A fine balance

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, while briefing the media in Washington after conclusion of a summit on countering violent extremism, said that some Indo-US agreements were affecting Pakistan and that it was imperative for the US to maintain strategic balance in the region. He also remarked that a neighbouring country was inflaming terror in Pakistan.
Nisar’s remarks regarding strategic balance pertained to the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear technology and US support for a permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council, which reflected a well considered position of Pakistan on these issues. This stance is rooted in regional realities in the context of tensions between Pakistan and India due to the non-resolution of the Kashmir issue and Pakistan’s irrefutable security concerns.
Needless to say, every nation is guided by its own interests and has the right to pursue those interests in fashioning its relations with other nations on the bilateral level but that right precludes the possibilities of those relations working to the detriment of a third country. Similarly the position taken by nations on issues of global concern also has to be in line with the spirit and purpose of the international treaties and agreements on the subject, formulated under the UN auspices and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
The Civil Nuclear Technology agreement between US and India constitutes a clear violation of the NPT and the mandate and charter of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). India is a non-signatory to the NPT and as such does not qualify admission to the NSG. It is also discriminatory as far as Pakistan is concerned. The implications for Pakistan are that such a decision would tilt the balance in favour of India and trigger a nuclear arms race between the two hostile neighbours. Pakistan’s nuclear build-up is India specific and its refusal to sign the NPT unless India agrees to take the same course has a very strong logical basis that conforms to the basic purpose of the NPT. This stance also signifies our unflinching commitment to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation.
We are, therefore, very much within our right to demand of the US to ensure strategic balance in the region. Unfortunately, not only the US but UK and France have also entered into civil nuclear technology agreements with India. Australia, which possesses 40 percent known uranium reserves, has also decided to supply uranium to India. All these countries are looking at their relations with India through the prism of their own interests at the cost of other nations and regional peace. Their conduct is also tantamount to showing scant respect for international treaties and agreements.
Pakistan’s opposition to the FMCT is also rooted in similar concerns. The issue still remains unresolved and even the process to negotiate has not taken off the ground. The sticking point is that, while the US, UK and Japan favour a treaty that limits future production of fissile materials, other states including Pakistan believe that this approach would freeze the existing asymmetries. They insist that the treaty should also address already produced and stockpiled fissile material.
Pakistan has all along maintained this position. Islamabad’s position is likely to prolong the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), which operates on a consensus basis. The US has been pressurising Pakistan to change its stance on the FMCT and along with other countries have also been considering the possibilities to start negotiations outside the CD. But the dilemma is that any such move would undermine the position of the UN.
Resolving the deadlock on the FMCT and achieving the objectives of NPT can only be accomplished if the US and other big powers adopt a non-discriminatory approach on these issues and also strictly adhere to the spirit and purpose of those initiatives. In the context of our region, Pakistan’s concerns on the FMCT and reservations about signing the NPT can be addressed and removed through the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
Our opposition to India becoming permanent member of the UNSC also stems from the non-resolution of the Kashmir issue on which there are 23 UN resolutions promising the right of self-determination to the people of Kashmir through a plebiscite held under the UN. The basic role of the UN and the Security Council is to maintain and promote world peace and any country aspiring to become a member of the UNSC must have strong credentials as respecting UN resolutions apart from other considerations. India miserably fails to fulfil these criteria.
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan also rightly observed that a neighbouring country has been stoking the fire of terrorism in Pakistan. Our intelligence agencies have credible evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan and its connivance with the Karzai regime in sponsoring and encouraging cross-border terrorism in Pakistan. Latifullah Mehsud, the deputy leader of TTP who was captured in Afghanistan by Nato forces confessed as much to his interrogators. Nisar understandably also raised this issue in his talks with US secretary of state.
We need to formally take up this issue at the UN to counter the Indian propaganda against Pakistan and unmask the real face of secular India. Perhaps it would be advisable to ask our ambassadors to have demarche on the government of the host countries and sensitise them about the real designs of India in the region.
Peace and tranquillity in our region and Pakistan’s position on the foregoing issues are inextricably linked to the Kashmir issue. It would perhaps be pertinent to point out that President Obama at the start of his presidency had set the resolution of Kashmir issue as one of his top priorities but as time passed his enthusiasm waned. Unless this issue remains unresolved, Pakistan will be justified in persisting with its position on the foregoing issues.
The UN, the US and the world community are under obligation to resolve the Kashmir tangle immediately. The bilateral arrangement as perceived under the Simla Agreement has failed to achieve the desired results even after the lapse of 42 years. The implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir, notwithstanding the Simla Agreement, remains the responsibility of the UN and the international community.
The bilateral agreement does not change the status of the dispute. It also does not preclude the possibility of raising it again at the UN in case the bilateral agreement fails to deliver. Article 103 of the UN charter says “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter will prevail”. What it means is that the UN resolutions on Kashmir will take precedence over all other international agreements on the same issue.
Pakistan, therefore, is very much entitled to invoke UN resolutions on Kashmir which under Chapter VII of the UN Charter remain legally binding on the parties. The US needs to revisit its strategic policies in the region to make sure that their discriminatory thrust does not harm peace prospects in the region.
The writer is a freelance contributor.
Email: ashpak10@gmail.com