 |
| Friday, July 7, 2000, Chandigarh, India   
|
ARELIC of the planned economic development era, the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act is awaiting imminent demise, along with the Commission set up under it. Its unpopularity with businessmen of all types is only matched by its ineffectiveness during all the past three decades. ROOTS OF KASHMIR PROBLEM |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fruitful visit to Russia by M. L. Madhu “Sovereign India can develop its relations with any country it likes”. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov THE above given quotation is the answer of the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to a question asked by a correspondent in the joint press conference of India’s External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and Mr Ivanov during Mr Singh’s recent official visit to Moscow. The question was — After the visit of President Bill Clinton the relations between India and the USA have improved. Does it in any way reflect adversely on Indo-Russian relations?
Only EU can checkmate USA By M.S.N. Menon IT was good of the EU Parliament to invite India for an annual summit talk. The 15-member EU, with a share of 40 per cent of the world trade, is today the most important economic partner of India. By 2010, the EU may have a membership of 25-30. It will then move further to the Left and gain a decisive voice in the global economy. Pak missile programme
‘advanced’
|
|
It is “tiger-slaughter” THE death of at least 10 tigers
at the famous Nandankanan Zoo in Orissa has given animal
lovers an issue which deserves serious discussion. Chief
Minister Navin Patnaik convened a "high-level
meeting" of experts and even visited the zoo,
evidently to sustain a tradition, established by
political leaders, which in effect serves no purpose. The
damage has been done. Seven of the 10 victims of a
combination of illness and medical neglect belonged to
the rare species of white tigers. The number of deaths
may go up because even the Director of Project Tiger was
not too optimistic about saving the lives of another six
critically ill tigers. They were given the same
anti-viral medication which was administered to the dead
tigers. On the basis of available information a case of
"tiger-slaughter" can be made out against those
responsible for the well-being of the animals at
Nandankanan, a favourite destination of international
wildlife experts. The zoo is globally popular because it
has the world's largest collection of tigers. It is among
the few zoos in the country which is entitled to global
funding for the conservation of white tigers, which is on
the endangered list of animals. That is the reason why
the tragedy at Nandankanan deserves a wider debate. It
may help experts and ordinary animal lovers to understand
the depth and scale of neglect of the basic needs of
animals and birds at what is touted as the country's top
national zoological park. If this is the state of affairs
at the "best" zoo in the country, the plight of
animals living in captivity at other zoos is bound to be
worse. The first tiger died of blood infection on June 23
and yet the zoo authorities took no measures to stop the
infection from spreading. A shot of berenil, an
antibiotic, was believed to be responsible for the death.
Yet the vets persisted with the same line of treatment
when the blood infection took the form an epidemic among
the tiger population at the zoo. The Nandankanan
episode has also exposed the lack of coordination and
interest in sharing medical notes and maintaining case
files of serious illness among zoo animals. Four tigers
had died at Nandankanan under similar circumstances four
years ago. The medical factors responsible for the deaths
of tigers in Hyderabad, Bangalore and Patna over three
decades ago too were similar in nature to the ones which
seem to have caused the deaths at Nandankanan. But the
vets had no clue about how to contain the epidemic and
save the lives of the suffering from blood infection. Of
course, those responsible for not being able to save the
lives of the tigers at the zoo should be punished. At the
same time, the authorities concerned should pay heed to
the suggestion from wildlife experts that the number of
zoological parks in the country should be drastically
reduced. Zoos are not serving the purpose - that of
providing an opportunity for studying the behaviour of
animals generally found in the wild - for which they were
established. Circus-owners are under pressure to cut out
the performances involving animals from their shows
because of the element of cruelty involved in their
training plus the fact that the ferocious animals like
tigers and lions are kept in cramped cages. Roadside
animal performances too have been banned because they too
violate the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act. Most zoos in the country too would fail to
pass the PCA test. Therefore, the better option would be
to set up centres for the protection and rearing of only
endangered species of animals to be run by top
professionals. Instead of maintaining ill-equipped zoos,
where the animals are ill-treated both by visitors and
keepers, the focus should shift to preserving their
natural habitats for them to roam and breed freely in
harmony with the laws of nature. |
|
ARELIC of the planned economic
development era, the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade
Practices (MRTP) Act is awaiting imminent demise, along
with the Commission set up under it. Its unpopularity
with businessmen of all types is only matched by its
ineffectiveness during all the past three decades. This
is the reason why the recommendation for its winding up
by the Competition Policy Commission headed by Mr S.V.S.
Raghavan did not provoke any protest from any quarter;
business newspapers hailed this proposal. Even now when
the government has let it be known that it is ready with
a draft to bury it, there is no one to shed tears. It was
set up in a radically different milieu when the
government was keen on encouraging state-owned monopolies
(under the Industries Development and Regulations Act,
1951) and erecting several laws to restrict the growth of
the private sector. The MRTP Act was expected to
intimidate and rein in the big baddies from running
amuck. But after the initial bout of exuberance, faith in
such an approach weakened and persons openly sceptical of
excessive boost to import substitution and the
corresponding protection to indigenous units came to
guide the Commission. No doubt it evoked more laughter
than fear. It is not as though only the MRTP Commission
is slated for early closure; with it will disappear a
clutch of laws and institutions which reflect the old
philosophy. From now on the emphasis will be on
protecting consumer interests and not limiting the size
of manufacturing and trading houses. Consumer courts and
the apex tribunal are taking care of private complaints
much more efficiently and promptly than the old
commission ever did, and the government is actively
encouraging mergers and acquisitions in the name of
economies of scale and concentrating on core competence.
Thus the old mindset and legal framework have no place in
today’s scheme of things. But two things stand out.
The government is trying to slur over the mounting
pressure from multinational corporations, which is at the
bottom of the new policy. Not only on the present
government but on the successive ones since the
liberalisation year 1991. The argument is two-pronged:
liberalisation and globalisation wither away in a
restrictive environment and the WTO rules bristle at all
such structures. The focus should be on ensuring fair
competition through a competition regulatory commission.
In other words, the idea is to foster competition and not
smother initiative. Another reform move will affect the
labour and hence the utmost secrecy on the draft taking
shape in the Law and Labour Ministries. The aim is
ostensibly to improve the working conditions of contract
labour, the backbone of several industries. It is said
they are an exploited lot, forced to part with a good
part of their wages to the contractor and not having any
other rights either. So the new Act will banish all these
things by permitting an employer to directly engage
workers on contract. Neat? The problem is that this
approach has another name: exit policy. A non-contract
worker too will have only those rights that a contract
labourer has, or the whole employment system will shift
to the hire-and-fire mode. Labour unions are waiting for
some official indication before setting off the alarm
bells. Incidentally, such a law already operates in the
newly established special economic zones. |
|
ROOTS OF KASHMIR PROBLEM JAMMU
AND KASHMIR Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah is caught in a
web of his own making. Autonomy is not as simple an issue
as he thinks it to be. It is a highly complicated matter
which cannot be viewed through simplistic angularities.
In fact, Dr Abdullah has had the taste of his own
rhetoric right in the Ladakh region where the local
people have raised the banner of revolt against this
demand. Even the people in Jammu are agitated, and
understandably so. Do these developments worry him?
