|
|
IN MEDIA – JANUARY 2007
In
Media Archive...
India Inc advises
caution against US, EU farm offer
Financial Express, India, January 30,
2007
Economy Bureau
India Inc and civil society groups welcomed
the new impetus given to the WTO negotiations
at Davos, but said India should be cautious
about the reported 'offers' made by the EU and
the US on agriculture.
Ficci said this renewed activity would lift
growth in merchandise and services trade.
FICCI president Habil F Khorakiwala said,
“What we need is the real cuts in
trade-distorting farm subsidies in the US,
which will mean a budget cut of around $10
billion from the current ceiling of $23
billion.”
The chamber said even if the US agreed to
bring down its agriculture support level to
around $12 billion, developing countries must
also ask for disciplines in subsidy reduction
on product-specific basis to avoid any
concentration of subsidy in two or three
products.
Similarly, the offer made by the EU to cut its
average level of tariffs by over 50% need to
be supplemented by commitments on tariff cuts
on product on tariff line basis.
The issue of “less than full reciprocity” and
significant cut in tariff peaks and tariff
escalation in developed countries are key to
the Nama negotiations.
Pradeep S Mehta, secretary- general of CUTS
International, said “If the deal could be
clinched, with the US agreeing to freeze its
domestic support at $15 billion, then it is a
matter of $4 billion (from what the US is
insisting as a cap in its domestic subsidies)
only, which benefits mostly big
agri-businesses of the US. Should global
welfare of billions of dollars, which is
likely to result from successful conclusion of
the Doha round be mortgaged to the US
resistance to reduce domestic subsidies by
another $4bn”?
This news item can also be viewed at:
http://www.financialexpress.com/
TOP |
Troubled talks
threaten WTO's credibility
Financial Times, London, January 24,
2007
By Alan Beattie
To
blame the World Trade Organisation for the
stalling of trade liberalisation andthe
troubled Doha round of talks is like blaming a
World Cup final referee for the quality of
football.
The WTO secretariat, with a couple of hundred
professional-level staff, advises,
facilitates, informs and sometimes mediates
trade negotiations, but in general does not
direct them.The WTO refers to itself as a
"member-driven organisation". In the
institutional trade-off between agility and
democratic accountability it leans heavily
towards the latter. It reaches decisions by
consensus, which in theory gives each of the
150 member countries a veto.
In
his previous incarnation as European Union
trade commissioner, Pascal Lamy, WTO
director-general, labelled this procedure
"medieval".
Consensus takes time. The last successful
round of trade talks took seven years; Doha
has been going for more than five and, though
showing signs of life, is still in deep
trouble. But few trade observers and officials
doubt that WTO credibility is worth
preserving.
A
growing part of the WTO's role is to rule on
disputes under existing agreements. Panels of
arbiters convened by the WTO have declared
subsidies on US cotton and European sugar
illegal, and spurred Congress to rewrite its
tax law twice in response to a ruling that it
was illegally supporting exporters. One
concern among officials is that, if the Doha
round fails, the US in particular will regard
the WTO as redundant and ignore its judicial
decisions.
Ngaire Woods, director of the global economic
governance programme at Oxford University,
says that concern about the Doha round and the
WTO are overstated. "I don't think it has ever
meant much to refer to the WTO as
one-member-one-vote," she says. "Is a country
like Mali ever really going to use its veto?"
In effect, Ms Wood says, while countries in
the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank have formal voting weights based on a
formula, the WTO has an informal system based
on the size of each country's market.
And as all international institutions struggle
to cope with the global shift of economic heft
towards Asia, this medieval structure may in
fact help it modernise. Allowing the emergence
of giant economies automatically to be
reflected in de facto power around the
negotiating table may be easier than having to
revise formal voting weights.
In
the Doha round, for example, the Group of 20
developing countries, led by Brazil, formed in
2003 and rapidly became a serious force in the
talks. Although technically only negotiating
on agriculture, the G20 has shown how powerful
a substantial number of big emerging markets
can be across the whole area of international
trade policy.
Mr
Lamy recently told the FT: "The G20 has
encouraged a wider coalition of developing
countries to act together within the trading
system. The WTO is one of the few places where
the geographical and economic changes of the
recent past are reflected in changes in the
representation around the table."
Ms
Woods says Mr Lamy and Supachai Panitchpakdi,
his predecessor, have tried to adapt existing
procedures.
