Pakistani Official version of Pak-Israel Ties

The News, September 7, 2005
Kasuri-Shalom meeting raises great expectations

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and Israel's clandestine contacts are decades old and not one decade alone. The successive governments did consider the option for having diplomatic ties with Israel but somehow it could not materialize. Both the governments did have understanding on various counts and it was never made public.

This was disclosed Tuesday by foreign minister Mian Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri while talking to The News at Chaklala joint headquarters at a reception hosted by General Muhammad Ehasanul Haq Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff committee (JCSC) in connection with defence of Pakistan day.

The foreign minister did not spell out the details of his meeting with his Israeli counterpart saying that they are confidential. However this correspondent has come to know through reliable sources that the two foreign ministers had two sessions of talks in Istanbul's Four Season hotel's first floor. The first round took place at the working dinner where the Turkish senior officials were also present while the second round took place the following day in the afternoon and it was without any person other than of Pakistan and Israel. Soft drinks were served and later the two ministers had one-to-one brief meeting. Pakistan's ambassador for Turkey General Iftikhar Shah and Khalid Mahmood director general foreign minister's office took part from Pakistan's side. The latter attended it as note-taker. The whole conversation has been recorded and the same has been preserved for future references.

"Why was it so that you had to take 58 long years for establishing public contact with the state of Israel?" It was the first question that was asked by the Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom at the outset of the interaction. Foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri responded with a broad smile and explained the circumstances responsible for it. The Israeli minister threw another question abruptly and asked why Pakistan was more Palestinian than Palestinians and more Arab than Arabs. The foreign minister of Pakistan gave the whole account of his country's association with Arab and Palestinian world. "Pakistan would continue to support the cause of the both as it is based on principles," Foreign minister Kasuri replied. Israel's minister was of the view that Arabs and Palestinians have never supported Pakistan for its cause with the amount of enthusiasm Pakistan had been showing for them. On the contrary Israel did not ever oppose Pakistan on international forums like an enemy.

Sources said that Israel's foreign minister out rightly denied an impression that at any point of time Israel had planned to attack Pakistan's nuclear facilities and for the purpose Israeli air force had scrambled. He said this in response to a query by the foreign minister of Pakistan. In the absence of direct communication such misunderstandings do crop up. Israel had conveyed to Pakistan immediately through another country that none of its planes had ever flown to hit Pakistan's installations. Pakistan should find the reasons of such rumour mongering in its own area, he said without pin pointing any country.

Pakistan's foreign minister expressed Islamabad's reservations about Israel's out of proportion cooperation with India for military hardware production and provision. The Israeli foreign minister assured Pakistan's foreign minister that his country was prepared to extend similar cooperation to Pakistan in defence field. "The scientists and engineers produced by our two countries can do miracles through mutual cooperation as we have the best talent in our youngsters," the Israeli minister vowed. Our meeting has established de facto ties between the two countries and it would have been better if the ties could be given de jure shape, the Israeli minister suggested.

He assured Kasuri that people in Israel are keen to have close and friendlier relationship with Pakistan. Once the ties are established these would not be restricted to mere formal relationship but I am sure that they would be turned into friendship, he added. Israel has the technology to transform Pakistan's agriculture into grain house of Asia once again and through exploring sub-soil deposits with Israel's help, Pakistan could be an affluent country without much delay.

Israel's foreign minister did express his reservations about Pakistan's missile and nuclear programme. Foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri told his Israeli counterpart that Pakistan's defence mechanism has been its traditional needs specific and Islamabad did not look beyond this spectrum. Pakistan's minimum deterrence is for its defence requirements and it does not have an aggressive posture.

Sources said that the Israeli foreign minister did suggest a meeting to be held between President General Pervez Musharraf and Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon soon. Mian Kasuri did not rule out the possibility of it but made it clear to him that it depends on the immediate future developments.

The shake hands meeting of the two foreign ministers will have great positive impact on the atmosphere of address of President General Pervez Musharraf to the US-Jewish Congress in New York on 17th of this month. It will be the gathering of the richest people of the United States who can bring about positive changes in the economy of Pakistan at unimaginable pace. If President of Pakistan invites them to make investment in Pakistan and to visit the country, diplomatic observers are of the opinion that they would not hesitate to respond in encouraging manner. The draft of the speech of President General Pervez Musharaf is being drawn up carefully for the occasion. It will be an historic address and greatly help in changing future course of inter-faith relationship and elimination of terror from the globe.