Perhaps not. He has been playing to the gallery to
rehabilitate himself in the valley politics. He has
probably succeeded in this gambit, but in the process has
helped the Hurriyat to come into focus. It can pose a
major challenge to Dr Farooq Abdullah who continues to be
vulnerable in the murky politics of Kashmir. Like his
father, Dr Abdullah is a good orator. His dramatics are
well known. He knows how to play with the people’s
emotions. However, what the Chief Minister has failed to
grasp is the erosion of his popularity base in the two
regions of the state as well as in the rest of the
country. It is no secret that the Ladakhis have lived
under the shadow of highly volatile valley politics. They
have remained a neglected lot because of the
discriminatory attitude adopted against them by the
authorities in Srinagar. The rulers generally see
things through set angles of the valley politics. They
also tend to communalize issues and non-issues. What is
regrettable is that Central leaders remain mere
spectators to innumerable bizarre goings-on in the name
of secularism! In a way, secularism has become a dirty
word in politics. It has been used by vested interests to
promote petty communal interests. Even some of the known
communal persons have thrived in the Indian system by
putting on a secular mask! The communal card apart, the
autonomy issue has often been raised by the valley
politicians as part of their competitive politics. Small
wonder that Dr Abdullah has managed to bring himself to
the centrestage of Kashmir politics. But at what cost? He
has virtually given a new lease of life to the All-Party
Hurriyat Conference (APHC). It is a matter of time when
the Hurriyat leaders openly challenge him. Where will he
then turn to? Dr Abdullah needs to realise that he must
not waver on the basic issue of working harmoniously with
the Centre within the existing constitutional and
political framework. Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee’s message is clear and categorical:
“There is no going back to the pre-1953 position in
Kashmir”. I wish the Central leaders were more alive
to the situation than has been the case. Their response
system is either slow or lopsided or both. As for the
Chief Minister, it is in his interest to tackle the
forces of fundamentalism and foreign mercenaries in close
cooperation with the security forces. At stake is the
future of Kashmir. It must not be allowed to become a
plaything of the various interest groups operating freely
in the valley. Of course, the people’s emotions
can be exploited either way. They can be incited for and
against India. Most politicians in Kashmir play such
games. Even Sheikh Abdullah was no exception. Looking
back, it is a fact that Dr Farooq Abdullah is following
in the footsteps of his father. The ethnic policy then
pursued by the Sheikh helped the growth of
fundamentalism. In the pre-1947 days, the Sunnis, the
dominant group in the valley, constituted half the
population. The rest was made up of Hindus and Shias.
Even today, there are about a million Shias in the state.
While the Shias were engaged in handicrafts, the Sunnis
dominated agriculture but mainly as landless cultivators.
The Hindus were either landlords or employees of the
state administration. Being a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah
was often accused of being partial to his sect. He
introduced land reforms soon after assuming power in
1947. Fine. But, ironically, he denied compensation to
Hindu landlords. The Sheikh was obviously partial to
the Sunnis. He was surely a proud Kashmiri. He played a
major role in evolving the ethnic identity of the
Kashmiris, broadly called Kashmiriat. This identity does
not have much to do with their ancient culture. His aim
was mainly to isolate the Kashmiri Muslims from other
Muslims. For this purpose, he adopted four different
methods: (i) isolated the Jammu Muslims (mostly
Punjabi-speaking and pro-Pakistan); (ii) prevailed upon
Nehru not to cross Uri during the advance of the Indian
Army (for beyond Uri lay regions where the Muslims were
anti-Sheikh); (iii) denied refugee status to non-Muslims
who migrated from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) to the
valley (they were forcibly marched off to Jammu from the
valley); and (iv) opposed the secularisation of the
Kashmiri Muslim society. Interestingly, the Sheikh was
even ready to rehabilitate Muslims from Central Asia in
the valley, but not the Hindu refugees from Punjab. In
the early 1950s, the Sheikh invited 5,000 Kazakh Muslims
to settle in the valley. Again, in the late 1950s, when
the Dalai Lama fled Tibet, the Sheikh invited the Tibetan
Muslims to come and settle in Kashmir. But he refused to
allow even a single Tibetan Buddhist refugee to settle in
the valley, not even in Ladakh. So much for the
Sheikh’s secularism! During the 1977-82 period, the
Sheikh tried his best to undermine the authority of the
Centre in the state. Among other things, he opposed the
appointment of IAS officers in the State and disallowed
Income Tax Department officers to work. He encouraged the
opening of Jamaat-e-Islami schools and liberally allowed
the use of foreign money to finance certain
fundamentalist bodies. It may be worth recalling the
assessment of the Janata Party (J&K unit) about the
National Conference as was reflected in the former’s
poll manifesto in 1977. It stated candidly: “The
Kashmir nobobs resorted to blackmailing the Central
leaders to achieve their personal ends and would raise,
at times, the slogan of plebiscite and right of
self-determination if the Central leadership slightly
tried to resist the fulfilment of their extravagant
ambitions. The unprincipled self-seekers had one purpose
in mind: to amass wealth, whether coming from indigenous
sources or from foreign countries.” (Pyare Lal Kaul,
Crisis in Kashmir, p. 143). Though the players have
changed, it is, more or less, the same setting even after
18 years. The Indian tragedy is that our leaders hardly
learn from history. In the absence of consistent policies
and strategies, they try to thrive on ad hocism. They
also lack a broad vision and the political will to set
things right. The Sheikh died in September, 1982.
