|
« Curious omissions from the Olympic opening ceremony |
Blog Home Page
| Obama scrambling for a way out of KSM trial dilemma »
February 13, 2010 Pakistan agrees to talk, sort ofPakistan
has agreed to hold talks with India -- sort of. The office of
Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani released the following
statement. "It was decided that foreign secretary-level talks
between the two countries would be held on February 25 in New
Delhi." The statement came only three days after Pakistani
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi angrily rejected talks with India
and accused India of collaborating with the Taliban to de-stabilize
Pakistan. Sources here, however, are emphatic that "these will be
fruitless talks." The
reason for their skepticism is this: The request for talks came
out of Pakistan's giving aid and support to the Islamists responsible
for the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai. Surviving terrorists and
numerous intelligence sources stated that Pakistan provided logistical
and other forms of support for the attack and still provides them with
a safe haven where they are immune from facing justice. Like many
other Islamic Republics, Pakistan has tolerated and even supported the
growth and development of radical Islamist groups on its soil,
including the very Taliban forces that now threaten its national
existence. That
is why President Obama's policy that identifies open Islamists as our
target but assumes that the rest of the Pakistanis are our allies is,
in the most generous terms, misguided. The Pakistanis first
promised to cooperate with India, but have become increasingly
resistant to doing so. Talks were to be the solution until
Pakistan issued its provocative rebuke earlier in the week. But
Pakistan insisted that they cover a wide range of issue, especially
Kashmir. That was unacceptable to the Indians because the reason
for the talks, the Mumbai attack, would get lost in such a wide-ranging
agenda. Moreover, the very notion of these talks grew out of
Indo-Pak conflict over Mumbai. At
the same time, standing alongside Palestine Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas, Galyani said that "People of Palestine and Occupied Kashmir are
fighting for their just right of self-determination," a reference
clearly targeted at the Indians to equate the two issues on
international agendas. In today's announcement, Pakistan agreed
only to talks that cover "all core issues," especially Kashmir.
Although Indian representatives indicated that they would be open to
covering all issues," they are clear that they want Mumbai to be the
focus. In a backhanded compliment, not atypical of South Asian
politics, Indian Defense Minister A K Anthony said he would even make
sure the talks "would not be affected by increase in infiltration by
militants from across the border or Pakistan's failure to dismantle
terror groups operating from Pakistani soil." Observers
here also note that the Pakistanis made sure to fashion themselves as
peacemakers when US National Security Advisor James Jones was in the
capital of Islamabad. "The United States," one well-informed
Indian told me, "will do anything it can so Pakistan seems to be using
all of its might against the Taliban-although India is their real
target." He noted that "phony talks" like this only make things
worse because they give the Pakistanis the ability to pose as
reasonable people without taking any concrete action, "like what is
happening with the Iranians." He then added, "This only increases
{Indo-Pak] tensions because the issue of the [Mumbai] terrorists will
not go away. Even Indians who are always soft on Pakistan won't
give on this one."
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|