In the meanwhile sources revealed that none of the countries from the Muslim world and friendly countries has received the historic shake hands negatively. Foreign secretary Riaz Muhammad Khan gathered the reaction of six countries including Iran. "Iran heard the news without offering any comment in negative tone" the sources disclosed. Palestinian leadership has been misquoted by a section of media but its reaction too was not negative, the sources said.

Pakistan has decided to keep its future links with Israel as low-key affairs and next move would be made after calculating the reaction within and without, the sources added.

The value of research in Pakistani society

Dawn, September 4, 2005
The value of research in Pakistani society
By Dr Tariq Rahman

IN the medieval ages the European learned men, all incidentally associated with the Christian Church, discussed hypothetical questions arising from their religious studies. One of these questions was: ‘How many angels can stand on the sharp end of a needle?’ They sought for details about the appearances of angels in the Bible and in the lives of saints and solemnly measured the apertures through which these angels must have appeared and so on.

The Muslims counterparts of these medieval scholars carried out similar exercises. They argued about what kind of water could be used for ablution? Whether there were seven skies or more? Whether the Holy Quran was created or uncreated (the Mutazilite controversy was based upon this question)? And so on.

Even in the nineteenth century, when science was fast becoming the fashion in studies, there were scholars who argued hypothetical questions like: ‘How many children did Lady Macbeth have?’ Now if we remember that Lady Macbeth is a character in Shakespeare’s famous play ‘Macbeth’, the question seems superfluous. Yet people spent a lot of mental effort and blackened many a page trying to answer it.

So, what is the validity of such hypothetical debates? Should they be encouraged? Should taxpayers’ money be spent to fund people who indulge in such debates? These are very important questions and demand answers.

The answer which bureaucrats give is emphatically negative. They are clear that public money is not to be squandered away on such mental gymnastics. For them research must be, at least indirectly if not directly, in the national interest. The military is even more intolerant of pure research of any kind which appears to only gratify the intellectual curiosity of the researcher or a small group to which he or she belongs. The corporate sector feels that research should have practical applications which should help ‘sell’ the products made by the sector. In short, everyone seems to think that the best research is that which enables the generation of the greatest amount of profit.

Ordinary people, who are also the taxpayers, are against research anyway. But to be asked to fork out money to support research which does not have practical applications does not make an ordinary person’s life any better, it rather makes them indignant (to see his taxes being wasted on such a needless endeavour). Students are against such research because they might have to read about it and that is an extra burden. Teachers are also averse to it because they have to teach it and they have enough crosses to bear. So, who is for research?

For one, I am. And I am sure there are many others like me. Indeed, all genuine scholars and scientists, most of whom are employed by the best universities of the world, are all great champions of pure research; all kind of research; all kinds of intellectual debates be they hypothetical and without any practical application or otherwise. This attitude is quite contrary to how the rest of Pakistani society feels and it needs some explanation.

Like all human activities, research can be increased by the efforts of governments, institutions like universities, corporate sector think-tanks, armed forces (which can provide grants for defence-related research and so on) and social activists (environmentalists, human rights activists and so on). However, such kind of research deals with whatever is required by a particular community or society at a point in time.

Governments are interested in questions of foreign and economic policy or in questions of public welfare. The armed forces are interested in weapons research, logistics and psychological warfare. Social activists have their own agenda which is connected with reducing the causes of human unhappiness or prolonging the life of the earth and those living on it. In all such cases the aim is something else and research is the means to that end. For the genuine or pure researcher, the end in itself is the acquisition of knowledge, the gratification of curiosity, and not necessarily what the research effort might necessarily lead to.

I am not arguing whether such an attitude is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, all I am saying is that it forms the basis of all genuine, fundamental research. If it comes to an end or is not encouraged, the spirit of inquiry dies. And when that happens a culture stops asking questions whether they (the questions) are about the application of research or of a more fundamental kind.

To enjoy asking questions, to enjoy the process of satisfying one’s curiosity, to enjoy research as an end in itself — these are the character traits of all real scholars and scientists. If one looks at the biographies of such people one finds that they are so delighted with the process of asking questions and seeking answers that they are ready to sacrifice the desire for power, wealth and even recognition to be allowed the pleasure of doing research. Einstein even declined to be the president of Israel because be did not want to leave physics at Princeton University. And, indeed, one of the reasons why highly intelligent people with very high university qualifications — the kind of people who could find lucrative jobs in the corporate sector and powerful ones in the government — join the universities (especially in Western countries) at relatively lower salaries is because they have the time and the resources to pursue their intellectual interests.

