Pakistan's compulsions

Although sanctions have pushed Pakistan close to an economic collapse, Islamabad is compelled to emphasise the linkage between its decision on the CTBT and that of New Delhi.

AMIT BARUAH
in Islamabad

THE United States wanted a positive statement from Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on adhering to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Sharif was as "positive" as his domestic circumstances allowed him, during his September 23 address to the United Nations General Assembly.

For Pakistan, September 23 also yielded an agreement between Sharif and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on picking up the threads of the snapped dialogue at the Foreign Secretaries level. A joint statement was issued by the two countries, setting out the modalities for the dialogue, which has been in limbo since September 1997.

Sharif made it clear to the U.N. General Assembly that Pakistan would adhere to the Treaty well ahead of the September 1999 deadline if the coercive measures taken by the West in the wake of its May nuclear tests were lifted. "Pakistan's adherence to the Treaty will take place only in conditions free from coercion or pressure," he said.

DOUG MILLS/AP
Nawaz Sharif meets U.S. President Bill Clinton at the U.S. mission to the U.N. in New York.

Sharif maintained that his country had "consistently supported" the conclusion of a CTBT for over 30 years. "We voted for the Treaty when it was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1996," he recalled, and added, "We have declared a moratorium on nuclear testing; so has India." "There is no reason," said Sharif, "why the two countries cannot adhere to the CTBT." In a nuclearised South Asia, the CTBT would have relevance if Pakistan and India were both parties to the Treaty, Sharif said.

The linkage between any decision of Pakistan on the CTBT with that of India needs to be noted. Unlike India, which has concerns beyond Pakistan, Pakistan cannot snap that umbilical cord which links its actions with that of India. Pakistan declared some time ago that it had delinked its stand on the Treaty with that of India, but not all the links in the chain have been broken.

Sharif said: "In this regard (adherence to the CTBT), we expect that the arbitrary restrictions imposed on Pakistan by multilateral institutions will be speedily removed. We also expect that discriminatory sanctions against Pakistan will be lifted. And we count on the full support of the world community for a just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute."

"On the nuclear issue," Sharif said, "Pakistan will insist on the principle of equal treatment with India, be it in terms of status or any kind of incentives." The Prime Minister said that "it must also be understood that if India were to resume nuclear testing, Pakistan would review its position and, "in case we have adhered to the CTBT, invoke the supreme interests clause as provided under Article 9 of the Treaty."

Pakistan is in a none-too-happy position in its discussions on the CTBT. A package to rescue its flagging economy has been directly linked to the U.S' non-proliferation goals. Analysts in Pakistan have contended that by making this linkage, Islamabad has not only put its security at risk but lost room to manoeuvre.

Shortly after U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott met Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad in July, Pakistan agreed to drop its objections to commencing negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in Geneva. In turn, the U.S. allowed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to begin talks with Pakistan on an economic rescue package.

Given its outstanding debt of some $32 billion and foreign exchange reserves of under $1 billion, Pakistan has had to do some quick thinking on adhering to the CTBT in exchange for the resumption of IMF and other multilateral assistance.

On the domestic front, the Sharif Government fears a backlash from the religious right if it signs the CTBT. It was with this in mind that Sharif convened a joint session of Parliament to secure the support of Opposition parties before he went to New York to meet Bill Clinton and address the General Assembly. The Opposition, however, refused to oblige: it boycotted the session. So, Sharif had to say it on his own.

The United States has many other items on its non-proliferation agenda. Getting India and Pakistan to sign and ratify the CTBT is only a small advance towards its larger goal.

The U.S. wants India and Pakistan to refrain from weaponising their nuclear capability or deploying the ballistic missiles each is working on; halt the production of fissile material; participate in the discussions on the FMCT in Geneva; sign the CTBT without delay; make a formal pledge not to share nuclear technology with other nations; and agree on a solid framework to deal with their mutual differences, including the differences on Kashmir. A sustained bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan is also being actively promoted by the U.S. as part of this agenda.

Presumably, the September 23 agreement between India and Pakistan on operationalising the mechanism to discuss the eight issues identified in the joint statement of June 23, 1997 is a step towards this "solid framework".

Although neither country will admit it, the U.S. is pushing both to the negotiating table, with peace and security, besides Kashmir, on top of the agenda. For Pakistan, the New York agreement on resuming talks at the Foreign Secretaries' level is, therefore, a welcome development. The remaining six issues of Siachen, the Tulbul navigation project, Sir Creek, terrorism and drug-trafficking, economic and commercial cooperation and promotion of friendly exchanges will be taken up separately in November.

Washington, which believes that confidence-building measures are necessary to reduce nuclear tensions in the subcontinent, is also keen that New Delhi finally gets down to a substantive discussion on the Kashmir issue.

The bilateral track is important because Washington knows that India will not agree to anything else. The New York agreement is a major achievement for Pakistan, because it has maintained since June this year that priority should be attached to the twin issues of Kashmir and peace and security, identified in the June 23, 1997 joint statement.

A Foreign Office spokesman said on September 26: "The categoric(al) reference to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a joint statement at the level of the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, perhaps for the first time in a quarter century, is a welcome development." He said that the resumption of the dialogue, particularly on Jammu and Kashmir, "in a specific and substantive manner, as desired by us, reflects the success of our stand for nearly 15 months now."

Pakistan is equally keen to secure the involvement of the international community in resolving the Kashmir issue. "Our experience of the past does not fill us with any great hope but the international community's continued engagement and active involvement even if in the form of moral pressure on India could ensure that India summons the political will to address the Kashmir dispute in a serious and result-oriented manner," the spokesman said.

A real challenge lies ahead for India and Pakistan. Until the dialogue was stuck on modalities, the substance remained in the background. In a situation where there is no agreement on the essentials of the Kashmir issue, Islamabad and New Delhi must work hard to ensure that the dialogue continues despite the differences.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar