Modi didn’t hand over any charge sheet, says Sartaj

 

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had not been presented any charge sheet by his Indian counterpart during the meeting in New Delhi, Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs and National Security Sartaj Aziz stated categorically on Wednesday.
He discussed Kashmir issue during his meeting with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi. He brushed aside criticism that Nawaz Sharif did not meet the Kashmiri leaders of Hurriyat, who anyway were not in New Delhi, and that the premier had omitted the ‘K’ word in his statement before leaving Delhi.

On his return from New Delhi, Sartaj Aziz felt the need to take the media into confidence because of front page media reports that Modi had read the riot act to Nawaz Sharif and that he also presented a ‘charge sheet’ to Nawaz.

“The purpose of meeting with the Hurriyat leaders is not mere formality. When there are discussions on Kashmir we take their views. This time there was nothing substantive on Kashmir on the agenda. However, it was raised during the talks. When the prime minister and I point out that all issues of mutual concern were raised, then Kashmir is part of that concern,” he said.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi held a one-on-one meeting on Tuesday in New Delhi after delegation level talks in which issues of concern to both sides were discussed, including the disputes that have so far hampered advancement of bilateral relations.

“The delegation level meeting and the 50-minute one-on-one meeting were polite and firm diplomacy where there was sincerity, warmth and determination to move forward. There was no ‘charge sheet’ rather it was clear that both sides were of the view that confrontation should be converted into meaningful cooperation,” explained Sartaj Aziz in a meeting with the media at the Foreign Office.

Added to this was the first press conference of Indian minister external affairs Sushma Swaraj who stated, “The voice of talks gets lost in the sound of bomb blasts. That is why bomb blasts should stop so that we can talk and our voices can be heard. Talks will get subdued under the din of bomb blasts. He (Modi) conveyed it to Sharif in these many words.”

Sartaj Aziz did not shy away from the fact that concerns about terrorism by both prime ministers found their way to the table.“As you all are aware, all aspects of terrorism have been discussed at different levels in our region. We believe that such issues can be handled only through constant interaction between the concerned authorities of the two countries,” Sartaj Aziz explained while reading from a prepared text.

However, he said the issue of terrorism and other outstanding issues were discussed in a cordial atmosphere, “where both the sides expressed their views on all issues of common concern. There was clear recognition of each other’s concerns and the need for mechanisms to address them”.

While responding to queries, Sartaj Aziz pleaded for patience over all outstanding issues, saying one had to understand that it was Modi’s first day in office, theirs was a ‘ceremonious’ meeting despite which he went into a lengthy meeting with Nawaz Sharif.

“Both agreed that this was an opportunity for beginning of new ties and a new page in our relations. This time around was also different because both the prime ministers have full mandates unlike the last time when Vajpayee had one year left. Both sides have economic progress on their agenda. It is also different from other Indo-Pak governments because we mean it when we say if there is no peace there is no progress,” said Sartaj Aziz sounding an optimistic note.

If Nawaz Sharif did not mention Kashmir in his statement, Wednesday saw Modi beginning the process to abrogate Article 370 that is said to legally bind the disputed Himalayan state with India.

To another query, Sartaj Aziz said that the issue of the Mumbai attacks raised by Modi had nothing new.

“For the last five years the Indian government has talked about the Mumbai attacks and asked us to expedite the trial process so justice can be met. Our response has been that it is an ongoing process. No assurances were asked for in this regard and none were given,” he said.

The issue of terrorism was raised by both sides but unlike what is being said in the media it was done by both in a very civilised tone, with Nawaz Sharif suggesting mechanisms to look into different aspects of the issue and what kind of formation is to be set up.

Sartaj Aziz said the Lahore Declaration which is historical and signed under a BJP government was raised by Nawaz Sharif.“We said that it was a good starting point and Modi said his government had respect for Vajpayee. The declaration states that there will be no interference in each other’s affairs, and efforts will be intensified regarding different issues including Jammu and Kashmir.

The PM’s adviser hinted that the structure of the composite dialogue might undergo a change.“The composite dialogue started in 1998 and covers eight main issues facing Pakistan and India. But so much time has passed and many incidents have occurred; it is the job of the foreign secretaries to decide on how to move forward,” he said.

“Previously it had eight subjects but since then a lot of changes have taken place. The prime minister said there is need for this to be reviewed to take the process further. The agenda will be set by the two foreign secretaries but we have to give them time as their government came into being only yesterday,” Sartaj Aziz said.

On MFN, there has been a lot of progress and some loose ends like non-tariff issues have to be tied up through meetings of the commerce secretaries and the commerce ministers.“Pakistan has a clear stance on Kashmir as without its resolution the objective of long-lasting peace could not be achieved,” he said.

Commission didn’t exonerate ISI of murder allegations

ISLAMABAD: The Judicial Commission on Saleem Shahzad case had recommended the accountability of intelligence agencies through legislation noting that currently the ‘legal and organisational foundations of the two major agencies (ISI and IB) rest on mere executive orders.’ The commission stressed on ‘an urgent need for laying down a comprehensive statutory framework’ for them.
Terming it ‘high time’ to bring the agencies under legal framework, the commission had recommended their accountability at three levels: within the agency and before the minister-in-charge; before a parliamentary committee; and before a judicial forum. Defining the role of agencies, the commission said they must be kept at a distance from ‘press censorship, liaising with political parties and the conduct of foreign policy.’

The commission had recommended internal documentation and procedure of inquiry in order to investigate the allegations of misconduct by agency officials. “Without the relevant documentation, no investigation would have much chances of success and it would be hard to rule out the possibility of the agencies’ involvement in incidents like the murder of Saleem Shahzad,” the commission noted.

