The Pak-Afghan pact was signed between Pakistan and Afghanistan under pressure from the USA on July 18. Under this pact, Pakistan will provide transit trade between Afghanistan and India through its air space.

Pakistan had denied its land route to India but it agreed to provide air space which may benefit the latter but will cause damage to Pakistan’s security as well as its economy.

India has been successful in attaining Pakistani air space for trade with Afghanistan by coaxing the US to put pressure on Pakistan.

Both India and Afghanistan stand to gain while Pakistan is bound to be at a loss in more ways than one.

The government seems to have taken an important decision overnight by approving and signing the deal without consulting the parliament, leave alone the nation. Is this how foreign policy decisions are taken by a democratic government?

What is the difference between a dictator and a democratic government then?

Is there any need for India to negotiate further when it has acquired what it wanted? It never holds discussions over India-held Kashmir which it claims to be its internal issue.

It has been said that Afghanistan would facilitate Pakistan a transit trade route to Central Asian states. Did Pakistan really need a transit route to these countries via Afghanistan when we have China on our north which can easily give us access?

Last but not the least the media stated that Pakistan denies land access to India, but conveniently evaded the news that Pakistan agrees to provide air space to India.

FAHMIDA ABDUL SATTAR
Karachi

(II)

Pakistan and Afghanistan have finalised a new transit trade agreement which allows export of Afghan goods to India through the Wagah border.

However, Indian goods to Afghanistan will not be allowed to transit through land route in Pakistan. In return, Pakistan will be able to use Afghan territory for its exports to Central Asian Republics (CARs). It is not yet clear whether CARs would be allowed to export their goods to Pakistan through the land route in Afghanistan.

The agreement is a welcome step provided it does not entail unexplained conditions that may hurt Pakistan’s interests and increase its security concerns.

Afghanistan is Pakistan’s next door neighbour with centuries-old bonds of common religion, culture and heritage.

The two countries need to further strengthen their relations and forget about the misunderstandings that had been created by vested interests.

However, many questions arise out of this accord which has been signed with the active involvement of the United States and in the presence of its Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton.

It is an interesting phenomenon that anything that concerns Pakistan and has the least involvement of the US causes much suspicions and apprehensions among the masses, as the track record of the Pak-US friendship has never been an unblemished one.

The present bilateral accord was previously designed by the US and negotiated under its aegis as a trilateral one, including India, only to facilitate her in capturing the Afghan market and beyond. But owing to a strong reaction from Pakistan the contemplated beneficiary, India, has now been placed in a low key or made some kind of a ‘sleeping partner’ in the business.

Another thing that agitates most Pakistanis is: why is the US interested so much in promoting India’s cause and interest vis-à-vis Pakistan’s?

Needless to say that Pakistan is an ally of the US in its war against terror and has been suffering heavily on that account.

EHTESHAM SIDDIQUI
Islamabad

(III)

Your editorial “Transit rights for India” (July 18) was not well researched. Transit rights to India for trade with Afghanistan are already available under the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965, which is in force. Article I of this Agreement “grant and guarantee to each other the freedom of transit to and from their territories. No distinction shall be made which is based on the flag of the vessels, the place of origin, departure, entry, exit or destination or any other circumstances relating to ownership of goods of vessels or of other means of transport”.

Annex to the Agreement where operating procedures are laid down, states that: “In case of goods entering Pakistan at Lahore the procedure will be the same as detailed above in respect of Karachi” [Annex Part I, para 7] and “In case of goods to be exported by land to India, the wagons will, on arrival at the land customs station, be inspected by Customs” [Annex Part II, para 5(b)]

In the light of the above, the need for negotiation of a new transit trade agreement is not understandable. The problem is in implementation of the agreement on the part of Pakistan. If provisions in the existing agreement are not being implemented in letter and spirit, what’s the guarantee that the new agreement will be implemented more honestly?

India has alternative routes to Afghanistan, using Bombay and Chahbahar port in Iran. Its goods will not remain unsold if transit trade facilities by land route are obstructed. Afghanistan has also alternative sources of goods supplied by India. The main loser is Pakistan. Transit trade will generate economic activity, employment and income at working class level. Short-sightedness of our policy makers cannot see these benefits.

When Belgium became a nation in the early nineteenth century, railways were being built across Europe. Belgium decided that “her railway system should begin with a cross. So Belgium would link up England, France, Germany and Holland, and draw across her territory the trade of all”.

Our leaders are unable to see such wisdom.

ABDUL MAJEED
Islamabad