By Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal

Oct 28, 2013

A Botched up Summit!Mere fact that Nawaz-Obama talks took place cannot be construed as a sign of progress, especially in the context of a prolonged sour relationship between the two countries. Nawaz-Obama summit has, yet once again, brought forth the reality that both sides lack clarity about keeping the bilateral relationship on a sustainably stable trajectory. Apart from some trivial gains there has been nothing matching the stature of the summit. Pakistani side failed to gauge the backdrop against which the Pak-US bilateral relationship is playing out at this point and time and the kind of regional dynamics which are impacting this relationship.

Instead of focusing on core bilateral issues, the summit ended up discussing everything under the sun, indeed pondering over a “laundry list”; hence event lost the focus and achieved nothing concrete. Cameron Munter, the US ambassador to Pakistan until last year, said that both sides wanted a more stable relationship that did not just revolve around crises (management). Sharif has projected himself as “modern and moderate” and has been upfront about his challenges, Munter said. “He’s tried to say we can put this back on a good footing (and) trying to keep expectations fairly low.” At a joint media talk with President Obama after they ended the talks, Prime Minister Sharif said they had proceeded along positive lines and tensions had been cleared. This, of course, is good news and hopefully the gains would translate into a lasting cooperation. But reading a little more carefully between the lines, it is also obvious there were disagreements, indeed serious ones, for which there is no likelihood of an early patch-up.

While analysts wonder about the objectives and the timings of the summit, there is unanimity of opinion about the professional incompetence of the planners of the summit. By extending the prime ministerial outreach to official and technical level huddles, summit got degenerated into a working level marathon. Pakistan’s summit managers failed to discern American vulnerabilities and look for a quid pro quo. Unless there were some undeclared understandings between Nawaz and Obama, during the summit, there is hardly anything to write back home. Stratfor a global analysis agency has also declared the trip a ‘failure’.

It is high time that foreign office takes the centre stage in formulating the foreign policy and associated strategy to implement it. Given the confusion and suspicion that dominates the national discourse about Pakistan’s relations with the outside world, particularly the US, the foreign office must be given a free hand to envision the way it would place Pakistan amongst the comity of nations over short, medium and long term timeframes. Unless there is clarity of road map in the long term context, leadership and public would remain confused and the policy would continue to waver. Gap between policy constraints and public expectations would also continue to expand; and it is already touching the boundaries of unmanageability.

After going through the fine prints of the official statements of both sides as well as non-partisan analysis, one wonders if Pakistani view point on any worthwhile subject could find a supporting mention; or if any immediate substantial relief has been provided in distress areas like drone attacks and economic squeeze which has now begun to strangulate the well being of the people.

While the summit was in progress, the UN raising day and the Black day for Kashmir were just around the corner. Indian cease fire violations of the line of control during this year alone had exceeded 345. Kashmir is the world’s most militarises zone, numerous Human Rights entities have pointed stern fingers towards gross HR violations in the IHK, yet Obama chose not to speak specifically on the urgency of implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir. However, he wanted an end to tension between India and Pakistan because: “Billions of dollars have been spent on an arms race in response to these tensions…Those resources could be much more properly invested in education, social welfare programs on both sides of the border between India and Pakistan.”

President Obama welcomed the recent engagements between Nawaz and Manmohan Singh. During which Manmohan had, ironically, almost denied the existence of Kashmir issue. Ahead of his trip to the US, Sharif had said that he planned to ask Obama for American intervention in resolving the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India. Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid had immediately rejected the idea of US involvement, saying Kashmir was a ”bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.”

Kashmir conflict was a central topic of the talks; but Obama parried the responsibility. However, he wanted an end to tension between India and Pakistan because: “Billions of dollars have been spent on an arms race in response to these tensions…Those resources could be much more properly invested in education, social welfare programs on both sides.” Obama said. Probably, Obama did not take input form his military industrial complex which is the main beneficiary of Indian spending on arms. Moreover, in all likelihood, Obama’s first campaign days’ memory has chipped off and alongside the Middle East, Global Zero and many other noble causes, he now does not remember that he once resolved to help settle the Kashmir dispute.  Sharif on his part reiterated that he was committed to cooperation with India, including on Kashmir.

