An undeserved concession

Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim announced in Lahore, on Wednesday, that Pakistan has signed an MoU to provide transit facilities to India for trade with Afghanistan. He said that it was signed on the request of the Indian government, which wanted road and rail transit facilities for trade with Afghanistan.
Interestingly, the minister did not explain that it was the same MoU that was signed during President Zardari and President Karzai's last May's US visit. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had supervised the signing ceremony and described it as an historic event, vowing to put it on a fast track so that it becomes an agreement by the end of the current year.
Even though the MoU did not specify the trade route, it was understood to be the Wagah-Torkham route. Our government leaders had used the ambiguity to insist that it had nothing to do with India. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had categorically stated that it was unrelated to India, and would not damage Pakistan's interests in the region.
Analysts concluded that the denial and the ambiguity were deliberate, designed to allow meaningful progress in the stalled composite dialogue peace process. For, it is no secret that India has been keen for a long time to have access to the lucrative Central Asian markets through the Wagah-Torkham route. It is believed to be a key incentive behind that country's stated interest in resolving 'all outstanding issues, including Kashmir'.
India, of course, has always wanted to normalise relations with Pakistan, while maintaining the status quo in other areas, while our side linked normalisation to the resolution of Kashmir. The Commerce Minister's announcement shows that, as per the US Secretary of State's promise, the MoU is on course to become a formal agreement by the year-end; but the peace process is not.
In their latest meeting, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly's annual session, the two countries' foreign ministers did hold discussions, but failed to set a timeframe for the resumption of composite dialogue. Earlier on, Pakistan had even named a former diplomat to initiate a new round of back-channel diplomacy. Indian foreign minister S.M. Krishna dismissed the use of this channel as well.
New Delhi continues to link peace talks resumption with action on Pakistan's part to bring the Mumbai attack suspects to justice, despite our government's efforts in that direction. The situation being what it is, Pakistan need not go out of its way to appease India. Regarding Mumbai killings, it should do all it can to address New Delhi's concerns. It must also watch its own interests.
Unless the other side comes to the negotiating table and shows a willingness to pursue the peace process with the requisite sincerity, Islamabad should hold back on the Afghan trade route. Opening of the trade route should be linked to steps that push peace forward. Unilateral concessions on such a vital issue as providing India access to Central Asian markets via Wagah and Torkham, without conflict resolution will damage Pakistan's case.