great world
power until it lives in peace with its neighbors.... For its part, Pakistan desperately needs greater economic success
and recognition if it is to hold together as a country. A peace deal would bolster Gen Pervez
Musharraf's claims to international respectability.... A first step would be for Pakistan to stop
supporting extremist elements within Kashmir. In turn, India should seek to mollify the local population while
steadily demilitarising the region. It
is a slender hope, perhaps, but a hope nonetheless."
"Kashmir Is The Key"
The conservative Daily Telegraph
editorialized (7/17): "Mr Vajpayee's
irenic initiatives should not detract from the validity of Gen Musharraf's
insistence that Kashmir's future be recognised as the crucial bilateral
question. From that, future talks and
confidence-building measures, from troop reductions to trade and cultural
exchanges, can flow. Without it, there
is no sure basis for peace.... Fortunately, the two leaders are due to meet again, for the drain on each
of continued enmity is grievous. India's economy is better able to bear it than Pakistan's, but, by
encouraging the guerillas, Islamabad can pin down indefinitely a
350,000-400,000 Indian military and paramilitary force in Kashmir without much
cost to itself. Such an impasse demands
a political settlement."
GERMANY: "The Sub-Continent After Agra"
Dietrich Alexander argued in right-of-center Die
Welt of Berlin (7/18): "The
greatest enemies against an agreement at the Indian-Pakistani talks did not sit
at the negotiating table. Indian and
Pakistani extremists who now see their views confirmed that only an armed
conflict will result in a settlement of the conflict. The tone of the conflict was influenced on domestic
constellations in both countries.... What remains of the meeting between the two countries? We heard that India's leader accepted the
invitation for a visit to Pakistan. And
of course, both sides are committed to peace, dialogue, and friendship. Empty words, for sure. But Agra was important for Kashmir and
global peace, because two nuclear powers are facing each other.... Ten hours of joint talks took place in Agra,
too little for a breakthrough but enough for a beginning.... A policy of small steps could bring a
solution for Kashmir. For Vajpayee,
this would be the crowning of his career, and for Musharraf the successful
change from a military official to a politician."
"Blockade In The Kashmir Conflict"
Business-oriented Financial Times Deutschland
of Hamburg stated (7/18): "Again a
Kashmir summit failed.... They all
began with great hopes...and they all failed because both sides were unwilling
to give in even an inch. Because it is
not foreseeable that bilateral talks will end this deadlock, the leaders of the
two countries should ask of international mediation and UN peacekeeping
forces. For a long time, the Kashmir
conflict has been more than a regional conflict. Since India and Pakistan have become nuclear powers, Kashmir is
not only in the eyes of ex-president Clinton 'the most dangerous nation in the
world.' But we cannot dispute the two
leaders' will for peace, but both have to show consideration for hardliners in
their own camps.... A more intense
dialogue and increased pressure could help liven up the bogged down
situation."
"Status Quo Would Be Indian Triumph And
Pakistani Humiliation"
Centrist Stuttgarter Zeitung opined
(7/17): "Everything that looks
like a recognition of the status quo would be an Indian triumph and a Pakistani
humiliation. Even though Islamabad
controls a part of Kashmir, the biggest part of the region remains under
India's sovereignty. But both sides
deliberately ignore that the majority of Kashmiris want their own independent
state. Hopes for the beginning of a
peace process turned out to be premature. It has become clear that friendly words and gestures are unable to
create a stable or even friendly relationship. But the failure of the Agra
summit need not mean the end of the talks between India and Pakistan."
"West Worries About Islamabad-Kabul, Islamabad-Tehran
Alliances"
Right-of-center Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten
judged (7/17): "In the background,
and this does not make things any easier, is, unfortunately, a conflict between
two great world religions. A military
escalation of the conflict would result in the formation of new alliances or
consolidate alliances in which nobody can have any interest. For instance, a strengthening of relations
between Islamabad and the Taleban in Kabul or even a rapprochement between
Pakistan and Iran. That is why the West
has a great interest in avoiding new tensions between India and Pakistan. And the West would be well-advised to
support fully the attempts of finding an understanding between the two
countries, if not for reasons of love of its neighbor, then for reasons of
egotism."
"Nice Beginning"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau
opined (7/16): "The state leaders
and the other delegation members will not be able to achieve the predicted
'breakthrough' in the Kashmir conflict that is more than 50 years old. The talks can help remove barriers, while
the conflict of interests will remain. The usefulness of the meeting in Agra must be seen in a different
context. Both nations are young,
nuclear powers which are still about to learn how to rein in on their
destructive potential. Other conflicts
demonstrated that it is useful to build up links for talks and
negotiations. The exchange of nice
words can be a beginning. No
more."
RUSSIA: "Failure
Casts Dark Shadow On South Asia"
Reformist Vremya MN remarked in a
page-one commentary by Vladimir Skosyrev (7/18): "The failed summit has cast a dark shadow on South
Asia. The main thing now is not to name
the guilty party but to avert a new spiral of tension between the two
countries."
"Gap Too Big"
Aleksandr Timofeyev declared in reformist Vremya
Novostei (7/16): "Any attempt at reconciliation
is welcome, of course. But the
positions are so wide apart that trying to bring them closer together
appreciably is useless. Instead,
Musharraf may get the Indians to discuss greater autonomy and demilitarization
in Kashmir.... Being in full control of
his country's government and army, Musharraf can well implement that plan, not
fearing a stab in the back from conservative forces."
HUNGARY: "Kashmir Labyrinth"
Foreign affairs writer Orsolya Ruff noted in
conservative Magyar Nemzet (7/18): "There are some who fear that the
relationship of the two nuclear powers (or the soon to be) is going to further
deteriorate, a circumstance that could be quite alarming also to the
international community. One of the
goals of the Agra summit would have been to outline some kind of a timetable
for settling the dispute over the status of Kashmir. Fortunately, despite the failure of the Agra summit, the
diplomatic channels are still open and it can be hoped that the conflict is not
going to escalate."
SPAIN: "The Kashmir Obstacle"
Independent El Mundo held (7/18): "When two young nuclear potentials are
not able to settle their sour disagreements, the international community has a
reason to be worried.... Nevertheless,
there are reasons to believe that the territorial dispute will not end in a
nuclear cataclysm.... Vajpayee and
Musharraf are conscious of the benefits of strengthening their commercial links
and the vital importance of promoting the mutual confidence of their
citizens. For that reason, the
Islamabad government should put its market at its neighbor's disposal and, what
is more important, give authentic signs that it does not train, finance or
support the Islamic guerrilla groups that operate in Kashmir. New Delhi, on its part, has the
responsibility of appeasing a mainly Muslim Kashmir population and initiating
the process of demilitarization in the area. It would be very grave for the entire world if these first timid steps
toward peace between two nuclear rivals, who have refused to sign the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, were not successful."
SWITZERLAND: "Stable Relations Depend On Reality, Not Symbolism"
Markus Spillmann, foreign editor of respected,
center-right Neue Zuercher Zeitung held (7/17): "Without a resolution to the Kashmir
conflict, no genuine reconciliation between India and Pakistan is
possible. The largest concessions may
have to come from India.... Stable
relations between the two atomic powers will ultimately depend, not on symbolic
exchanges, but on the realities in place on either side of the ceasefire
line.... It is good that Islamabad and
Delhi have rediscovered the possibility of dialogue, although it scarcely means
that they are speaking the same language."
EAST ASIA
AUSTRALIA: "Optimism On Kashmir Diplomacy"
An editorial in the liberal Canberra Times
held (7/17): "It would have been
too much to expect a wide-ranging, all-embracing agreement to come out of these
talks. In particular, it would have
been naive to imagine that there would have been agreement over the disputed
territory of Kashmir.... It will take a
mighty diplomatic effort to bridge the gap between those polar positions. The talks in the past couple of days are at
least a starting point.... There is
still a long way to attaining a settlement in Kashmir, but present signs
indicate some cause for optimism."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "Indian-Pakastani Summit Fails"
Pro-government Al Ahram editorialized
(7/19): "The summit ended in a
major failure. The two sides failed to
agree on anything including a joint communiquT.... In view of the historic animosity between India and Pakistan,
major progress on the issues under negotiation (was not to be expected).... There are a dozen differences and serious
arms race between them.... The public
opinion in each country looks at the relationship with the other as an issue of
national security and pride.... The
failure of the summit was expected but not to the extent of failure to issue a
joint communiquT.... This summit
reveals the depth of the dispute and enmity between the two countries as well
as the lack of willingness to even calm the situation."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
