An international seminar on relations between the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation, China and Japan with the countries of South Asia was held in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, on August 11-12, 2003. The seminar was organized by the Institute of Regional Studies (founded in 1982, funded by the Ministry of Information of Pakistan, and the research work is mainly focused on South Asian issues).

President of Pakistan General P. Masharraf delivered a speech at the opening of the seminar. In a speech on his 60th birthday, the president stressed the importance of Pakistan's ties with China and the United States and noted the beginning of a "thaw" in relations with Russia. In addition, he assured of Pakistan's commitment to the ideals of peace and cooperation in South Asia and called for the expansion of the functions and importance of the South Asian Cooperation Association (SAARC). The Pakistani media paid considerable attention to the latest proposal of the president, emphasizing the idea expressed by him about the need to change the charter of the organization, which prohibits discussion of problems of bilateral relations within its framework. This proposal appears to represent a new initiative of Pakistani diplomacy aimed at increasing the level of multilateral political interaction in South Asia, revealing Islamabad's desire to mobilize the support of regional countries to pressure New Delhi on the Kashmir issue.

A prominent Pakistani diplomat, former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs) also spoke at the opening session of the seminar. minister of Foreign Affairs) Inam-ul-Haq, who gave a balanced picture of Pakistan's relations with the United States, Europe, Russia, China and Japan.

The first session focused on U.S. interests and policies in South Asia. A report by R. W. Jones, a prominent American expert on nuclear nonproliferation and political issues in Asia, noted that the key interests of US foreign policy have changed in the most radical way since the end of the Cold War. In the period from 1947 to 1990, the imperatives of confrontation between the then geopolitical East and West determined American policy towards India and Pakistan. The latter acted as a strategic partner of the United States, while India, although you-

page 166

She expressed "admiration" for her democracy and was "not available" as an ally. R. W. Jones divided the subsequent phase into three sub-stages, covering eight years before the underground nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998, three years after them up to the events of September 11, 2001, and two years since then. The author of the report noted that the differences between the sub-stages of American policy, while significant, are still not fundamental. There is a clear shift of emphasis in Washington's South Asian policy towards India. Nuclear tests only briefly overshadowed US-Indian relations, as in May-June 1999, during the mini-war between India and Pakistan on the line of control in Kashmir, Washington sided with the former. The events of September 11 brought the war on terrorism to the fore for the United States. India expressed its readiness to participate without delay, and after that, US-Indian military contacts significantly deepened. At the same time, military-technical cooperation between India and Israel has expanded.

The report by R. W. Jones highlights that India, under the coalition government formed by the Indian People's Party (Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP), was significantly more willing to cooperate with the United States in the field of security, although "still cautious in moving towards a type of formalized military cooperation, which can be called a strategic alliance". The United States continues to worry about the issue of nuclear proliferation, but it understands the impossibility of reversing the process and hopes to slow down the nuclear weapons of India and Pakistan and prevent them from exporting nuclear and missile technologies. The role of the latter state in the war against terrorism, especially in its Afghan turn, turned out to be significant, but, unlike India, Pakistan is not only the most important participant in it, but also to some extent "part of the problem". Hence the ambivalence of Washington's attitude towards it.

U. Singh, a professor at the J. Nehru University of Delhi, focused on the peculiarities of US policy in South Asia after September 11, 2001. Like Jones, she expressed the view that U.S.-Indian relations have improved significantly over the past two years. Among the reasons for this, she highlighted the economic progress that India has made since the early 1990s, its transformation into a "large emerging market", and the emergence of a dynamic community of Indian-Americans, especially successful in the information technology sector. The expansion of bilateral ties has affected both the trade and economic sphere (mutual trade has reached $ 14 billion a year, and American investment - a third of foreign direct investment in the Indian economy), and the military-political sphere (joint exercises of representatives of all types of troops, strong contacts between defense and intelligence agencies).

According to U. Singh, relations between India and the United States are not unproblematic. New Delhi is confused by American approaches to world affairs, in particular the United States ' demonstrated preference for a unipolar structure of international relations and preventive interventions. While India is engaged with the United States in the fight against terrorism, it finds that the American position on such active areas as Chechnya, Xinjiang and Kashmir does not quite coincide with its own. The issue of terrorism in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir was particularly divisive. However, recently they have decreased. While Delhi still rules out international mediation in resolving the Kashmir issue, it is willing to accept some assistance from Washington.

S. F. Cohen, a well-known American expert on South Asia, focused his report on the peculiarities of the current US policy towards Pakistan. Adding to the historical digression of R. W. Jones, he emphasized the role of Washington in overcoming the crisis of May-June 2002 in relations between Delhi and Islamabad, which threatened to escalate into a nuclear conflict. Although at that time the United States once again demonstrated its equidistance from the two antagonists and thus again refused to meet the expectations of a part of the political class of Pakistan, it remained extremely interested in it. Musharraf's visit to the United States in June 2003 and the warm welcome extended to him by President John Kerry are eloquent examples of this. President George W. Bush, and the promise of the American side to provide Pakistan with military and economic assistance in the amount of $ 3 billion over five years. Touching upon the short-and long-term goals of American policy in the Pakistani direction, S. F. Cohen identified six tasks. The first of them is terrorism, joint struggle

page 167

with al-Qaeda; the second is the nuclear program, the need to stop the nuclear race with India, as well as dangerous contacts with North Korea; the third is democratization, its implementation in such a way as not to disrupt the stability of the current regime; the fourth is the elimination of Pakistan's hostility to India in order to allow the United States to further develop relations with the last; fifth - its transformation into a moderate Muslim state, which could become a model for other countries of the Islamic world; finally, the sixth - reducing the risk of Pakistan's transformation into a "rogue state" due to the victory of extremist and terrorist elements there. Having defined the tasks facing the United States, S. A. Cohen outlined ways to achieve them. Among them is the emphasis on the positive correlation between American aid and the steps of the Pakistani leadership, which should bring real results in the field of economy and education, in the fight against corruption and in the political sphere.

At the first meeting, two Pakistani political scientists, H. - A, also made presentations. Rizvi and retired General K. Mateenuddin. - A. Rizvi noted that the stage of strengthening US-Pakistani relations since September 2001 has replaced the long-term cooling period that began in 1990, when the United States imposed an embargo on assistance programs to Pakistan due to its nuclear program. By the time Islamabad was included in the anti-terrorist struggle, it was subject to four types of US sanctions imposed in 1990, 1998 (after nuclear tests), 1999 (as a result of a military coup), and 2000 (due to suspected imports of missile technology from China). The improvement in bilateral ties was demonstrated by the lifting of most of the sanctions and the provision of more than $ 1 billion in economic aid to Pakistan in 2002/2003, not counting payments for the use of Pakistan's airfields and other facilities by the US armed forces. Agreed upon by J. R. R. Tolkien According to H.-A. Rizvi, the expansion of cooperation programs between Bush and P. Musharraf does not mean eliminating the differences on all points between Islamabad and Washington. In particular, there remain differences in the approach to operations against remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the mountainous Pashtun tribal belt. The deployment of Pakistani regular troops under US pressure has already strained relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, even leading to the destruction of the Pakistani embassy in Kabul. The arrests and expulsions of Pakistani citizens with expired documents from the United States, as well as delays in issuing visas for Pakistanis working or studying in America, are also causing friction. Rizvi stressed that the transformation of the United States into a regional power in South Asia requires a more balanced approach to Pakistan and India.

Describing the goals of the US policy towards Pakistan and India, K. Matinuddin focused on the expectations and doubts of the Pakistani side. Pakistan's involvement in the war on international terrorism has brought it some benefits. However, the losses he suffered due to the operation against the Taliban were very significant (a drop in income from tourism, a reduction in foreign trade and foreign capital inflows). Despite providing significant military and economic assistance to Pakistan, the United States continues to be extremely unpopular among Pakistanis. The reason for this, according to K. Matinuddin, is the unfair support of the Americans for the actions of Israel against the Palestinians and India against its Muslims. The invasion of Iraq further increased hostility to the United States. At the same time, the Pakistani government hopes that Washington will continue to put pressure on New Delhi to persuade it to enter into negotiations with Islamabad on the Kashmir issue. The positive developments in India's position on this issue since April 2003 also require the Pakistani side to fully implement its promise to put an end to cross-border infiltration.

