Editorial: The US Mediation
India’s stand on composite dialogue with Pakistan has been very clear – destroy terrorist structure thriving on Pakistani soil and bring perpetrators of 26/11 to book. During Sharm-el-Sheikh joint declaration, India agreed delinking terror to composite dialogue but asked Islamabad to walk half way. When Prime Minister reached out to Pakistan for talks during his Kashmir visit, it showed New Delhi’s sincerity that it as urgently wants to get into dialogue as Islamabad for larger interest of people of the two countries. Nonetheless, Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s call to US to mediate for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue shows Islamabad’s insincerity to both long term regional interest and peaceful relations with a friendly neighbour. Gilani, whose country is a proud US ally on war on terror, wrongly terms destruction of terrorist infrastructure in Dr Frankstein state as an Indian precondition without no manifestation of walking half way as expected by India. At the same time, Islamabad is also getting out of the traditional line that any matter between India and Pakistan has to be approached and tackled bilaterally, with no third party mediation.
What message does Washington’s support to Pakistan’s efforts to get dialogue re-started while Islamabad’s supporting terrorists in the country and not delivering on 26/11 give to the world? Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik has already started the diplomatic maneuvers to force India back into composite dialogue.
US State Secretary Hillary Clinton took an astute diplomatic position when she admired Pakistan’s efforts for reconciliation and that of betterment of ties with India and pledged support for efforts of early resumption of composite dialogue. But it leaves us with some questions. What message does Washington’s support to Pakistan’s efforts to get dialogue re-started while Islamabad’s supporting terrorists in the country and not delivering on 26/11 give to the world? Even if an ideological support, doesn’t it undo the very purpose of war on terrorism that it has launched? Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik who, only a few days ago, accused India of funding Taliban and causing unrest in the country, has already started the diplomatic maneuvers to force India back into composite dialogue without Islamabad acting against anti-India terrorists thriving in the country. An India that supports, funds and causes violence in Pakistan cannot insist on crackdown on anti-Indian terrorists in the country to resume a dialogue, it first has to come to the table. Unfortunately, there’s no taker of this theory in New Delhi, for it never supported or funded terror, ever.
Just like US put a rider on military aid to Pakistan so that it cannot be used against India, Washington needs to understand that it is not merely monetary or military aid to Islamabad that should come with a rider for not disturbing ‘balance of power’ in the region, it is ideological support as well that should have a clause, for Pakistan is guilty of misusing that, too. Judging by the way Washington has been treating New Delhi, Islamabad and Beijing for a few months, it was expected that even if it supports Pakistan’s view points, it wouldn’t try to force anything on India on the matter. Gilani is trying to win back old American concessions, it’s a matter of worry for New Delhi, specially so, for Sharm-el-Sheikh has weakened India’s conventional position.
