The two-day meetings in New Delhi were part of wider-ranging discussions under way between India and Pakistan over issues including trade, water rights, terrorism and the fate of the disputed region of Kashmir. Analysts had expressed guarded optimism that some progress was possible on the glacier dispute, yet Tuesday’s talks ended with only a pledge for further talks in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, at some point.
“Both sides welcomed the ongoing dialogue process,” declared a statement issued jointly by the delegations. “The discussions were held in a frank and cordial atmosphere, contributing to an enhanced understanding of each other’s position.”
The broader discussions between India and Pakistan represent an important, if tortuous, piece in the larger strategic puzzle of trying to bring stability to one of the world’s most dangerous regions. The nuclear-armed neighbors Pakistan and India have fought three wars since becoming independent countries in 1947, and their rivalry now complicates American military and counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In 2008, India abandoned diplomatic efforts with Pakistan after heavily armed militants, trained in Pakistan, attacked in Mumbai, killing at least 163 people. Talks were eventually restarted, but the process has been bumpy.
The decision to hold talks this week represented a minor achievement, after a month in which tensions between India and Pakistan could have boiled over. First came the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani town that is home to a major military academy. Then came testimony in a terrorism trial in Chicago that adds to evidence linking Pakistan’s intelligence agency to the Mumbai attack.
Indian officials see the developments as validation of their longstanding position that the Pakistani state knowingly nurtures terrorism. Some Indian officials issued sharp criticisms of Pakistan, among them Indian generals boasting that Indian commandos could replicate a raid in Pakistan similar to the one against Bin Laden — comments that elicited an angry rebuke from Pakistani officials.
But the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, has largely resisted demonizing Pakistan, and his foreign policy advisers have quietly made clear that the dialogue between the countries will not be interrupted. Days before Bin Laden’s death, the two sides had made progress during a meeting where their commerce secretaries promised to explore a range of trade and business ties.
“What we are trying to do is send a message to Pakistan that we are willing to do business with you and we don’t want to take advantage of your current predicament in any way,” said Naresh Chandra, chairman of India’s National Security Advisory Board, which is appointed by the prime minister.
Few analysts expect any dramatic, transformative breakthroughs. But Mr. Singh has persistently pushed for dialogue on multiple issues, often despite criticism at home, on the premise that India’s economic progress is imperiled without a stable neighborhood.
Indeed, beyond his overtures to Pakistan, Mr. Singh in May also recalibrated India’s position on Afghanistan, where the United States has pledged to begin withdrawing troops next month. In the past, India has criticized reconciliation efforts with the Taliban, fearing that Taliban members in the Afghan government could deepen Pakistani influence.
But in a visit to Kabul, the Afghan capital, on May 12 and 13, Mr. Singh signaled that India had softened its stance and sought to position his country as a constructive player toward any Afghan settlement. “Afghanistan has embarked upon a process of national reconciliation,” Mr. Singh said during his visit, in which he also awarded $500 million in aid. “We wish you well in this enterprise.”
This week’s talks were focused on a longstanding dispute over the Siachen Glacier in the Himalayan mountains. In 1984, Pakistan sent soldiers to try to dislodge the Indian Army from its occupation of the heights over the disputed site. Years of skirmishes followed at altitudes of more than 18,000 feet. The glacier had dubious strategic value, and more soldiers died as a result of the hostile environment than in battle.
A 2003 cease-fire ended the hostilities, but left unresolved the fate of each side’s forces, which remain in their high-altitude positions. Negotiators have quibbled over the terms of how the troops will withdraw to lower ground and what sort of monitoring will ensure that neither side seeks to return.
Today, soldiers remain posted high in the mountains, though India has greatly improved living conditions over the years.
No comments:
Post a Comment