Before his death he made his son, Dr Farooq Abdullah, the
President of the National Conference, and asked the
Kashmiris to place their trust in him, for, he said, his
son would accomplish what he had not been able to. It
must be said that at one stage Jawaharlal Nehru did try
to help Sheikh Abdullah. But before his death, the Indian
Prime Minister realised that the Sheikh had been playing
games. B. N. Mullik, then head of the Intelligence
Bureau, has recorded Nehru’s reaction in his book.
He wrote: “Suddenly to our utter surprise, Pt.
Nehru started talking bitterly against Sheikh
Abdullah’s communalism (at a Cabinet Committee
meeting). He traced the Sheikh’s history from 1930
onwards and mentioned how he had started his career with
the Muslim Conference, which was an out and out communal
organisation. He said that as a result of pressures from
outside and seeing developments of the State
people’s movement in the rest of India and for
purely tactical reasons and probably on the advice of
some of his more liberal followers, the Sheikh had
converted the Muslim Conference to give it a non-communal
appearance. At this time, Pandit Nehru suddenly looked at
me and enquired whether I had not come across some
information of possible British connivance in that
movement (Muslim Conference). I replied in the
affirmative.” Mullik further wrote: “He
continued his talk against the Sheikh and mentioned all
his communal activities throughout the period he had
acted as the National Conference leader. It was the
Pakistan aggression which had mellowed him a little for a
short time, because the tribesmen had committed gruesome
atrocities on the Muslim population in the valley. But as
soon as he became the Prime Minister, he came out in his
true colours, praised Bakshi and Sadiq for their
completely non-communal outlook.... Pandit Nehru said
that all the trouble in Kashmir was due to the
Sheikh’s communal outlook and it was he who was not
allowing the state to settle down to peace and
stability” (B.N. Mullik, My Years with Nehru,
p.134). Nothing much has changed. As already stated, the
old players have been replaced by new ones. If anything,
things have got further complicated because of the free
play of foreign hands, mainly Pakistan. In fact, over a
long period we have tied ourselves into a knot. This has
happened mainly because we have not evolved a policy
which is in the country’s interest. Things can
certainly be set right if we learn from our past mistakes
and give up marketing ad hoc responses as policy matters.