Unfortunately, Pakistani culture does not value intellectual curiosity nor is asking questions encouraged. The family discourages it because questions undermine the power of the elders in it. The interpreters and teachers of religion discourage it because their interpretations and institutional power is weakened.

The culture itself is mostly conservative and discourages it because any genuine probing would expose its unequal, unjust and cruel values. The workplace -including the universities — discourage it because originality and excellence threaten mediocrity which thrive in and rule over such places. In short, for cultural, economic and religious reasons people are discouraged to ask questions and seek answers in Pakistani society.

That being the case, we need to emphasize that all kind of questions and all kinds of research are valuable and not necessarily or only those which appear to have practical applications or relevance of any kind. In other words, if someone is intellectually curious about a question which appears absurd (such as ‘How many angels... ?’), then that curiosity should be encouraged. And how does one encourage curiosity?This is a difficult question. Intellectual curiosity and the capability of creating new explanations (hypotheses) born and nourished in a democratic, liberal, freedom-loving culture. Authoritarian governments, theocracies and lack of freedom are its enemies. Countries that lack freedom and do not guarantee their citizens the right to think, speak and write what one considers the truth, never create new ideas. Besides, in such a culture one needs to have strong institutions which can promote and facilitate create research. For instance, in Pakistan, if the university adopts a policy of paying for every research proposal, it may well be an unaffordable venture.

However, it may be possible to pay a research allowance for five years without putting any restriction on what one is working on. After that, if one does not publish the allowance may be reduced till it becomes nil. Anyone who wants a specific research proposal to be funded will have to forego the allowance but, of course, the funds for the project will be much higher than the research allowance. Anyone whose project gets funded but yields no publications in prestigious, indexed journals with an international reputation should be barred from submitting any more research proposals. These are some of the ways in which research could be encouraged by Pakistani universities.

There are other ways too, such as employing prestigious scholars and scientists in prestigious positions (for example, as head of the Federal Public Service Commission, as vice-chancellors and chancellors of universities and heads of think-tanks, etc.) and allowing them to continue serving in the universities till they old enough to do so. These individuals should be given positions in the government and corporate sectors and in the media where they can give independent advice and thus act as counterweights to the professional civil service.

To maintain their independence they must be assured of intellectual freedom and given financial independence as well. These are not very difficult or costly things to do and they will bear fruit by making Pakistan a country which produces new ideas. The question then is how to convince this country’s bureaucracy and military, as well as its NGO and corporate sector, of supporting a culture of research? Well, that could be done by arguing that doing so will strengthen the country and make its people happier — that is, social welfare will be increased as a result of such research.

However, my own feeling remains that no matter what the consequences of research, it should be encouraged for the pleasure it gives to those who do it. This is the best one can do to encourage research and promote the habit of creative thinking.n

The writer is National Distinguished Professor at the Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan. He recently returned to Pakistan after spending a year at the University of California at Berkeley as a visiting professor. Email: drt_rahman@yahoo.com

Is the US-India Nuclear Agreement Good or Bad for Proliferation?

South Asia Tribune, September 1, 2005
Is the US-India Nuclear Agreement Good or Bad for Proliferation?
By Michael Krepon

WASHINGTON, September 2: The nuclear cooperation agreement announced between President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on July 18th marks a major shift in decades-long US policies to stop and reverse proliferation.

If implemented, it would result in new rules of global nuclear commerce that the Bush administration has previously opposed. Because this deal was generated from the top down, its particulars have not been spelled out. These details can mark the difference between an agreement that makes us all safer or more vulnerable to nuclear dangers. With this much at stake, searching congressional hearings and oversight are needed. In these hearings, it’s essential to ask tough questions, and not to be satisfied with facile answers.

One question worth asking is whether the Bush administration believes that relaxing the rules of nuclear commerce is essential to improve Indo-US relations. There is bipartisan support to improve ties, which began in a serious way at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and has picked up considerable speed during the Bush administration.

President Bush has greatly increased military cooperation with New Delhi, including the offer of advanced combat aircraft and their co-production in India. The United States has long been ready to increase trade and investment in India. The Bush administration has also relaxed restrictions on space cooperation, and is working more closely than ever with New Delhi on regional security problems.

In other words, significantly improved ties are being forged without having to relax existing rules to prevent proliferation. So why has the administration proposed to weaken these rules? Does it honestly believe that foreign nuclear suppliers will agree only to make an exception for India, and not for other nations?

At a time when Washington is pushing hard to toughen requirements for nuclear commerce to states that have pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons or appear to be seeking them, does it make sense to relax requirements on states that have nuclear weapons?