The informal "green room" process, for
example, which seeks consensus privately among
a few countries before involving the wider
membership, was much criticised when it was
dominated by the US, EU and Japan. Instead of
abolishing it, Mr Supachai and Mr Lamy have
legitimised it by widening the range of
countries invited to include representatives.
If
the Doha round does not revive, the WTO will
still exist but its role as a forum for
governance of the global economy will be
diminished. Pradeep Mehta, of the Centre for
International Trade, Economics and
Environment, a research institute, notes with
irony the WTO's attention is occupied by a
tussle between its two richest members in the
Doha talks. "The WTO is trying to accommodate
the developing countries. But at the moment
progress is being held up by the dispute
between the EU and the US," he says.
This news item can also be viewed at:
http://www.ft.com/
TOP |
World Bank differs
with Pakistan over poverty reduction figures
Business Recorder, January 22, 2007
By Arif Rana
In a draft on "Pakistan
promoting rural growth and poverty reduction"
the World Bank has sharply differed with the
government of Pakistan over estimates of
poverty reduction. It said the poverty
reduction in Pakistan between 2001-02, and
2004-05, have been 5.2 percentage point
bringing it down from 34.4 percent to 29.2
percent at national level and 39.1 to 34 (5.1
percentage point) for rural households.
The government estimates
for the same period showed a decline of 10.6
percent and 11.2 percent for the national and
rural poverty respectively.
The official figures
show that between 2001-02 and 2004-05, rural
and national poverty reduced from 39.3 percent
to 28.1 percent and 34.5 percent to 23.9
percent respectively.
The draft noted that the government of
Pakistan's estimates for poverty reduction was
different from the World Bank due to variation
in inflation rates used to determine poverty
line.
Business Recorder
managed to get the copy of the draft, which
was circulated by the World Bank to the
concerned divisions/ ministries last week. The
draft said the estimates of poverty in
Pakistan are particularly sensitive to
differences in methodology because a high
percentage of rural households have per capita
expenditures close to the official poverty
line. 10.9 percent of rural households in
2001-02 had per capita expenditures within
(+/-)5 percent of the official poverty line;
in 2004-05, 8.95 percent of rural households
were within (+/-) 5 percent of the Planning
Commission official poverty line (Rs878.6). It
said small changes in calculated real income
(expenditures), whether do to actual changes
in expenditures, price deflators or other
methodological issues related to updating a
poverty line, can lead to misleadingly large
changes in poverty estimates.
To minimise this effect
and to avoid debates on the definition of the
poverty line, the analysis in this chapter
focuses on the bottom 40 percent of the per
capita household expenditure distribution.
The grouping nonetheless
is similar to the definitions of the poor
using various food consumption needs-based
poverty lines in Pakistan. The rural poverty
in Pakistan, which declined sharply in the
1980s, remained stubbornly high in the 1990s.
In the 1980s rapid growth in agricultural GDP
of 3.9 percent contributed to a steady decline
in rural poverty from 49.3 percent in 1984-85
to 36.9 percent in 1990-91.
In spite of substantial
growth in agricultural, real GDP in the 1990s
(4.6 percent), however, rural poverty did not
decline. Instead, the percentage of poor was
essentially unchanged between 1990-91 (36.9
percent) and 1998-99 (35.9 percent). Several
factors help explain the stagnation in the
rural poverty in the 1990s.
Despite substantial
agricultural growth, including over estimates
of livestock income growth, rise in the real
consumer price of major staples, and the
skewed distribution of returns to land coupled
with a declining share of the crop sector in
the overall GDP.
The draft said since
1998-99, real household incomes, income-based
poverty indicators and agricultural output
have fluctuated sharply, with only slow
improvement over the medium term. Recent
household survey results indicate sharp
reductions in rural poverty in Pakistan over
the 2001-02 to 2004-05 period. Long-term
trends are less encouraging, though,
suggesting no major changes in real
expenditures of the poorest 40 percent of
households between 1998-99 and 2004-05. The
changes in agricultural output due in large
part to weather, mirror the changes in rural
real incomes, over these periods but like real
expenditures of the poor, agricultural output
and incomes have increased only modestly over
the period. Other factors outside agriculture,
especially increases in workers remittances
have also contributed to increased incomes
since 2001-02.