The second working session focused on cooperation between the European Union and South Asian countries. Reports of two Englishmen, two Germans and a Frenchman were heard and discussed. J.-L. Racine, a leading specialist of the Center for South Asian Studies in Paris, was the most interesting speaker. United Europe, he noted, now occupies a strong first place among the trading partners of the states of South Asia. Its trade turnover with India in 2001 was $ 25 billion. This represents more than a fifth of the total Indian trade turnover. Pakistan and Bangladesh are even more "tied" in terms of foreign trade to European countries, especially with regard to their exports, in which textile products occupy a leading place. At the same time, the share of South Asia in Europe's foreign trade turnover is only 2%. India ranks 20th among its trading partners. Thus,

page 168

The trade value of Europe for South Asia is immeasurably greater than that of South Asian countries for European ones. As a source of investment, the role of the European Union is also significant: of the $ 30 billion raised by India in 1991-2001, it accounted for 13.5%.

As J.-L. Racine noted, the European Union leads the world in terms of both "official development assistance" and humanitarian aid. South Asia is given a significant place in European programs. The EU budget for 2002-2006 provides 560 million euros to Bangladesh and 225 million euros to India. In addition, there are numerous targeted and special projects. Among the South Asian countries, the EU has a very special relationship with India. Their first summit was held in Lisbon in 2000, followed by two more summits in New Delhi in 2001 and Copenhagen in 2002. India has thus become one of the few countries (the United States, Canada, Russia, China and Japan) with which the united Europe holds regular annual meetings at the highest level. India, J.-L. Racine emphasized, has become an important partner of the EU in shaping the "emerging multipolar world". Europe, however,is not interested in forcing Pakistan into a corner. It sees it as a State in need of assistance due to its chronic "structural problems" and would like to help resolve contentious issues, especially the Kashmir issue, between it and India. To that However, Europe, especially Germany, which plays a prominent role in the process of restoring peace in Afghanistan, is well aware of the significant impact of the situation in Pakistan on the Afghan situation.

Z. Mustafa's report, which analyzed the Pakistani point of view on the European Union's policy in the region, was also interesting. It noted that the conclusion of the first trade agreements between the EU and South Asian countries dates back to the mid-1970s, after which the practice of signing them approximately once every 10 years was established. For Pakistan, the European Union is the largest trading partner (30% of exports and 27% of imports). At the same time, relations between it and united Europe have not always been smooth. The EU condemned the 1998 nuclear test, blamed Pakistan for the 1999 conflict with India, and expressed disappointment at the military's rise to power in the same year. Instead of 1998, the "third generation" trade agreement was signed only in November 2001, following the publication of the "road map to democracy" by P. Musharraf. Z. Mustafa noted that South Asia strongly loses to neighboring South-East Asia in all major social and economic indicators and is a less interesting partner for Europe (the latter's trade with the United States is not very good). South Asia is three times more than with South Asia). The Pakistani participant of the seminar laid the blame for this on the countries of the region that failed to solve internal problems, as well as establish regional cooperation. SAARC's achievements are not comparable to those of both ASEAN and the EU. The most important condition for expanding ties between South Asia and the united Europe is strengthening cooperation between the countries of the region.

The third session focused on Russia's relations with South Asian countries. The report" Key interests and policies of the Russian Federation in South Asia and its impact on regional states " was delivered by the Head of the Department. Department of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences V. Ya. Belokrenitsky. He described the region's place in the foreign policy priorities of the Russian Federation and analyzed such components of its policy as military-technical cooperation, cooperation in the field of security, solving political problems, as well as trade and economic ties. Russian-Pakistani relations, he noted, have clearly changed for the better over the past year. The prospects for economic cooperation seem promising, especially after President Musharraf's visit to Moscow in February 2003. Negotiations have already begun on Russia's assistance in expanding the steel mill from 1.1 to 1.5 million tons of steel per year, as well as possible cooperation in oil and gas production, telecommunications, etc.

The report sparked an exchange of views, during which the Pakistani participants of the seminar emphasized their country's interest in developing diverse ties with Russia (excerpts from the report were published by the Nation newspaper, and almost all of it, along with some other reports, appeared on the pages of the business community body of the Business Ricorder newspaper).