If the administration is not so naïve as to believe that India alone will benefit from relaxed rules of nuclear commerce, why has it proposed this deal? Is it because senior Bush administration officials believe that New Delhi will serve as a strong ally against Islamic extremism or as a counterweight to Beijing? Is this the “big idea” that drives the deal?

After three hundred years of colonial rule, India will not follow the beat of a distant drummer, nor accept a junior partnership to Washington. Improved ties will therefore be based on common interests, as well as a respect for differences that result when national interests diverge.

Washington can therefore expect New Delhi to keep improving ties with Beijing, while striving to avoid choosing sides in the event of a crisis over Taiwan. Likewise, New Delhi’s approach to Islamic extremism will sometimes coincide and other times differ with Washington. India’s concerns begin with Pakistan, where Washington's policies have often frustrated India. India’s parliament passed resolutions against both Gulf wars, and has rejected the Bush administration’s entreaties to provide ground forces in this front of the “global war against terrorism.”

If a de facto strategic alliance is not the big idea driving this nuclear deal, what is? Perhaps it is to change the old nuclear order or to create a new one. Changing the old rules could make sense, since they were devised during the Cold War, and were not built to accommodate India, Pakistan and Israel.

But the possession of nuclear weapons by these three nations is not why the old order is so troubled. Instead, the NPT regime is under stress because North Korea and Iran have nuclear ambitions that have been aided by Pakistan’s lax export controls; by new concerns of nuclear terrorism that the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime was not designed to address; by opportunistic, state-supported nuclear commerce; and by blocking strategies against regime strengthening measures adopted by an unlikely group of states, including Egypt, France, Iran, Pakistan, India, and, most regrettably, the United States.

If relaxing the rules of nuclear commerce to help India contributes to a new nuclear future that raises barriers against proliferation, these changes are worth supporting. If, instead, the new rules are likely to result in more proliferation, the deal is contrary to US national security interests.

Therefore the central question before the Congress is whether this deal is good or bad for proliferation. To answer this question, we need to know more about its particulars, since some may be good and others bad. We also need to know from the Bush administration whether it is seeking to create a new nuclear order and, if so, what it looks like.

Radicals dismember old institutions without serious regard for what will replace them. Conservatives don’t tear down useful institutions unless and until something better will take their place. So what does the Bush administration have in mind?

It has suggested some valuable measures against proliferation, many of which have not yet gained traction. It has also opposed measures that most nations believe are fundamentally important to build barriers against proliferation, such as ratifying a treaty ending nuclear testing, making intrusive monitoring integral to treaty constraints, and negotiating a verifiable end to fissile material production for nuclear weapons. When relaxed rules for nuclear commerce are added to this mix, what kind of a nuclear future can we expect?

As a responsible steward of its nuclear capabilities, the administration proposes to reward India with the same benefits and advantages of the five nuclear weapon states recognized by the NPT, all of which enjoy permanent membership in the UN Security Council. If India is to enjoy these benefits, has the Bush administration received assurances that New Delhi is it also willing to accept comparable obligations and constraints as the P-5 members?

All five of the nuclear weapon states recognized by the NPT have signed the treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests, thereby accepting the obligation under international law not to defeat the objectives and purposes of the this agreement pending its entry into force. India has accepted no such legal obligation. Public statements by Indian leaders that they have no current plans to test again are a poor substitute for signing this treaty. At a minimum, has the Bush administration received assurances from New Delhi that it will not be the first to resume nuclear testing?

Most analysts believe that all of the P-5 are not now producing new stocks of fissile material for weapons, although Beijing has yet to confirm this publicly. India appears to be increasing its stocks. By this measure of merit, India is moving in the wrong direction. Does the administration now plan to take a proactive and constructive approach to putting in place a moratorium on fissile material production while negotiating a verifiable cutoff agreement?

A third essential measurement of merit for states that possess nuclear weapons is whether their inventories are growing or contracting. Four of the P-5 states are clearly moving to reduce their nuclear weapons. China is most probably increasing its nuclear arsenal at a modest rate. India's nuclear arsenal, like Pakistan’s, is also growing. How might the proposed deal with New Delhi affect growing nuclear arsenals in southern Asia?

The answers to these questions can help us determine whether to expect more or less proliferation as a result of the nuclear cooperation agreement announced in July. Taken separately, do the multilateral initiatives proposed by the Bush administration that are now stymied, as well as the unilateral initiatives it has already taken, add up to a safer nuclear future?

Is the deal with India a well-considered response to disturbing trends, or likely to accentuate the hollowing out of existing norms against proliferation?