In the medium-term,
however, econometric evidence suggests that
investments in human capital and physical
infrastructure have been among the most
important determinants of increased real
incomes in rural Pakistan. It added that
preliminary analysis of 2004-05, Pakistan
Social Living Standards and Measurement Survey
(PSLM) data indicates that both rural and
urban poverty have declined since 2001-02. The
Planning Commission's estimates based on
poverty line in 2001-02 suggests that poverty
fell by 10.6 percentage point, from 34.5 to
23.9 percent between 2001-02 and 2004-05.
Their estimates of rural poverty show a
decline of 11.2 percentage point, from 39.3
percent in 2001-02 to 28.1 percent in 2004-05.
TOP |
Freedom from past
Jang, Pakistan, January 14, 2007
|
Pakistan and India need to go beyond
formal exchanges to resolve their
differences. The world abounds in
examples that the two countries can
follow to foster peace and prosperity in
South Asia |
By
Pradeep S Mehta & Abid Suleri
Only a few weeks ago, Pakistan and India
exchanged the lists of their nuclear
installations. The purpose of the exercise is
that these installations will not be attacked
by the two countries in the event of any
conflict. But exchanging lists is not a
sufficient cover for an unwarranted action by
either country. Only a relationship that is
based on trust and willingness to resolve all
issues and is backed by economic and
commercial links as well as strong support
from the international community can guarantee
that Pakistan and India don't go to war
against each other.
Can we, therefore, now start thinking of a
forward looking strategy which does not stop
at the mere exchange of nuclear installations
and thus ensure that the threat of any nuclear
or conventional attack is extinguished for
ever? The fact that other countries have
successfully done that only serves to
highlight the inadequacy of the current
approach India and Pakistan are employing to
resolve their differences.
Even if we confine resolving the problem of
nuclearisation of India and Pakistan, a
successful model to emulate exists in the form
of the Argentine-Brazilian nuclear
rapprochement.
During the colonial era, two European powers
(Spain in Argentina and Portugal in Brazil)
expanded their own rivalry through territorial
conquests in South America. Even after their
independence (Argentina in 1816 and Brazil in
1822), the rivalry between the independent
states continued to reflect their colonial
past. Competition for the leadership of South
America -- with elements of antagonism,
rivalry, and mistrust -- was always present in
the bilateral relationships between Argentina
and Brazil.
Though the South American experience can be
valuable for India and Pakistan , one
important difference must be kept in mind.
While Argentine and Brazil were competitors
and rivals for the leadership of South
America, they were not enemies. The only war
between them took place in 1825, more than a
century-and-a-half ago, giving birth to a new
(buffer) state, the Uruguay, through the peace
treaty of 1828. Since then, their relations
have alternated between cooperation and
competition, but not a single shot has ever
been fired. Even a bitter border dispute
between them was resolved by arbitration, not
war. In 1985, the time came when it was
decided to put an end once and for all to the
rivalry and mistrust that had pervaded
bilateral relations for too long, especially
by focusing on social and economic relations.
Beginning with the 1980s, Argentina and Brazil
initiated efforts towards a nuclear
rapprochement and by 1985 this process
developed in earnest. The period from 1985 to
date can be divided into two stages: During
the first period, (1985-1988) purely bilateral
approach to the issue was undertaken while the
second period between 1989 and the present had
dual objectives: first, to give a
legally-binding character to the agreements
already signed by the two countries, and
second, to take these obligations to the
international field, making the two nations
part of the regional and global
non-proliferation regimes.
It
is in this endeavor that these two countries
along with Paraguay and Uruguay formed the
South American Common Market (the MERCUSOR) in
1991 which was later joined by Chile in 1996
and Bolivia in 1997. The aim of the formation
of the common market was to enhance trade and
investment opportunities because these Latin
American countries had realised that closer
and deeper economic relations facilitated by
free trade would further strengthen
understanding, faith, confidence and mutual
cooperation among themselves.
But if we want to go beyond the nuclear sphere
and bring in all the various aspects of
bilateral relationship between India and
Pakistan, the world is not devoid of lessons
that can be easily learnt. There are several
examples offered in the history where
belligerent neighbouring countries have moved
from hatred, antagonism, rivalry and mistrust
to understanding, trust, faith and cooperation
thereby enhancing peace and prosperity between
themselves and in the region.
It
took several decades after the World War II to
mend relations between the people of Germany
and those of France. The formation of the
European Union, giving rise to higher levels
of economic well being resulting from enhanced
economic cooperation, has been instrumental in
reducing the enmities -- not only between
France and Germany but across the Western
Europe -- and receding the memories of the
atrocities of the World War II from the minds
of most people, especially of the next
generation which came of age by the 1970s.
