"It's time we move towards conflict resolution"

Amit Baruah
The Hindu, 6 April

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz speaks on a range of issues — from bilateral trade to Siachen to the suspension of his country's top judge. Excerpts from an exclusive interview in New Delhi on Wednesday:

This is your second visit to India as Prime Minister. Given your background as an international banker, how do you look at India — its growth and future trajectory?

The growth in India is impressive. All countries in South Asia have been doing well. As you know, Pakistan has been achieving very high rates of growth; so has India. This is a reflection of the policies pursued by respective governments.

I think the challenge we both face is making sure that the growth is equitable and shared by people at all levels. I cannot speak on the details of how this is working in India, but I can tell you about Pakistan. The reforms we have undertaken are based on a philosophy of liberalisation, deregulation, privatisation, transparency, and continuity of policy.

These are the hallmarks of our reform agenda and have allowed us to grow very rapidly. The per capita income of Pakistan is higher than many South Asian countries, including higher than India. It is now $846 per head and this is for the year ending June. We are looking at a $1,000 per capita within two years.

So, the people, naturally, are seeing a growing economy, a bigger pie. And, at the same time, their standard of living is improving. About 60 per cent of our population lives in rural areas. We are very conscious of the rural economy and have spent a lot of effort in improving the rural economy and that is producing results.

This year again, the rural part of the economy will grow handsomely and the best way to reduce poverty, at least in Pakistan, is to get rural incomes up. That's what we are trying to do.

India has achieved tremendous distance in areas like IT [information technology]. There, they are world class. I think this is one of the best practices that other countries can learn from.

By and large, the [Indian] economy is well positioned, investment is doing well and, your strength, as I see it, is the private sector. They have really driven the growth in the economy and the Government has created a policy paradigm that suits that. This will augur well for the future also.

Since April 2003, when the peace process between India and Pakistan began in earnest, what would you say have been the major gains for the two sides?

The peace process has been going on for a while. The major difference it has resulted in is more serious engagement at all levels between the two countries. This has also transcended governments. You had a change in government in India, and the process continued. It started with Mr. [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee and we are now dealing with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In both situations [countries], there is a growing awareness that peace in South Asia, dispute resolution between India and Pakistan, will allow the two countries to create an atmosphere which will promote development, growth — allow us to realise our full potential.

After all, for how long will we continue with disputes? It's time we move towards conflict resolution. That is the fundamental driver. President [Pervez] Musharraf has presented several proposals to [address], for example, the Kashmir dispute, which has been a major dispute between the two countries.

The Kashmir issue has to be addressed and resolved in line with the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmiri people and done in a way that any reason for tension between the two countries, as a result of this issue, is minimised.

If we develop trust, if we develop a closer relationship, where the success of one makes the other country happy, where the progress of one makes the other country progress. Today, as we live in a globalised world, the environment around you is as important as the environment in your own country.

If you have a source of destabilisation, or uncertainty around your neighbourhood, it will affect you. You cannot be immune from it. That is what makes SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] more important as a platform for regional issues, which can be discussed.

As we move ahead, there is a growing realisation that let's look at solving issues, let's lower the temperatures, let's create an environment so that we can move ahead and make sure it influences the whole region.

You look at Asean [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] today. Asean does not have a serious issue, Asean has not had any military action against each other. They have progressed — look where they were, look where they are.

We can do the same; we have to look at it [South Asia] as a region. No longer can any leader or country look at just their country and forget the neighbourhood.

Do you think the leaders of India and Pakistan are in a position to sell a compromise solution on Kashmir to their peoples?

I think the evolution of any solution must and will reflect saleability and acceptability by all stakeholders. Otherwise, naturally, it will not have traction. Whatever options you come up with must have traction so that when you move, you get people to say `yes this makes sense.'

You must have faith in the people who are negotiating and the leadership of both countries. Whatever evolves should be acceptable to the key stakeholders. Time will tell, of course. In many situations, there could be a series of options or solutions and these solutions can then be put out for discussion. Once we get the feedback, we can then crystallise it even further.

