People's Democracy

Harkishan Singh Surjeet

HELD at Kazakhstan’s capital Almaty in the first week of this month, the 16-nation Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) came out on June 4 with a declaration that reiterated their resolve to strengthen mutual cooperation. Though unstated, the summit gave indications of concern on the problems facing these countries in a unipolar world and of their worry about how to steer clear of the imperialist drives to hegemonise the world.

The countries to attend the CICA summit and sign the declaration were (in alphabetical order) Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Palestine, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. It is another matter that the inclusion of Israel, the perpetrator of worst sort of terror against Palestinians, in a conference against terrorism and on CBMs (confidence-building measures) is puzzling. Some of the South Asian, South East Asian and East Asian countries as also some Middle East countries were not there.

Though Musharraf tried to raise the bilateral issue of Kashmir at the summit that was against the rules of multilateral forums, the summit went on smoothly without getting derailed.

Issued by the CICA summit on June 4, the Declaration on Eliminating Terrorism and Promoting Dialogue among Civilisations categorically said, "No consideration whatsoever can be invoked to justify terrorism."

The declaration said, "We are fully committed to fighting terrorism and strengthening bilateral, regional and international cooperation, in accordance with the UN charter, required to meet this challenge. We emphasise the central role of the United Nations, its General Assembly and Security Council, in developing the framework for this."

This concern about terrorism is natural given the fact that all the three biggest participating countries, as also some other countries, are facing the threat of terrorism to a greater or lesser degree --- Russia in Chechnya, China in Eastern Turkistan and India in Kashmir. Hence the emphasis on cooperation among the participants in fighting this menace. The two-page declaration said, "In order to eradicate this menace to peace and security, we shall reinforce and unite our efforts in order not to allow terrorism in any form to be prepared, assisted, launched and financed from the territory of any state and we shall refuse to provide terrorists with safe haven and protection."

The declaration also reaffirmed the "key significance" of UN Security Council resolution 1373, adopted after the September 11 attacks in US, and resolved to implement it.

The summit was gripped with yet another but related issue. It is well known that, while claiming to fight in the name of Islam, the barbaric Taliban in Afghanistan indulged in furthering the drug trade through what is called the "Golden Crescent" --- an act which Islam expressly stands against. It was this trade that met their expenses for weapons etc, particularly after the circumstances forced the USA to stop aiding the Taliban and launch a campaign against them. This is what was called narco-terrorism. But the fear is that while the former Soviet republics of Central Asia were definitely affected by this drug trade to an extent, the Taliban’s fall may now lead to a large-scale spill-over of this trade into these republics.

Hence the Almaty summit’s concern over illegal traffic in arms and drugs. So much so that there was a proposal, though not yet formalised, for joint patrolling of what has historically known as the Silk Route.

The summit leaders also signed an "Almaty Act" that sets out the CICA goals of strengthening multilateral cooperation for promoting peace, security and stability in Asia. It also pledged to support the efforts for global elimination of all mass destruction weapons, for preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

One of the most important aspects of the Almaty Act is that it rejects the use of religion as a pretext by terrorist and separatist groups to achieve their objectives.

With the decision that the CICA heads of states or governments will meet every four years and that their foreign ministers will meet every two years, the CICA has definitely come to stay in world politics. It has in fact acquired the shape of a more or less formal regional association, though no rules regarding membership and other issues were discussed.

Thus the CICA has definitely opened a new path in the third world’s quest for an independent path of development. This is not to say that none of the 16 participants will adopt a wavering attitude vis-a-vis the imperialist powers and their philosophy of pro-monopoly globalisation. Some of these countries have even compromised their sovereignty and follow US imperialists in economic, foreign and military spheres. Yet the very fact that they came together to forge mutual cooperation on some of the burning issues of today, is itself significant in view of the unipolar world context of the day and all that it implies.

However, given the most immediate international issue of the day, the whole concern of the world community during the holding of the CICA summit was riveted on the Indo-Pak relations that seems to have brought the world to the brink of a catastrophe. The global public opinion and the opinion-makers in politics and media were speculating whether or not Vajpayee and Musharraf would meet at the summit’s sidelines. This was natural as both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers today and an Indo-Pak war has the potential of leading to a nuclear conflagration.

Some of the key figures on both sides had only added to these concerns by their irresponsible statements. For example, India’s defence secretary Yogendra Narain had even talked of the possible use of nuclear weapons in case an Indo-Pak war erupted. On the other side, Musharraf himself refused to give a no-first-use commitment even if India confined itself to conventional weapons. Though he had to somewhat change his tone after international and particularly US pressure, it seems his regime is not averse to using nuclear weapons. Speaking before Vajpayee at Almaty, he said Pakistan did not want a war but that it would defend itself by all means if a war were thrust upon it. Evidently, this implied the use of nuclear weapons also.