Given that bitter memories of the Nazi
atrocities remained vivid among people in
Europe even many decades after the World War
II, especially among those living in Poland,
Holland and Russia, this should be deemed no
minor achievement.
Given the high level of economic and other
cooperation among different member countries
of Asean (Association of Southeast Asian
Nations) , it is hard to believe that Thailand
was on the American side in the Vietnam war,
that Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1975, that
Vietnam and China fought in 1979 and that
Thailand had a border skirmish with Laos as
recently as 1988. Regional co-operation has
come a long way since then.
There are several lessons that can be derived
from the friendship, cooperation and
peace-making process across the globe. First
and foremost, to be successful, an exercise of
this kind must be based on a sincere purpose
of reaching agreements to end nuclear race
and/or cross border terrorism and establish a
climate of mutual confidence. No moves in this
field can have the slightest chance of success
if they are taken with the ulterior motive of
destabilising the other party or lulling it
into a false sense of security. As a first
step, a country should open itself to the
other party, on the understanding that this
policy will be reciprocated. Information
should flow fully and freely from one country
to the other. Of course, the climate of mutual
trust thus attained will not last if flanking
and additional measures do not follow to give
it a permanent character.
Such additional measures include to keep
talking: it's never over until it's over.
Secondly, constructive engagement works better
than pressure: Renewed efforts for willingness
to support bilateral confidence-building
measures would lead to more progress than
diplomacy-based political criticism accusing
each other for cross-border terrorism (which
of course needs strong action by both the
sides).
Thirdly, regional cooperation infrastructure
projects have a potential for the improvement
of the well being of all parties involved. The
East-West Economic Corridor, a 1500 Km long
highway project crossing 6 GMS (Greater Mekong
Sub-region) countries in the Southeastern Asia
connecting South China Sea to Indian Ocean and
the Middle East regional cooperation projects
are some good examples in this regard. In the
same vein the mega-economic projects like the
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and the
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline projects
would help in promoting trust and regional
economic cooperation between India and
Pakistan.
Lastly, it may be beneficial to look for
opportunities where the United States (and
European Union) foreign policy can support
bilateral initiatives that can have positive
proliferation. For example, river diplomacy in
Argentina accelerated bilateral cooperation in
the nuclear area. The current initiative to
expand upon 'bus diplomacy' in India and
Pakistan should receive strong US and EU
support. Similarly, India and Pakistan can
benefit if the US offers them Qualifying
Industrial Zones (like the ones in which
exports from Jordan and Egypt containing
inputs from Israel enter duty-free into the US
market) under the Generalized System of
Preferences of international trade.
Skeptics would argue that in the case of India
and Pakistan, the Kashmir dispute is sui
generis and thus the improvement of relations
is dependent upon its resolution. In this
case, one can draw lessons from North Ireland,
which has been a bone of contention between
the United Kingdom and Ireland as well as a
huge number of people living in Norhern
Ireland. The Irish Republican Army has agreed
to lay down its arms, and has also stopped any
terrorist activity either in Ireland or in the
UK, after thirty years of conflict. Can the
same not be attempted in Kashmir, which has
become a similarly intractable problem between
India and Pakistan as well among the people
living in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir.
Fortunately, due to various internal as well
as external reasons, a window of opportunity
is opening wide for improving relations
between India and Pakistan. Both the Pakistani
President General Pervez Musharraf and Indian
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh (apparently
due to their own reasons) have suggested ways
forward to craft peace among the two nuclear
countries. Similarly, people in both the
countries and in Kashmir have a strong
yearning for peace. They are dreaming of a
South Asia free of hunger, poverty and
under-development. Like past 59 years, they
have been wishing for a new year during which
their governments would shift the huge
resources being spent on defence expenditures
to developmental expenditures. On New Year's
eve, which incidentally was the Eid-eve in
India and Pakistan too, many expressed their
desire to celebrate festival across the border
on various private TV channels. Should we not
imagine a South Asia full of peace and
harmony? Should we not let peace work for
prosperity? Should cross border tourism not
take over cross border terrorism? There seem
to be a little ray of hope from the top. It is
about time that we create the pressure from
the bottom and facilitate the peace process
between two nuclear nations through enhanced
economic relations.