|
|
Fruitful visit to Russia “Sovereign
India can develop its relations with any country it
likes”. THE
above given quotation is the answer of the Russian
Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to a question asked by a
correspondent in the joint press conference of
India’s External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and
Mr Ivanov during Mr Singh’s recent official visit to
Moscow. The question was — After the visit of
President Bill Clinton the relations between India and
the USA have improved. Does it in any way reflect
adversely on Indo-Russian relations? The answer was
quite short, simple and assuring — India is a great
sovereign country and can develop its relations with any
country it likes. When looked from the present day world
situation, Mr Ivanov’s statement seems quite logical
and befitting a seasoned diplomat. After all, gone are
the days of cold war and the division of the world in two
confronting camps. Russia itself is keen and trying hard
to develop its relations with the USA and the West. Why
should it then feel unhappy or hurt if India or any other
country does the same in its own
interests? Theoretically it is so, but practically
sometimes some misunderstandings can crop up and reflect
adversely on the long and healthy traditions of
friendship and fruitful cooperation even between very
close friends. It is, therefore, not only desirable but
absolutely necessary that the leaders of the two
countries meet from time to time, review the various
aspects of bilateral relations, remove hurdles and
misunderstandings; if any, and create the possibility of
achieving new levels of proximity. President Putin’s
forthcoming visits to India in October this year is
likely to have great significance for our two
countries. Mr Jaswant Singh’s official visit will
help in preparing the necessary basis and important
ground for the Indo-Russian summit. The two Foreign
Ministers discussed almost all the aspects of our
bilateral relations, including the question of the
release of the five Russian pilots serving life
imprisonment in India. Mr Jaswant Singh assured Mr Ivanov
that he was personally looking into this matter and
keeping in view the Indian law and security regulations
all the necessary steps will be taken to solve this
problem. During his meeting with the Secretary of the
Russian Security Council, Mr Sergei Ivanov, the problem
of terrorism, narcotics, and illegal migration etc
figured prominently. Religious extremism, terrorism and
border security concerns are of equal importance for the
two countries. The question of terrorism was raised and
discussed in the joint press conference of the two
Foreign Ministers also. In this connection, it will be
quite relevant to mention that the leaders of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) held a one-day
summit in the Kremlin on June 21, to discuss the alarming
problem of terrorism, especially taking a serious form
after the Taliban victory in the neighbouring
Afghanistan. Most of the states, which were the republics
of the former Soviet Union, are very close to the
Afghanistan border and are afraid of the activities of
the Afghani Islamic fundamentalists in their nations.
Russia is experiencing the same in Chechnya. Hence the
summit of these states decided to establish a joint
anti-terrorist centre in Moscow which will be headed by a
Russian General from the Federal Security Service.
Anti-terrorist methods and measures of this centre can be
of much use for India also which is facing a similar
situation in Kashmir and some other parts of the
country. Mr Jaswant Singh reviewed the technical,
scientific, commercial and trade matters with the Russian
Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Victor Khristenko, who is the
co-chairman of the Indo-Russian Joint Commission. There
is a good deal of scope for further technical and
scientific cooperation. Special concern is being
expressed in the field of our bilateral trade which has
gone down several times since the disintegration of the
Soviet Union. India’s debt to Russia is also not
being utilised properly to increase the trade and
investment of this money in joint ventures for the
benefit of both sides. These problems are also likely to
be the subject of serious discussions in the Indo-Russian
summit. Defence cooperation is another important area of
our bilateral relations. About 60 to 70 per cent of our
defence equipment is of Soviet or Russian origin.
Improvement and upgrading of some of this equipment is
essential for India’s defence capability. Next to
China, India is the biggest customer of Russian defence
equipment and Russian defence industries are keen to
receive new orders of hard currency payment which are of
immense importance for them in these difficult and hard
times. In the international political and economic
affairs, India and the Soviet Union, now Russia, have
also been cooperating with each other considerably. This
aspect of our relations was also reviewed during Mr
Jaswant Singh’s visit. One very significant result
of this discussion was Russia’s declaration of its
whole-hearted support to India’s claim to the
membership of the UN Security Council. Mr Singh later
visited St Petersburg. During Defence Minister George
Fernandes’ meetings with the Russian Deputy Defence
Minister, other high officials and Defence Minister Igor
Sergeev important matters of defence cooperation between
the two countries were reviewed and new possibilities
explored. The status of the Joint Defence Commission has
been raised to ministry level and various new fields of
cooperation have been identified. Mr Fernandes’
meeting with President Putin was most pleasant. Mr Putin
said that he is “the best friend of India”.