During the summit, it seemed that Musharraf was trying to play smart and run a diplomatic offensive against India. Sitting across Vajpayee on a table, with Putin and Jiang Zemin, Musharraf said his country "will not allow its territory to be used by terrorists." Nay, he made the claim that he stood against terrorism. On another occasion, he even invited Vajpayee for a dialogue.

In reply, Vajpayee insisted that Musharraf had not stuck to the promise he gave to the world on January 12 regarding fighting terrorism. The Pakistan president had said its territory would not be used for terrorism in Kashmir, but no change on the ground has been seen. Similarly, Musharraf announced a ban on five terrorist organisations in addition to the two already banned, but these groups were still operating from the Pakistani soil with ease. Vajpayee said India had given to the world community irrefutable proof of Pakistani support to terrorism.

To the ‘appeal’ made by Musharraf, Vajpayee said India was willing to discuss with Pakistan all issues and these included Kashmir, but for that cross-border terrorism must stop.

Vajpayee was undoubtedly right on the issue of cross-border terrorism. This is a scourge that India has been facing for the last one and a half decades, as this is part of Pakistan’s continuing war against India. It was late General Ziaul-Haque who realised that Pakistan could never win an open war against India and adopted the tactic of a proxy war that the US and Pakistan had launched against the PDPA regime in Afghanistan. By its very nature, a proxy war is much less costly than an open war and can be dragged on for a much longer period, even if it does not lead to any conclusive end. Both Benazir and Nawaz continued this proxy war that has caused a lot of headache to India.

It is true that when Mushraff made an address to his nation on January 12 this year, it was widely welcomed the world over. The address gave hope that Musharraf might break free from the framework of Indo-Pak relations, which his predecessors had erected. There was also a faint hope that he would keep under leash the army and ISI that have developed a vested interest in continuing the depredations in Kashmir valley. But the last five months have belied such hopes. The Indo-Pak relations have continually deteriorated in this period instead of showing any improvement.

In fact it is this very issue of cross-border terrorism that has brought the South Asian region to a flashpoint. Though one must not think that no dialogue is possible unless any given condition is met, there is no doubt that the cessation of cross-border terrorism will go a long way in building confidence between India and Pakistan.

However, the dirty role the US and UK have been playing in respect of Kashmir for five decades is once again evident during the present crisis in the subcontinent. As we have been saying, US imperialists have their own eyes on Kashmir and want to see it independent as a part of their geopolitical design. An article being published on page 12 in this issue confirms our apprehensions, saying that Washington has brought India and Pakistan to brink of a nuclear war. During the last 15 days in particular, a spate of US and UK diplomats visited India and Pakistan in the name of defusing the tension but actually to further the imperialist interests in the region. While all these diplomats including Colin Powell, Ms Rocco, Richard Armitage (of Iran-Contra notoriety) and Jack Straw have been giving the impression that they are concerned with peace in the region, many of their statements had a pro-Pakistan tilt. The Bush administration went on playing its duplicity as late as during the Almaty summit. It was then apparent that the very holding of the CICA summit without much of a role for the US had made the Bush administration a bit uneasy.

The imperialist game was also evident from the way some developed countries tried to create panic in the name of a possible nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The game started with Australia and was soon joined by New Zealand, France, Great Britain and most of all by the USA. It was the same game of creating panic which the imperialists had earlier played in some countries like Ethopia and Afghanistan in the 1980s. The game was intended to adversely impact tourism and other sectors in India and Pakistan, and also the investor confidence. In sum, all this is intended to influence the economy of the two countries and increase their dependence on the imperialist powers and the institutions they control, apart from internationalising the Kashmir issue and seeking an opportunity to intervene.

How unfounded and motivated this panic was, is evident from the fact that China refused to withdraw its diplomatic personnel from both India and Pakistan. Instead of falling prey to this manufactured panic and indulging in a war mania, it will be better for India to intensify its diplomatic offensive and rouse public opinion in order to bring pressure on Pakistan.

This is the imperialist trap India has to avoid, not only in its national interest but also in the interest of world peace and security. Like the informal Shanghai-6 formed earlier, the CICA also showed how third world countries are seeking to resist the imperialist pressure and blackmail, now successfully, now unsuccessfully. The process is full of odds and vacillations but yet it has to move forward. And it is here that countries like India, Russia and China will have to play an important role.