Some political observers are defining a new
South Asia as a region where various types of
freedoms can be realised -- that is, freedom
from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to
live with dignity. This is premised on the
axiom that every single individual on earth
has both the potential and the right to live a
decent life. Let us work for a new South Asia
in 2007 and grab any opportunity for a long
lasting peace following the examples in South
America, Europe, and Southeast Asia.
Pradeep S Mehta is Secretary General of
CUTS International, a research, advocacy and
networking group board in Jaipur, India and
Abid Suleri is Assistant Executive Director of
the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development
Policy Institute.
This article can also be viewed at:
http://www.jang.com.pk/
TOP |
Developed world’s
agriculture sop offer key to Doha revival
Financial Express, India, January 14,
2007
By Ashok B Sharma
With the deadlock in WTO talks continuing, any
positive indication by major trading partners
is seen as a flicker of hope for breaking the
impasse.
The meeting between EU trade commissioner
Peter Mandelson and US trade representative
Susan Schwab in Washington last week did
generate some hope. The meeting was followed
by a joint statement by Mandelson and Japanese
Prime Minister Akira Amari calling for an
early resumption of stalled talks. Mandelson
flew to Paris last Thursday to brief French
Prime Minister Dominique de Villipin and his
Cabinet colleagues about discussions he had
with Schwab and Amari. Schwab flew to Geneva
to discuss with WTO director-general Pascal
Lamy on last Friday. The these major
negotiators, however, did not yield any
significant result.
“India is closely watching the developments,”
a senior official in the commerce ministry
said adding “we are waiting for developed
countries committing to make substantial cuts
in their farm subsidies”.
According to some experts, these recent
developments may prompt Lamy to take India’s
help for breaking the deadlock when he visits
the country this week for a CII partnership
summit in Bangalore. Other experts expect some
developments on the sidelines of the World
Economic Forum in Davos. Moreover, there is
likely to be a meeting in New Delhi in March
which will be attended by several ministers
from key nations.
Mandelson after meeting the French Prime
Minister assured that EU would not take any
unilateral decision. France is a strong
defender of European farm interests and, with
polls ahead in that country, it seems unlikely
that the EU would be able to offer any
substantial cuts in its farm subsidy.
Also, public gestures of the USTR, Susan
Schwab has invited opposition from Democrats
who are now in a majority in the Congress.
While all these developments are taking place,
a Washington-based think tank, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace said that “a
mutually beneficial solution to the problem is
still not in sight.” Delhi-based
CUTS-International is also of the view that
talks can proceeds if the US offers to cut its
farm subsidies.
In
a study entitled B’reaking the Doha Deadlock :
Congress Could Play a Pivotal Role’ the
Carnegie Endowment said it was
counterproductive for the US to insist on
terms that could lower the income of poor
farmers in developing countries, by displacing
their production or causing prices to drop for
the commodities they produce. The US should
not insist developing countries to reduce
their tariff. It should accept G-33 proposal
on special products, with additional
clarifications to ensure that flexibility is
used to achieve agrarian development and
poverty alleviation in the developing world.
The study also said the US could benefit
through exports only if farm income levels
continues to rise in the developing countries.
Carnegie Endowment study severely criticised
the inequitable, distorted and very expensive
set of US policies, serving the interests of
the few against the majority in the country
and urged the Congress for a sober revision of
the US policy in the Farm Bill, 2007.
The EU has indicated that it is prepared to
give market access to the developing world by
effecting an average tariff cut by 50%. A
revision in the US proposal in the farm sector
would enable it to make new agreements at WTO
that can open up its opportunities for its
manufacturing and services sector, the study
said.
This article can also be viewed at:
http://www.financialexpress.com/
TOP |
For more than mutual
assurance
Indo-Pak lessons from the
Argentine-Brazilian model of cooperation
Financial Express, India, January
12, 2007
|
Mutual trust achieved, additional
measures would include a commitment to
keep talking: it’s never over until it’s
over |
By Pradeep S Mehta & Abid Suleri
Pakistan and India have just exchanged lists
of their nuclear installations, as part of a
mutual assurance that these shall not be
attacked by either party in the event of any
conflict. However, exchanging lists is not
sufficient cover for an unwarranted action by
either country. Can we think of a strategy to
ensure that there is no threat of any nuclear
or conventional attack ever?
A
successful model exists in the
Argentine-Brazilian nuclear rapprochement. In
the era of colonialism, the two European
powers, Spain and Portugal had expanded their
own rivalry through territorial conquests in
South America: the former in Argentina and the
latter in Brazil. Even after their
administrative independence (Argentina’s in
1816 and Brazil’s in 1822), the burden of
colonised mindsets found continued expression
in a South American rivalry between the two.