Speaking alongside Obama at the White House, Sharif said he raised the issue of American drone strikes during their two-hour meeting, “emphasizing the need for an end to such strikes.” However, Obama made no mention of drones, which have triggered widespread resentment in Pakistani public. Even Amnesty International’s “fresh from the oven” report that drone attacks violate international law by killing civilians that may be tantamount to war crimes, did not soften Obama’s view. “Secrecy surrounding the drones programme gives the US administration a license to kill beyond the reach of the courts or basic standards of international law. It’s time for the USA to come clean about the drones programme and hold those responsible for these violations to account,” said Mustafa Qadri, Amnesty International’s Pakistan Researcher. “What hope for redress can there be for victims of drone attacks and their families when the USA won’t even acknowledge its responsibility for particular strikes?”

America denies suggestions by Amnesty International that drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and elsewhere infringed international law, and said it did all it could to avoid civilian casualties. American promise to increase transparency around drone strikes, in May 2013, has yet to become a reality. While mention of the drone issue was conspicuously missing in the joint statement, Obama has privately assured that the controversial programme will end as soon as CIA eliminates remaining high-value targets from the region. To top it off, The Washington Post got hold of documents showing that the US had been briefing Pakistan on the targets and casualties of drone attacks from 2007 till 2011 and, on one occasion, had even carried out a strike on a target selected by the government!

With Pakistan’s nuclear safety being called in to question in recent times, Obama reiterated his confidence in Pakistan’s commitment and dedication to nuclear security and recognised that Pakistan is fully engaged with the international community on nuclear safety and security issues. Both leaders emphasised that nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security. Obama appreciated Pakistan’s constructive engagement with the Nuclear Security Summit process and its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international forums, while acknowledging Pakistan’s efforts to improve its strategic trade controls and enhance its engagement with multilateral export regimes.

One of the outcomes of the meeting was the revival of strategic dialogue, the two countries have decided on the strategic priorities for the five working groups including: Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism; Economics and Finance; Energy Security; Strategic Stability and Non-Proliferation;  and the Defence Consultative Group.

Prime Minister Sharif highlighted his government’s efforts for economic growth, energy security, social development, and good governance.  He thanked Obama for the important contribution the United States has made in supporting Pakistan’s development efforts, including through the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009”.  He gave the assurance that the United States would strongly support efforts to enlarge and strengthen Pakistan’s economy, particularly in the energy sector, as this sector could play a critical role in ensuring the well-being and prosperity of the people of Pakistan. He reiterated the US support for ongoing programs to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and increased agricultural productivity. Noting that resolving Pakistan’s energy crisis is a top priority for his government, Prime Minister Sharif expressed his commitment to expand power generation capacity, promote the efficient use of energy resources, and better utilize Pakistan’s domestic natural gas, hydroelectric, and renewable resources. Summit emphasized that both sides should work together on a range of options to enable Pakistan to overcome its energy deficiencies and that both sides will hold further discussions in the working groups on Energy and Security, Strategic Stability, and Non-Proliferation.

Obama acknowledged that there will always be some tension between the US and Pakistan, but “We committed to working together and making sure that rather than this being a source of tension between our two  countries, it can be a source of strength.” While calling for a fresh partnership with the United States on the eve of his meeting with Obama, Nawaz Sharif said “It is my endeavour to approach this important relationship with an open and fresh mind, leaving behind the baggage of trust deficit and mutual suspicions.” Speaking at the US Institute of Peace, Sharif reiterated, “The greatest challenge to Pakistan comes from terrorism and extremism, a major victim” of a decade of attacks that have killed more than 40,000 people.

Two sides agreed on the need for a stable and secure Afghanistan. Sharif said he has assured Afghan President Karzai “that we wish neither to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, nor do we have any favourites.” Sharif said that Pakistan supported a “peaceful, stable and unified Afghanistan”. With a military and political transition in Afghanistan in 2014, Pakistan is the one that stands to be affected the most. The premier also underlined that the support of the international community in the repatriation of Afghan refugees from Pakistan and that their reintegration in Afghanistan was of critical importance to Pakistan.