Highlighting the need for parliamentary oversight of the agencies, the commission said it will serve two purposes: (i) improving the efficiency of agencies; (ii) preventing excesses through oversight and ensuring public confidence in the agencies.

It further noted that in extreme cases where internal review as well as parliamentary review is not sufficient, the agencies may also be held accountable to a specially constituted judicial forum.

A special judicial oversight mechanism may be set up for dealing fairly and effectively with complaints against the agencies, whether emanating from the media or from other sectors of the society, the commission said. “While the forum should be of a general nature, particular importance should be given in this regard to the complaints of the press.”

The role of agencies had come under question. Like Hamid Mir, Saleem Shahzad had also conveyed threats to his life from the ISI and the commission had not absolved the agency of the allegations directing the police to investigate the names named by the slain journalist, Saleem.

Although, threats and acts of intimidation are denied by the ISI, the commission report noted, “Yet from the statements of the above named, the commission cannot hold that their understanding and perception about the threats etc. extended to them are misconceived, simply for the reason that it had been refuted by the ISI official.”

When so many senior and respected journalists have come forward to record their perception, noted the commission, that they found certain words, gestures and acts of ISI officials as intimidating and threatening, then it is hard to dismiss it lightly, “merely on account of a bald denial by ISI.”

“Therefore, from the overwhelming material available on the record, the commission is convinced that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the agencies, including ISI, have been using coercive and intimidating tactics in dealing with those journalists who antagonise the agency’s interest.”

Neither did the government act upon the commission’s recommendations nor did the police pursue the investigation into the Saleem Shahzad’s murder.

As far as the commission’s recommendations about legislation for intelligence agencies are concerned, it declared them ‘necessary to ensure that the agencies remain law-abiding and also that the public perceives them as such.’

This would require a serious effort from parliament, the report said. The commission report goes on: ‘In various countries of the world, intelligence agencies were first created under executive orders, but subsequently brought on a statutory footing to improve their level of accountability. It is high time we brought the same change in Pakistan.”

Whatever the details, the framework adopted for intelligence legislation must ensure constitutional standards of accountability.

The agencies can be held accountable at three levels: within the agency and before the minister-in-charge; before a parliamentary committee (and thus the parliament and the public); and before a judicial forum, said the report.

For improving the system of Internal Administrative Accountability for the agencies, the commission proposed statute should delineate, among other things, the purpose and object of various agencies.

Duties which fall beyond the competence of these agencies, such as press censorship, liaising with political parties and the conduct of foreign policy should be expressly excluded from their mandate. Given our current crisis, being explicit about these matters would be more than worth it, said the commission report.

The chain of command of the agencies should be clearly demarcated, the report added. The structure should be designed such that the minister-in-charge as well as the head of the agency is able to ensure internal administrative accountability. Therefore, in case of an alleged wrongdoing, the first level of inquiry should be from within the agencies. In this regard, it may be useful to set up an internal but independent office for review, such as a counsel general, an inspector general of intelligence (Australia) or auditor, whose job is to assist the minister-in-charge and/or the head of the agency in ensuring compliance with ministerial policy as well as with legal and constitutional limits, explains the commission report.

Emphasizing on the need for a more accountable work culture, the reports notes, the work-culture of the agencies may also need some change if oversight of any sort upon them, internal, parliamentary or judicial, is to be meaningful. In this regard, the proposed statute may require them to adopt by-laws which mandate their operatives to follow internationally-recognized Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

The procedures should be defined in such a manner so as to improve the level of documentation, according to the report. In case of a complaint of misconduct, the relevant documentation should be handed over to the investigators for a proper inquiry. This change is absolutely necessary for increased accountability. Otherwise, without the relevant documentation, no investigation would have much chances of success and it would be hard to rule out the possibility of the agencies’ involvement in incidents like the murder of Saleem Shahzad.

For improving the system of democratic accountability for the agencies, the commission said they should also be made directly accountable to parliament. In this regard, parliament should consider creating bipartisan standing committees on intelligence in both houses of parliament. There are numerous such committees in parliaments around the world. The parliament may consider and deliberate upon various existing models of legislative accountability of the intelligence community to tailor the solution most appropriate for our context.

The aim of parliamentary scrutiny should be two-fold: (i) improving the efficiency of the agencies; (ii) preventing excesses through oversight and ensuring public confidence in the agencies.

For improving the system of judicial accountability for the agencies, the commission report said that in extreme cases where internal review as well as parliamentary review is not sufficient, the agencies may also be held accountable to a specially-constituted judicial forum.

A special judicial oversight mechanism may be set up for dealing fairly and effectively with complaints against the agencies, whether emanating from the press/media, as in this case, or from other sectors of society. While the forum should be of a general nature, particular importance should be given in this regard to the complaints of the press. For this purpose, it may be useful to create an office of human rights ombudsman, the commission recommended.

Govt didn’t share list of released detainees: Prof Ibrahim

PESHAWAR: The Taliban side intermediary, Professor Ibrahim Sunday observed that chances of success of the government-Taliban dialogue process were facing many odds and termed trust-deficit as the biggest hurdle.

In an interview to a foreign media, Prof Ibrahim claimed that the government had not shared with them list of the released Taliban-linked detainees.

He underscored need for sharing of details of the released detainees so that ‘we can press the Taliban to free Prof Ajmal, Ali Haider Gilani and Shahbaz Taseer’ who continue to remain hostage in their custody.

Prof Ibrahim said: “We had believed that the government and military were on same page over the peace dialogue but the army has now expressed reservations in this regard”.

He said the talks’ process also suffered a stalemate due to the infighting among the Taliban factions.