They vied with each other for leadership of
South America, with all the usual antagonism
and mistrust.
Although the South American experience could
be valuable, one important difference must be
mentioned: while Argentina and Brazil were
rivals, they were not enemies. The only war
between them took place in 1825, more than a
century-and-a-half ago, giving birth to a new
(buffer) state, Uruguay, through the peace
treaty of 1828. Their relations since have
alternated between cooperation and
competition, but no single shot was ever
fired. A bitter border dispute was resolved by
arbitration, not war. In 1985, they both
grasped a moment of economic logic to put an
end once and for all to the mistrust that had
bedevilled bilateral relations for so long.
Thus did social and economic relations come
into focus. The subsequent period can be
divided into two stages. In the first
(1985-1988), the approach taken was bilateral.
In the second (1989—), the process had a dual
objective: first, to bind the signed
agreements legally, and second, to integrate
the agreements with international
nonproliferation regimes.
It
was as a part of this endeavour that these two
countries, alongwith Paraguay and Uruguay,
formed the South American Common Market (Mercosur)
in 1991, which was later joined by Chile in
1996 and Bolivia in 1997. The aim of this
common market was to enhance trade and
investment opportunities, as these countries
realised that closer economic relations
facilitated by free trade would consolidate
mutual understanding, confidence and
cooperation.
There are several other examples in history of
neighbourhood peace and prosperity taking the
place of hostility and heartburn. Europe put
aside the bitter Nazi experience for the
formation of the European Union. Even in Asia,
it is hard to believe that Thailand, Vietnam
and Cambodia were ever at war.
There are several lessons that can be derived
from all this. First and foremost, to be
successful, an exercise of this kind must be
motivated by sincerity of purpose. No such
moves can have the slightest chance of success
if they are taken with the ulterior motive of
destabilising the other party. As a first
step, a country should open itself to the
other party, on the understanding that this
policy will be reciprocated. Information
should flow fully and freely from one country
to the other. Of course, the sense of mutual
trust thus attained will not last if flanking
and additional measures do notfollow to give
it permanence. Additional measures would
include a commitment to keep talking: it’s
never over until it’s over. Second,
constructive engagement works better than
pressure: renewed reinforcement of the will to
support bilateral confidence-building measures
would lead to more progress than
diplomacy-based political criticism involving
cross-accusations on issues like terror
(which, it hardly takes a couple of minutes to
reiterate, requires dedicated action on both
sides).
Third, regional cooperation infrastructure
projects could be proposed. The East-West
Economic Corridor, a 1,500 km long highway
project crossing six Greater Mekong Sub-region
countries in the Southeast Asia, and the
Middle East regional cooperation projects are
some good examples. Likewise, mega-economic
projects like the
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and the
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline projects
would help promote regional economic
cooperation between India and Pakistan.
Lastly, it may be beneficial to look for
opportunities where the US (and EU) foreign
policies can support bilateral initiatives.
River diplomacy in Argentina, for example,
accelerated bilateral cooperation in the
nuclear arena. The initiative to expand
Indo-Pak ‘bus diplomacy’ should receive US and
EU support. The US could offer incentives by
offering the benefits of its Qualifying
Industrial Zones scheme (by which exports from
Jordan and Egypt containing inputs from Israel
enter the US duty free), under its Generalized
System of Preferences.
Sceptics would argue that in the Indo-Pak
case, the Kashmir dispute is sui generis, and
thus any improvement of relations is dependent
on its resolution. Even if this is so, one can
draw lessons from North Ireland. After 30
years of conflict, the Irish Republican Army
has agreed to lay down arms. Frankly, neither
India nor Pakistan would like an independent
Kashmir. Yet, fortunately, there is a window
of opportunity at the moment. Pakistan
President General Pervez Musharraf and Indian
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh have both
suggested ways to craft a lasting peace
between the two nuclear countries. The
yearning for peace is evident among people on
both sides, as also in Kashmir. Is it not time
to grab it and move ahead?
Pradeep S Mehta is Secretary General of
CUTS International, a research, advocacy and
networking group board in Jaipur, India and
Abid Suleri is Assistant Executive Director of
the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development
Policy Institute.
This article can also be viewed at:
http://www.financialexpress.com/
TOP |
|
|