White House pressed Pakistan to release Dr Shakil Afridi, “Afridi did a good job and he should not have been “treated like that”. One wishes that Americans could feel the pain of the scores of children who have suffered from Polio as parents have lost faith in anti-Polio campaigns since Dr Afridi’s anti-Human and criminal services to the CIA. In his eagerness to please India, Obama also brought up uncalled for issues relating to Jamat-ud-Dawa, and trial of alleged involved persons in Mumbai attacks. When, Nawaz Sharif raised issues pertaining to release of Dr Aafia, and highlighted the Kashmir issue, there was hardly any response.

Foreign office should have briefed the Prime Minister about the American centre of gravity. Heaps of military hardware (worth US$ 80 billion) is awaiting retrieval from Afghanistan, this activity is time bound, and passage can only be through Pakistan. Salang pass in Afghanistan lacks the capacity to handle the traffic, because of which Americans have already destroyed military equipment worth US$ 8 billion. We should have done our homework and asked for infrastructure and security related service charges for retrieval of war material. Moreover, proposal should have been floated for buying some of the relevant equipment on depreciated price.

Nawaz Sharif was quite articulate in putting across the national point of view on almost every issue, but proverbially he was banging his head against the wall. Obama had chosen to be India’s advocate rather than playing his legitimate role as President of America.

To make such evaluation is not to denigrate Nawaz Sharif, he is certainly a visionary leader of great stature; full credit goes to him for forcefully articulating the national point of view. Nor is the purpose of this piece to downplay Pakistan’s tremendous potential as a state and as a nation. It is just to air the anguish about what we ought to be and what we have made out of our selves. Summit was ill-timed, casually planned and clumsily executed. We have indeed missed an opportunity as we did immediately after 9/11. Certainly after this photo session activity, Pakistan has once again emerged as a poor bargainer.

By Senator Sehar Kamran (TI)

Oct 28, 2013

NuclearIn mid 1970s, Pakistan embarked upon the most difficult and challenging project in its history and began developing the infrastructure to build its own nuclear weapons capability. This was a very tough decision, especially at a time when the country had recently suffered dismemberment at the hands of its staunch enemy India in 1971, who also introduced nuclear weapons to the subcontinent by conducting an overt nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan, though struggling economically, felt it had no choice but to go down the path of nuclearization as well in order to ensure its survival. The dedicated and continual efforts of many determined individuals finally came to fruition on 28th May 1998, when Pakistan tested six nuclear devices in response to India’s tests of 11th May 1998.

Currently, Pakistan possesses a sizable nuclear arsenal, which can be launched via an array of land-based and air-based delivery means. Pakistan is maintaining the policy of ‘Minimum Credible Deterrence’, to deter all form of aggression, particularly the threats emanating from its eastern borders. The country has developed well-integrated and strong national institutions for effective command and control of these weapons, to ensure the continued surveillance and response mechanisms built around the overall control of the National Command Authority and chaired by the political office of the Prime Minister.

Pakistan has continuously engaged with the international community at all levels, in all nuclear related initiatives. The Pakistani policy decision to remain outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970 was a wise and timely decision, based on its apprehension of regional developments especially with regards to the Indian nuclear ambitions, which have since been proven right. Pakistan also willingly joined the negotiations of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the 90s, but was waiting for a positive Indian response before a final decision. Once again however, the Pakistani position was prudent and Indian nuclear testing of May 1998 proved these misgivings to be correct. In recent years, another treaty mechanism – the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) has been under discussion at Conference on Disarmament, and Pakistan is very actively engaged in this discussion.

Despite all these positive gestures and cooperation, Pakistan is being treated discriminatorily at all international nuclear forums. On the contrary, India which has always violated international norms and obligations is being accommodated. There may be multiple reasons for this tilt of the international community, especially the US, but there are also some weaknesses in the formulation and articulation of our arguments and their presentation. There is a dire need to further explore the reasons behind this failure in projecting the case of Pakistan in the international arena for nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament forums.

