Opinion
-
Editorials
An anti-terror dialogue
THE PRIME MINISTER of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, may have hoped to exert a ``calming influence'' on India and Pakistan so as to encourage them to pull back from the brink in their latest confrontation. Yet, as Mr. Blair completed his talks with India's leaders in New Delhi, it became clear that he settled for the role of a diplomatic interlocutor on anti-terror issues. In the event, it was not entirely India's understandable sensitivity to Mr. Blair's offer of a ``calming influence'' that limited his role-play. His comments at the conclusion of talks with the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, in New Delhi on Sunday showed that Britain appreciated the massive magnitude of India's revulsion to a pattern of terrorist attacks on its people and institutions from groups with links to Pakistan in one form or the other. Given the enormous complexity of such ``cross-border terrorism'', Mr. Blair indicated that he would call upon Pakistan to end support to any form of anti-India terrorism. The message that he conveyed to the international media was that he might engage Pakistan in the context of India's concerns. According to him, India could move towards ``a meaningful dialogue'' with Pakistan ``provided the threat of terrorism was lifted''. This certainly translates into a robust statement of support from Mr. Blair for the Vajpayee administration's present stance on the question of resuming formal talks with Pakistan. This does not, however, seem to mark a definitive departure from the coordinated appeals by the United States and the United Kingdom to both New Delhi and Islamabad to exercise restraint and resume talks in the present context of India's anger over the terrorist outrage against its parliamentary democracy.
Now, the Vajpayee administration will certainly be well advised to resume the formal dialogue with Pakistan in the latest context of a cordial interaction between the two sides towards the conclusion of the South Asian summit in Kathmandu on Sunday. Of relevance to this new situation is Mr. Blair's espousal of international goodwill for India as evident in his categorical diplomacy of making common cause with New Delhi in denouncing terrorism in all its forms. Not surprisingly, the latest ``New Delhi Declaration'' that Mr. Blair and Mr. Vajpayee have issued is replete with references to the common commitment of the two countries to counter terrorism. Besides the pledge to uphold the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1373, which outlines the latest international law on meeting the globalised terrorist challenge, India and Britain have now agreed upon a mechanism for joint training in this sensitive field. Given London's record of some proactive action against terrorist groups such as the Lashkar-e- Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, both of immense concern to New Delhi, the new Indo-British Declaration does not ring hollow. India and the U.K. can boast of a certain track record, too, about cooperation in formulating extradition laws.
The political centrepiece of the Indo-British Declaration extends beyond the anti-terror spectrum. By acknowledging that India is a natural contender for the position of a permanent member in the United Nations Security Council, the U.K. seems to have given a gentle thrust to New Delhi's legitimate aspirations for a role in shaping the global political order. The ``New Delhi Declaration'', which reads in part like a routine joint communique, is notable for the emphasis on how India and the U.K. can engage each other within the framework of the World Trade Organisation so as to address the concerns of the developing bloc. Some specific aspects of Indo-British bilateral economic collaboration, spelt out in the Declaration, complete a picture of two seriously engaged democracies.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opinion
|