On a simpler issue like Siachen, do you think we are close to a deal?

On Siachen there are some technical details between the two armed forces. The Defence Secretaries are meeting in the next couple of days. Let's wait and see how their talks go. All issues, frankly, can be complicated or simple depending on where you're coming from.

On Siachen, we have discussed various aspects of the region, which people have called the mountain of peace. And, we want to make the mountain of peace a reality. It is very tough terrain, it is hostile in the sense of weather and logistics.

So, if we can find a solution, which can lower the temperature there, then it will be, clearly, a very tangible demonstration of the will and ability of two countries, where they had conflict, to solve it through dialogue and discussion.

Certainly, Pakistan feels this issue can be addressed through dialogue and both countries will have to be magnanimous, courageous, flexible, and show leadership.

It's very important for Siachen to be resolved because with global warming, with the environment changing, to protect our environment, we must have an early solution to the Siachen issue. Today, you have people living there, all sorts of activity, logistics and that is really affecting the environment negatively. So, there is an environmental aspect to Siachen, which is another reason for the issue to be resolved and resolved amicably.

The World Bank has said in a new report that trade between India and Pakistan would touch $9 billion if trade barriers were to be lifted. Do you think that's an underestimate?

May I say that World Bank reports are very useful, but they are a point of view. My own view is that this $9 billion figure may not be unrealistic. That doesn't mean it's a static number. Trade works when there is mutual benefit on both sides.

If a country exports more, and the other country imports willingly, that is, to us, a very successful relationship. The concept of trade balance, is frankly, an archaic concept because the very definition of trade is willing buyer, willing seller.

Pakistan is a free trade country. We have not opened total trade with India because the public opinion in Pakistan was that let's link it to progress on Kashmir. Having said that, we just added 300-plus items [to the positive list for trade with India].

On SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Area), you'll agreed to a negative list applicable to all SAARC countries and then withdrew this for India. Is this because of the public opinion issue you referred to earlier?

No, no. We've been very clear from day one on SAFTA. SAFTA is a treaty, which allows the movement of goods, but as you know there is a restricted list of certain sensitive items.

Overriding SAFTA are local laws and regulations. The [Pakistani] Cabinet noted in its approval that all local regulations and laws would be followed.

Whenever there is, and this is international law, a difference between a treaty and domestic law, domestic statutes override everything. So, that is what we are doing. Having said that, I just mentioned to you we have added 300-plus items.

The reason we did go on a positive list — this is the only country [India] in the world with which we have a positive list — `why' you may ask the question... because of all the disputes, etc., we didn't want to go to a scenario and the laws and regulations we have address that.

As disputes are resolved, I think trade will be positively impacted. As regards facing the threat of competition from Indian industry, not an issue. We have a free trade agreement with China! So, we are very open as a destination for trade and also for investment.

What about Indian companies investing in Pakistan?

Not yet.

The tragic February 19 killing of mainly Pakistani passengers on the Samjhauta Express showed that terrorists have stopped making a distinction between Indians and Pakistanis. Who do you think could be behind such an incident?

I think we should ask your Government. We did discuss it [on Wednesday], the Prime Minister and I. The Samjhauta Express incident is a serious incident. Many Pakistani lives were lost and this is a matter of considerable concern to the people of Pakistan.

I mentioned [this] to the Prime Minister and he agreed to share with us on a continuous basis the progress of the investigation.

We look to the Government of India to investigate the matter, get to the bottom of it and get the culprits to book. We hope this will be completed in reasonable time so that such events, where so many innocent lives were lost, do not occur ever again.

According to reports, the Jaish-e-Muhammad was responsible for the twin attacks on Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003. Yet its leader, Masood Azhar, remains a free man in Pakistan. How is that possible?

Well, I think, let's not discuss press reports as to who was responsible. If somebody is charged with an offence, then nobody can remain free unless, of course, they go underground.

I think you have to be careful as a responsible journalist not to just work on speculative stories. So, I don't want to comment on this situation, but what you've said may have been printed in papers.