There are many questions which have been and are being raised against Pakistan at various multilateral forums by non-proliferation experts whether from media, academia, or policy circles. These questions, at some levels, are resulting into calcifying misperceptions, which directly or indirectly, are being used by academics, media persons and policy practitioners to portray Pakistan as an irrational, irresponsible and a proliferator state at various international forums and spheres.

A palpable size of literature is available on Pakistan’s nuclear weapon program, its capabilities, and guesstimates on Pakistan’s nuclear development posture, but less attention has been given to address the real causes and reasons behind the questions and resultant misperceptions. This paper is aimed at clarifying some of the positions that Pakistan has taken on different multilateral forums, as far as the issue of nuclear non-proliferation is concerned.

Pakistan’s Policy on Nuclear Non-Proliferation

To analyze Pakistan’s nuclear non-proliferation policy one should not ignore the fundamental fact that Pakistan’s nuclear weapon program is tied to its security concerns with regard to India.[1] Both India and Pakistan have fought three major wars (1947, 1965, and 1971) and a small scale war (1998) and have gone through multiple episodes of serious crisis. Moreover, strategic and conventional asymmetries, close proximity of borders, legacy of fighting wars, shortest missile flight times, unresolved and bloody territorial, unresolved political and ideological disputes,lower temptation for arms race stability and emergence of provocative military doctrines in Indian strategic thinking, and above all the presence of sub-national groups with irrational, often violent doctrines are some of the prevalent factors shaping new strategic realities. Pakistan being on lower end of power calculus as compared to its arch rival feels insecure and vulnerable.

However, despite having the serious security threats, Pakistan has been found proactive in proposing various bilateral and regional non-proliferation arrangements to India. India refused on all accounts. These proposals include a Joint Indo-Pakistan Declaration Renouncing the Acquisition or Manufacture of Nuclear Weapons (1978), A South Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (1978), Mutual Inspection by India and Pakistan of Each Other’s Nuclear Facilities (1979), Simultaneous Adherence to NPT and Acceptance of Full-scope IAEA Safeguards (1979), Bilateral Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1987) and South Asian Missile Free Zone (1994). [2]

Pakistan’s policy on nuclear non-proliferation revolves around two main principles—restraint and responsibility. Even after the over nuclearization in 1998, In 2004 Pakistan offered again a comprehensive proposal what many has termed as ‘Strategic Restraint Regime’ (SRR) to India. Recently Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, while addressing a high level meeting of General Assembly on nuclear Disarmament reiterated Pakistan’s proposal and said “Pakistan advocates a comprehensive strategic restraint regime that establishes nuclear restraint, balance in conventional forces and a mechanism for conflict resolution.”[3] The SRR with its three interlocking elements nuclear restraint, conventional balance and dispute settlement not only offers a comprehensive formula for ensuring strategic stability in South Asia but also helps to create a conducive environment for nuclear disarmament. India has consistently rejected this proposal because it does not fit in its strategic agenda of regional hegemony.

In a recently held meeting of National Command Authority, Pakistan reiterated its stance of ‘Credible Minimum Deterrence’ and reposed full confidence in its command and control system to ensure safety, security, and reliability of its nuclear weapons. However, Pakistan is much concerned about some regional and international developments, which are directly or indirectly linked with its security. These developments include Indo-US strategic partnership (Indo-US Nuclear Deal), NSG membership waiver to India and US efforts to promote the cause of including India as a permanent member of United National Security Council (UNSC). Apart from these apprehensions, Indian Cold Start military doctrine, its pursuance of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) and assured sea based second strike capability; Conventional Arms modernization and its advanced and ambitious military space program are major concerns of Pakistan that affects the prospects for nuclear arms control and disarmament in South Asia.

Pakistan’s position on FMCT is determined by its national security interest. Pakistan believes that without considering the existing fissile material stockpiles asymmetries, halting the further production would not be a real step towards disarmament, rather the Fissile Material Treaty (FMT), which calls for even considering the existing stockpiles would be a real step towards nuclear disarmament. The proposed FMCT, which is viewed as specifically targeted towards Pakistan has the potential to further deepen and widen the strategic asymmetry and hence deterrence instability between India and Pakistan. Same is the case with CTBT. Though Pakistan is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and is opposed to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). However, Pakistan joined some multilateral nonproliferation and anti-terrorism efforts such as the Global Initiative on Combating Nuclear Terrorism and the US Secure Freight Initiative.