What more warmth of feeling could one expect from the
head of a friendly country! We may hope that President
Putin’s visit to India from October 2 to 4 this year
will further strengthen the ties and open new horizons of
cooperation, and the visit of our two senior ministers
will prove fruitful. The writer is based in Moscow. |
|
Only EU can checkmate USA IT was good of
the EU Parliament to invite India for an annual summit
talk. The 15-member EU, with a share of 40 per cent of
the world trade, is today the most important economic
partner of India. By 2010, the EU may have a membership
of 25-30. It will then move further to the Left and gain
a decisive voice in the global economy. This is why our
talks are important — not only because we are the
fourth (after the USA, Japan and China) to be called for
the talks. In fact, Pascal Lamy, the chief trade
negotiator of the EU, places India in the third position
in EU’s priorities the USA and Japan. This high
rating of India is explained by the new way the EU looks
at this country. Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign
Minister, says: “Today, India’s role is defined
by its emergence as one of the six or seven major powers
in a multi-polar world, and, of course, by being the
world’s largest democracy. It is taking this reality
into account which has brought France to seek a long-term
global partnership with India.” It is true, the
EU’s intentions are not truly reflected in the
overall relationship between the EU and India. The
present trade turnover between the EU and India is no
more than $ 20 billion, that is less than 2 per cent of
EU’s trade. And there is not much to talk of
cooperation in the defence field. There are other
problems: out of the FDI approvals of $ 13 billion, the
actual flow from EU to India was just $ 3 billion, that
is 25 per cent. But that as it may, for India the EU
connection is highly significant in other ways too.
Because it provides a counter-force against excesses in
American policies. This is untold purpose of the summit
talks. The capitalist world is not a monolith. The
EU’s economic outlook is not a copy of the US
ideology. For instance, the EU does not subscribe to
laissez-faire as America does. The EU countries are
mostly social democracies. Out of its 15 members, 13 are
Left of centre regimes, with commitment to full
employment. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK, calls
it the “Third Way.” He says: “I believe we
can construct a new and different kind of politics for
the 21st century.” With 12 per cent unemployment
and 3 per cent annual growth, Europe’s future has
become a matter of concern. There is a growing feeling
among European thinkers that the Anglo-Saxon formula for
global competitiveness runs counter to Europe’s
notion of a fair and prosperous society. EU-US
ideological differences can be traced back to the postwar
years. But, then, the EU was highly dependent on the USA
and had to accept its postwar arrangement. Western Europe
accepted the dollar as an international currency even
though it was against it. As the sole creditor of the
world, America was able to assert its economic supremacy.
But not for long. By 1958 or so, European nations were
strong enough to challenge the USA. They started their
own aid programme. But Western Europe remained part of
the American bloc. This was because of the compulsions of
the cold war. There was need for the Western world to
stand united in the face of the Soviet challenge. And yet
not everything was fine on the economic front. European
nations, particularly France, were not happy over the
dominance of the dollar and the advantages it was able to
derive, being the only international currency. From the
sixties, France began to insist on payment in gold, which
forced President Nixon to abolish gold payment. The idea
of a European currency was born then. It took a long time
for the Euro and the European Monetary Union to emerge,
but when they did, in 1992, it was seen clearly as a
political project. The EU was ready to sustain it at any
cost. Thus, the EU took the first steps towards its
independence. Then, how is one to explain the EU’s
support to NATO and globalisation? There are matters of
some subtlety and complexity. One must try to understand
these properly. The EU accepts American political and
economic leadership because it suits its interests. But
the EU is in favour of a multi-polar world and a
multi-model economic system. This is the crucial
difference. In short, the EU is not in favour of American
hegemony and an economic system modelled on that of the
USA. The legitimacy of the idea of a single integrated
world market system is already forfeited by the
continuing crises in world economy. Claude Smadja calls
such efforts to create a single world as sheer
“arrogance.” It is true, American military
leadership ensures security and saves billions of dollars
for the EU. And American leadership of capitalism helps
to create favourable global conditions for the EU
countries. Also, Europe could not have opened up the
world market on its own. Only America could have done it.
But the EU will not allow globalisation to erode its
social security system. In fact, in France, Germany and
Italy, the laws are still in favour of labour, although
there is considerable pressure from industrialists to
abolish such laws. The USA is for free flow of capital.