The writer is Co-Founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a prestigious think tank of Washington DC. He is author of many books on security issues and is considered an expert on South Asia.

An education sector that can produce only warriors...

Daily times, September 1, 2005
EDITORIAL: An education sector that can produce only warriors...

After the Punjab University in Lahore announced its 2005 BA/BSc annual examinations results on Tuesday, it became clear that Pakistan’s real crisis lies in the education sector. A total of 142,785 students appeared in the examinations, out of which only 50,951 passed, which comes to 35.68 percent only. The boys flunked more than the girls who grabbed all the top positions in BA and BSc. They also showed a significantly higher pass ratio in all subjects. BA examinees from Lahore fared worst of all. No college from “the city of education” and its suburbs could get any prominent position in the examinations.

All the good positions were secured by students appearing from other towns of the province. First divisions among girls in BA stood at 6,438 and among boys at 1,245. In BSc the figure was 1,019 for girls and only 716 for boys. The girl who came first in BA was from Mandi Bahauddin, and the one who came second was from Chunian, both one horse towns-come-lately! A report said that 10 colleges in Punjab failed to get a single pass in the exams. All these colleges, which might as well not have competed at all, are run by the state. The institutions included the famous Zamindara College in Gujrat! The college has a brilliant past. A large number of great Pakistanis graduated from there or taught there. The chief minister of the Punjab comes from Gujrat. There may be things happening in Gujrat — like the police assaulting citizens watching plays on stage — but education is not one of them. Among the many districts for which the chief minister is responsible is his own, whose education standards have fallen through the floor.

The abysmal performance in Punjab has come in the wake of repeated announcements made by the provincial government that teachers’ careers would be planned in the light of the results demonstrated by their institutions. But it is quite clear that many teachers in Punjab have not taken these announcements seriously. Education continues to be a provincial service and at this level no career is properly planned. No self-respecting citizen wants to become a teacher unless he is a ‘loser’ content to live in semi-starvation. Those who are not ‘losers’ and have waited in vain for the state to come to their rescue have taken to after-hours tuition centres and no longer depend on the pittance they receive as salaries from the state. Absenteeism is rampant and there is nothing in the textbooks worth reading anyway.

Only 35 percent of the youth who aspired to be graduates have actually passed the exam. What will happen to the rest? They will try to retain their seats in the overcrowded colleges. Many of them will not be able to do so, in which case they will either enlist with private tuition centres or swell the population of the unemployed. In this 65 percent who have failed, most are boys who will now roam the streets looking for ‘causes’ to support. Some of them will become dacoits, others will be attracted to religious fanaticism to give substance to the charge that terrorists mostly don’t come from the madrassas, but from middle- class families with state ‘education’. On the other side of the fence, the seminaries in Pakistan enlist a million pupils and throw up thousands of ‘graduates’ every year with nothing much to do except set up new mosques to earn their livelihood.

The news about the heart-breaking pass percentage in BA broke as PTV was rerunning President Pervez Musharraf’s address at an Islamabad seminar informing a foreign audience that there was no way a million seminarians could be looked after by the state. He was asking a dozen madrassa federations to get their seminaries registered and include some secular subjects in their syllabi to enable their pupils to join the job market. All this will hopefully lessen the number of those forced to live in complete isolation from society with their minds filled with thoughts of revenge. Needless to say, the federations have refused. First the Deobandi Wafaqul Madaris — politicised by the MMA — staged a revolt against registration; then the Barelvi Tanzimul Madaris — its heads enjoying the power of the fatwa more than ever before — also refused. Thus now we have an education system that doesn’t work, and we have a parallel system that works but produces graduates who can do nothing worthwhile or productive for the economy.

Given this situation, Pakistan cannot produce young people who can propel the economy forward. What kind of young men does Pakistan produce? In a word, warriors. The truth is that there is nothing secular in Pakistan Studies, English and Urdu, either, if you take a close look at the textbooks that the students have to mug up. Before the world began trying to reform Pakistan’s fearful madrassas, it tried to persuade Pakistan to do something about the hate literature it was passing off as its secular syllabus. But a report by an Islamabad NGO on how the textbooks were ruined by crass indoctrination was rejected by the ruling politicians.

Education in Pakistan is in dire straits. Only girls are benefiting from the system, but they are of no use because the country’s ideology doesn’t want them around in public or productive life. Meanwhile, the boys have turned away from literacy and show their true colour on August 14 when they come out on the roads and frighten the older citizenry with their rowdy behaviour. The state must take another look at secular education and think of readopting it with better teaching standards in the institutions that already exist. *