In recent years, Pakistan has sought to strengthen export control of sensitive nuclear technologies and to improve nuclear safety by passing the 2004 Export Control Act, establishing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Strategic Export Control Division (SECDIV), and adopting measures to strengthen physical security of nuclear weapons and installations.[4]Pakistan has taken solid and robust steps to enhance the efficiency of security system and has improved its supervisory procedures for military and scientific manpower. First Pakistan introduced the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) and Human Reliability Program (HRP) or the employment of military and civilian personnel. These programs involved a battery of checks to rooting out human eccentricities like lust, greed, depression, and tendency towards radical religious behaviors. PRP is designed along the same lines as in the US. Second a system of security clearance based on annual, semiannual, and quarterly review is in place, and it is based upon the principle of “trust but verify.” Third a system of sensitive material control and accounting under the supervision of SPD has been created which involves regular and surprise inspections to tally material production and waste in order to maintain transparency and accountability. Fourth the inception of Nuclear Security Action Plan (NSAP) by Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA) which evolves the identification of radiological sources, detection of orphan radioactive sources, and to secure borders against any illicit trafficking of sensitive material.

Pakistan has actively participated in the last two NSS summits, which have given huge impetus to nuclear security worldwide. Pakistan marked a history by joining these summits and ensures that nuclear security lies within the state. However, in any form, the security of the state is its national responsibility. Pakistan being a responsible nuclear weapon state, inclined to make its nuclear security as utmost priority.

Pakistan’s policy on nuclear non-proliferation is very transparent and clear. It is directly linked with its national security interests and concerns. Pakistan wants its inclusion in all nuclear export control regime including Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG), as it has been playing a vital role at regional and global level, as far as the nuclear non-proliferation is concerned. Pakistan believes that Pakistan fully qualifies to have full access to civil nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, as it has acquired expertise, manpower and infrastructure to produce civil nuclear energy.

The strains on the global non-proliferation regime have become acute in the recent years. The pursuit of policies based on discrimination and double standards by some major international powers has damaged the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.  Pakistan wants to work with international community in pursuit of reestablishing a robust global nonproliferation regime. Pakistan does not believe in No Nuclear First USE (NFU), but believes in Nonaggression and No Use of Force (NUF) posture both in conventional and strategic domains.

Pakistan fully qualifies for full access to civil nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to meet its future and ongoing energy challenges. The civil nuclear technology for power production in Pakistan will not be used for weapon production as any agreement in this regard would be under IAEA statute. It will   create immense economic development opportunities and will contribute in establishing peace and prosperity.

 


[1] Reducing and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to the Nuclear Disarmament, International Panel on Fissile Material Report 2010, available at http://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr09cv.pdf
[2] Evaluating the Efficacy of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, IAEA Committee Meeting Report, available at; http://media.wix.com/ugd/6f7872_f29179fc7c62445c65dcb48d37ed7b91.pdf
[3] See the full statement by the Prime Minister of Pakistan at UNGA High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament held on September 26, 2013 at; http://www.un.org/en/ga/68/meetings/nucleardisarmament/pdf/PK_en.pdf
[4]Jayshree Bajoria, and Sharon Otterman, Controls on Pakistan’s Nuclear Technology, Council on Foreign Relations, Feburary 2008, available at http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/controls-pakistans-nuclear-technology/p7742

By The Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies (CPGS)

Oct 28, 2013

indexThe Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies (CPGS) has recently proposed a ‘National Policy for Peace and Harmony’, promoting a culture of tolerance and equality and countering terrorism, as a part of its work towards countering and preventing radicalization tendencies in Pakistan. This Policy document was launched at the culmination of a Two-Day International Seminar organized by the Centre on 21st – 22nd August 2013. This document was then floated at various national and international platforms, including various relevant governmental institutions.