It brings more profit than from the sale of commodities
and services through speculation. The EU has neither such
capital nor is it willing to allow “free”
capital flow, for it creates instability in the economy.
The EU is thus for capital control. So are the Asian
nations after their bitter experience. Washington does
not like this convergence of opposition. India is
opposed to unregulated globalisation. It has thus a
common interest with the EU to oppose America’s
selfish policies. Only the EU can checkmate the USA in
this matter. Neither Russia nor China, not even
Japan. In the world of diplomacy, one must concert with
like-minded nations. The coming together of the EU and
India is, therefore, welcome. But in the final analysis,
India must remain united, stable, militarily and
economically strong and technically self-reliant as far
as possible if it wants to have leverage in the world. It
is because India is moving in this direction that it has
become suddenly important to the Western world. The world
must now recognise that generating pressures against
India will be counter-productive. |
|
Pak missile programme ‘advanced’ ISLAMABAD (IANS): Pakistani
Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar has said that the
country’s missile programme is sufficiently advanced
and is not at present receiving any cooperation from
China. “Pakistan’s (missile) programme is
sufficiently advanced so that we can continue the process
of research by ourselves. At the moment, there is no
cooperation with China,” Sattar told the Far Eastern
Economic Review. The report quoted a senior Pakistani
diplomat as saying that the country, like India, was not
a signatory to the Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR), “so we don’t have to answer to
anyone”. Sattar said China and Pakistan had
explained to the United States and other governments in
1993 that Beijing had supplied “a limited number of
short-range tactical missiles” to Islamabad, a
transfer that did not violate the MTCR. “Since
then,” he said, “there has been no allegation
against China having done anything inconsistent with its
commitment to the MTCR — not only in the supply of
hardware but also in technology”. The report said
Pakistan was watching from the sidelines as the United
States and China fought over missile proliferation.
U.S. intelligence reports that China was continuing to
help develop Pakistan’s missile programme may be
another embarrassment for the Clinton
Administration’s China policy. But while the
repercussions could be damaging for China-US relations,
Islamabad appears confident that it’s not going to
face any unwanted fallout, the report said.
“Pakistani officials say the issue wasn’t
mentioned when Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar met US
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott in Washington in
mid-June, as part of routine talks on nuclear and missile
restraint,” the report said. “This is not an
issue between the USA and Pakistan,” a Pakistani
diplomat said. “It never came up,” he added.
Privately, US diplomats confirm that the subject
wasn’t raised, the report said. Pakistani
officials believe Islamabad is caught in the crossfire of
a long-standing spat between the Clinton Administration
and anti-Chinese US Congressmen who oppose normal trade
relations with Beijing. Moreover, with Washington
anxious to defuse tension between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir, the USA is seen as unwilling to further harm
ties with Pakistan. Relations are already strained by
Pakistani support for Afghanistan’s Taliban and the
suspension of democracy in the country. “At the
core of the matter are U.S. concerns, first reported by
the Review, that China may have resumed work on an M-11
missile plant being built in Pakistan, and could possibly
be building another. The Federation of American
Scientists and other U.S. sources say the factory is
located at Fatehjung, a small town 40 km west of
Islamabad,” the report said. US diplomats believe
Pakistani Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf is
making adequate conciliatory noises towards India. If the
summer passes without a major escalation in Kashmir,
Washington will aim to persuade India and Pakistan to
hold a summit in New York in September during the United
Nations General Assembly meeting, the diplomats said. |
|
Because we see the variegated world, — Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sat-Darshanam (Forty verses on Reality) *** As water poured into
water
milk poured into milk — Paingala
Upanishad, IV. 10 *** The reality of world is the
body *** Blessed are the meek: for they shall
inherit the earth. — The Gospel According to
*** A poor spirit is poorer than a poor
purse. — Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia,
358 *** Humility, like darkness reveals the heavenly
light. — Henry David Thoreau, Walden |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 120 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