When you are dealing with sensitive matters like attempts, etc., you must get to the bottom. The attempts on President Musharraf were Al-Qaeda motivated and many people have been caught and sentenced. So, all the relevant people have been taken to task. And, it was a very comprehensive investigation in both cases.

So, I would not like to, on-the-record, say anything.

We now have a formal, anti-terror mechanism between the two countries. But will all these decades of suspicion actually give way to intelligence sharing or cooperation? Do you think it's possible?

I would say it is definitely possible. Let's start somewhere. If we don't start, we will never remove the baggage of the past. So, in today's world, as we face common threats, intelligence sharing and security cooperation is absolutely essential.

And, if we start somewhere, gradually we will build a relationship, which will certainly be beneficial to both countries because terrorism knows no borders and all countries must engage with each other to find ways to contain it, control it, stop it.

Both General Musharraf and you had been able to put in place a fine balance between Parliament, judiciary, the press, and the Army. But, somehow, the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has disturbed that balance.

I think the issue that relates to the Chief Justice is based on a reference, which has been sent to the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209 of our Constitution — it's very clear — that has been followed. Now, the honourable judges who are members of the Supreme Judicial Council have to conduct their proceedings and come up with a conclusion.

I think the overall functioning of the state and the stability of various arms of the Government is very much there. The country is moving ahead and this issue will be resolved through the Supreme Judicial Council in time — they have to go through their deliberations and hear all sides and hear all parties.

This is not something extra-constitutional or anything like that.

You wouldn't say it's a case of executive over-reach?

When the Supreme Judicial Council conducts its hearings and comes up with a judgment — let them decide. The matter is sub judice so I cannot comment on specifics, except to say that we have full faith in the Supreme Judicial Council to decide what is, in fact, their constitutional responsibility.

There's been a lot of talk about the President being re-elected by the existing Assemblies. Is that going to happen?

As you know, the Constitution of Pakistan is very clear that whenever a President election is held, the Assembly at that time constitutes the electoral college. And, that's true in India, too, as you know.

Since the electoral college includes State Assemblies and the Upper House and the Lower House — this is true in Pakistan too. In fact, there's case law here, in India, where there is no question that whichever Assembly is in session, is duly elected, or is functioning at the time, is the electoral college of the President.

That is what will happen in Pakistan, too, when the election happens. The Constitution requires the Assemblies to be there unless they are being elected at the time and they will constitute the electoral college of the President.

Not so long ago, your Foreign Office had called in the U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad because there had been some incidents in which Pakistani soldiers had been killed in your territory. Does this worry you?

(Turns to his officials to check the facts of the case). That can happen when you have troops deployed on either side. Naturally, we have NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] troops on the other side [in Afghanistan] and sometimes because the border is not marked everywhere and they may be engaging somebody and the firing may have crossed into our territory. It happens occasionally when you have active military activity on both sides.

But, we, naturally, like any country, are very conscious of our sovereignty and territorial integrity. So, if there is a violation, we do take notice and take the necessary action. But, when you have active operations near your border, these things occasionally can happen.

There is no intentional activity as far as we know.

There was some testimony by a U.S. State Department official relating to the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan in July 2006. He spoke of a two-man rule in access to your aircraft. Is this the correct position? Are these the terms of the sale?

Whatever the terms are, are privileged information. I am not at liberty to discuss it with you. (Laughs)

A lot has been said about the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. Do you think that the situation in the region will permit the pipeline to go through?

I discussed the matter with Prime Minister Singh this morning and we both agreed that India and Pakistan will pursue this pipeline. It is in our national interest. We both are growing, we both have increasing energy needs. And, as such, we need to pursue this in our own national interest. We've publicly said so today. I think it's in the press release. I don't know if you've seen ours.

To us mein hamne clearly daal diya hai. Us pe badi detailed baat hui. (We've clearly put it in our press release. We had a very detailed conversation on the gas pipeline)

Do you think something will happen on the gas pipeline?

Dekhiye, hamaare interest mein hai naa. Hoga. Ho jayega. (Look, the pipeline is in our interest. It will happen).