Shortly afterwards, the All-Parties Conference (APC) held on September 9th 2013 passed a joint resolution tackling similar issues. The text of the resolution highlights various points raised by the Policy document. In fact, the call for the APC in itself is in line with the recommendations of the proposed policy, as emphasized in the concluding paragraphs of the document:

The National Policy for Peace and Harmony is aimed at resolving the existing radical extremism in Pakistan using peaceful means, integrating and coordinating national efforts on the basis of agreed principles achieved through consensus. This task is enormous and cannot be undertaken alone by any government, political party or group.

 The policy document itself stressed the need for consensus via an APC. Similarly, many other congruencies presented themselves within the texts of the two documents. Some of them have been highlighted below.


APC Text

Guiding Principles:

Guiding principles should include respect for local customs and traditions, values and religious beliefs and the creation of an environment which brings peace and tranquility to the region.

Reforms:

  1. The APCs in February 2013 reiterated that attaining peace through dialogue should be the first priority.
  2. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan are paramount and must be safeguarded at all costs.
  3. And determined to promote friendship with all and enmity towards none”; Emphasizing the imperative need to review our national security strategy, in the context of an independent foreign policy with focus on peace and reconciliation, and to attach the highest priority to dialogue

Policy Text

Guiding Principles:

Recognising the principles of freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam; Wherein adequate provisions should be made for all the communities to profess and practice their beliefs;
Implement proposed action plan in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner keeping in view local social, religious, political and economic realities of Pakistani society.

 

Reforms:

  1. Identify issues and initiate dialogue all segments of society representing different views.
  2. Produce National narrative based on agreed values and principles around shared history, culture, sovereignty of the state, peaceful coexistence and rule of law.
  3. Understanding the need for integration in international system for peace and harmony on the basis of universal human values, norms, principles and traditions.

By The Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies
Nov 18, 2014

The Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies (CPGS) has recently proposed a ‘National Policy for Peace and Harmony’, promoting a culture of tolerance and equality and countering terrorism, as a part of its work towards countering and preventing radicalization tendencies in Pakistan. This Policy document was launched at the culmination of a Two-Day International Seminar organized by the Centre on 21st – 22nd August 2013. This document was then floated at various national and international platforms, including various relevant governmental institutions.

Shortly afterwards, the All-Parties Conference (APC) held on September 9th 2013 passed a joint resolution tackling similar issues. The text of the resolution highlights various points raised by the Policy document. In fact, the call for the APC in itself is in line with the recommendations of the proposed policy, as emphasized in the concluding paragraphs of the document:

The National Policy for Peace and Harmony is aimed at resolving the existing radical extremism in Pakistan using peaceful means, integrating and coordinating national efforts on the basis of agreed principles achieved through consensus. This task is enormous and cannot be undertaken alone by any government, political party or group.

 The policy document itself stressed the need for consensus via an APC. Similarly, many other congruencies presented themselves within the texts of the two documents. Some of them have been highlighted below.

 

APC Text

Guiding Principles:

Guiding principles should include respect for local customs and traditions, values and religious beliefs and the creation of an environment which brings peace and tranquility to the region.

 

 

Reforms:

  1. The APCs in February 2013 reiterated that attaining peace through dialogue should be the first priority.
  2. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan are paramount and must be safeguarded at all costs.
  3. And determined to promote “friendship with all and enmity towards none”; Emphasizing the imperative need to review our national security strategy, in the context of an independent foreign policy with focus on peace and reconciliation, and to attach the highest priority to dialogue

Policy Text

Guiding Principles:

Recognising the principles of freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam; Wherein adequate provisions should be made for all the communities to profess and practice their beliefs;
Implement proposed action plan in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner keeping in view local social, religious, political and economic realities of Pakistani society.

 

Reforms:

  1. Identify issues and initiate dialogue all segments of society representing different views.
  2. Produce National narrative based on agreed values and principles around shared history, culture, sovereignty of the state, peaceful coexistence and rule of law.
  3. Understanding the need for integration in international system for peace and harmony on the basis of universal human values, norms, principles and traditions.

 

Send this to a friend