Search the Internet          Tips

'Musharraf has more cause to fear failure'

Aziz Haniffa
India Abroad Correspondent in Washington

A failed summit will do much more damage to Pakistan's military leader, General Pervez Musharraf, than it will to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India, according to a leading American think tank.

The Henry L Stimson Centre, the only think tank with an exclusive confidence-building measures programme in South Asia, said, "Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf both need to have a successful summit -- or at least avoid a negative one."

It said a failed summit would raise questions in India about Vajpayee's surprise invitation to Musharraf.

But the Stimson brief circulated in Congress, administration circles and the media added: "The failed summit would be more damaging to Musharraf, compounding his poor international standing."

It recalled that Vajpayee's last summit journey in 1999 "drew considerable praise", noting that "during his stay in Lahore, Vajpayee visited the Minar-e-Pakistan, the monument erected to commemorate the manifesto calling for the creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims".

During that visit he scrawled the following lines into the distinguished visitors' guest book: "I wish to assure the people of Pakistan of my country's deep desire for lasting peace and friendship. I have said this before, and I will say it again: A stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest. Let no one in Pakistan be in doubt about this. India sincerely wishes the people of Pakistan well."

The Stimson Centre brief, however, pointed out that "while Vajpayee was writing these lines, two brigades of the Pakistan Army and 'mujaheddin' were preparing to scale the heights above Kargil in a daring effort to seize and hold territory on India's side of the Line of Control dividing Kashmir".

It said Vajpayee "has again clarified his intentions by his surprise invitation for another summit. But what about Musharraf? This is the key question overhanging this summit. Is he now ready to chart a new course for Pakistan's betterment, and if so, can he deliver?"

According to the Stimson Centre, Vajpayee obviously thinks so. "Otherwise," it asked, "why would he bypass the usual diplomatic channels and go right to the top?"

It acknowledged that "professional diplomats shudder at unscripted summits, but the scripts they have followed in the past have produced little positive result. Diplomats can succeed only when their leaders are ready. So why not find out if this is now the case?"

The Stimson brief said Musharraf, like Vajpayee, "is quite capable of taking bold risks, as is amply evident from his biography".

But it argued that "dynamic Pakistani generals who take over the responsibilities of governance usually shy away from subsequent risk-taking, having no domestic mandate to pursue major course corrections".

"Will Musharraf be any different in this regard?" it asked, and answered, "We shall certainly know at least a little -- and perhaps a great deal more -- about the answer to this question at Agra."

The Stimson brief said Musharraf "and his fellow senior officers are now well acquainted with the dreadful state of Pakistan's economy, and the grave consequences this has for their country's future, as well as for the modernisation of Pakistan's armed forces".

It warned, "The solutions to these ills cannot be found in continued, deep enmity with India or in association with militant groups."

The Stimson brief advised that cross-border infrastructure projects have the potential to be of mutual economic benefit, while also improving prospects for regional security.

In this regard, it said, "The gas pipeline project running from Iran through Pakistan, and terminating in India's energy-hungry western states, could benefit the economic growth of all parties, as long as all act responsibly."

It added that the large sums of money needed from the international community to make the pipeline a reality were unlikely to be forthcoming without "meaningful guarantees" of responsible behaviour.

The Stimson brief hoped the Bush administration, unlike the previous Clinton administration, which strongly opposed the pipeline, would support the project. "If economic projects mandate co-operation and improve the health of national economies in regions of nuclear danger, they deserve US support," it said.

It also hoped the summit would address the issue of nuclear risk reduction and warned that "the early stages of nuclear competition are always the most dangerous".

"The Agra summit gives both leaders an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to reduce the dark shadow cast by weapons of mass destruction over the subcontinent," the brief said.

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report