Indian and Pakistani Foreign Secretaries will resume talks in New Delhi November 14-15 and analysis and news reports indicate and Islamabad is insistent that Kashmir remain the core issue while New Delhi says that terrorism is the core.
Pakistan says that while it would like to “build on convergences” and finalize several confidence building measures (CBMs) such as means to reduce nuclear accidents and treaty to prevent incidents at sea, it will focus on its “central” issue to resolve the Kashmir dispute. India says that it will focus the talks on terrorism acts emanating from Pakistan and put Islamabad ’s promise on joint mechanism to “test” by revealing “certain” parts of “clinching” evidence on the Mumbai 7/11 blasts. Both nations say that they are willing to work together to fight terror and look forward to nailing down details to counter terror.
Significantly, Pakistan expects to sign a treaty that would ban “unauthorized” use of nuclear weapons and thereby reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear exchange. India would be interested in signing the deal if it includes clauses that limit “unauthorized”
access to nuclear weapons and not just “unauthorized” use of weapons. In fact, given its proliferation track record, it is not just India but globally all nations would be interested for Pakistan to create a transparent and well thought out process limiting access to sensitive nuclear weapons.
At the same time, India is also trying to minimize Pakistani hoopla around this deal asserting that the treaty is merely a bilateral version of UN conventions and hence is not ground-breaking. Instead, they say that India ’s focus will be “issues relating to terrorism.” Again, it is not just India but even the US which is keen that Pakistan clamp down on terrorism. Visiting US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher acknowledged that “Many of the links that are talked about go back to their origin and ties in Pakistan .”
Apart from the confusion created by Indian officials on whether the evidence they collected on the Mumbai blasts were “clinching,” “solid,” or “credible,” it is also not clear whether India shared the evidence it collected with the US. The US Ambassador to India David Mulford says that it had while Boucher says otherwise. The US is sympathetic to Indian plight in Mumbai saying that the incident highlights “the need to deal with the problem of terrorism.” At the same time, Boucher quoted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s promise to end extremism and terrorism as proof that Pakistan is a credible member of the coalition against terror even if every major think tank, newspaper, and independent source in the US questions this logic. Boucher is bought off on the theory that the ruse of using economic and military initiatives by Musharraf is sufficient and working while even recent incidents of the Madrasa bombing and retaliatory strike reveal a different story.
India should continue to insist on discussing only terrorism and joint mechanism to fight terror with Pakistan even though it should be open to sign cosmetic deals such as the nuclear authorization and protocol to resolve incidents at sea. At the same time, it should ensure that Pakistan does not metamorphose these small deals into key negotiating points for concessions on Kashmir which it will undoubtedly will. If India insists on talking only about terrorism, it will look recalcitrant. If it gets flanked by minor deals in lieu of concessions on Kashmir , it will be rejected at home.
Hence, a mere agreement to resume stalled talks will be viewed as inadequate while a clear protocol on working together on terror that India can hold Pakistan accountable a major success