Three more reports were devoted to the policy of the Russian Federation in South Asia. They were made by the well-known journalist and political figure Senator M. Hussain, Professor R. B. Rais and former Ambassador of Pakistan to Russia M. Alam. The first noted a significant impact that

page 169

The Russian Federation has always had an impact on the development of the South Asian subcontinent, and expressed the opinion that it is inevitable to strengthen this factor in the future. Referring to Pakistan's relations with Russia, M. Hussein emphasized the desirability of strengthening them and the availability of favorable opportunities for this at the present time. But his thesis about the significance of the Chechen crisis for Pakistani-Russian relations was criticized by the participants of the discussion. R. B. Rais also saw a "window of opportunity" for expanding cooperation between Pakistan and Russia, especially in the economic field, where Moscow's assistance has traditionally been very noticeable. Agreeing with the emergence of certain prospects for strengthening Pakistani-Russian cooperation, M. Alam noted at the same time the traditional preference that India enjoys in Moscow. In his opinion, it was formed a long time ago, back in the late 1940s, and is largely due to the peculiarities of the Pakistani foreign policy.

The fourth working session focused entirely on China and South Asia. It was chaired by the Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Zhang Chongxiang, and the report was presented by Hu Shishen, a researcher from Beijing. In his opening remarks, the Chinese Ambassador emphasized that the rise of Sino-Indian ties, demonstrated by the recent visit of Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee to China, will not negatively affect the traditionally close, friendly relations between China and Pakistan.

The report of the Chinese scientist presented a fairly broad panorama of the goals and priorities of modern Chinese foreign policy and analyzed the latest trends and prospects for its development in the South Asian direction. According to the report, the main task of China's foreign policy is to provide conditions for the "renewal" of the Chinese nation and solve acute problems facing the country (agricultural overpopulation, unemployment, the gap between eastern and western regions, income disparities). The problem of Taiwan, its attempt to separate it from China, is the only thing that can distract Beijing from achieving its goals in domestic and foreign policy. According to Hu Shishen, without Taiwan, China cannot become a truly major international power and will be " trapped on land, unable to realize the ideals of national revival." China, in addition, feels the pressure of America on itself and it is unlikely that a significant strategic partnership will be established between them in the future. Because the main goal of the United States is to prevent the emergence of a competitor that threatens its dominance in the world, and China is perceived as a potential number one rival. Because of this, the United States has been striving for a strategic encirclement of the PRC for more than 10 years. China's response was a policy of establishing and developing good relations with all its neighbors. South Asia has become one of its most important areas, especially since a number of issues in relations with India, the leading country in the region, have long remained unresolved in the complex of various problems of China's relations with neighboring countries.

Hu Shishen noted that China's relations with India have gradually improved since the early 1990s, and the process has accelerated markedly in recent years. Unresolved territorial and border issues and the problem of Tibet were "put on the shelf"at the initiative of China. Trade increased almost 20 - fold from $ 260 million to almost $ 5 billion between 1991 and 2002. Recently, economic cooperation has begun, but it has not yet brought significant results (the number of joint ventures is 15). However, the prospects for China's economic cooperation with both India and Pakistan are high due to the exceptionally rapid growth of the Chinese economy and its foreign trade (in 2002, China's external trade turnover increased by 22%, to $ 623.8 billion). The importance of South Asia for China is increasing due to the adoption of the Great Development Program for Western regions. The role of both routes connecting these areas to the sea - through Myanmar with access to the Bay of Bengal and through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea - is increasing. At the same time, Beijing is going to involve New Delhi in multilateral cooperation in the eastern direction (China, India, Bangladesh and Myanmar) and, in addition to Pakistan, involve the countries of Central Asia and Afghanistan in the west.

The second report on China's policy in South Asia was delivered by a prominent diplomat, former Ambassador of Pakistan to China M. A. Bhatti. He expressed the opinion that although China and India have recently made significant steps towards each other, it is possible that in the future their relations will be more competitive than partnership. The United States, in his opinion, incites India against China, and Indian representatives in the presence of Americans-

page 170

CEOs have consistently made critical comments about the PRC, viewing it as a potential threat to Indian interests. At the same time, Pakistan has nothing against improving Sino-Indian ties, believing that Beijing's influence will have a positive impact on Delhi's policy in the region, including on the Kashmir issue. The Pakistani diplomat supported Beijing's foreign policy line, while denouncing the "Bush doctrine", which reflects the desire for sole hegemony and commitment to the tactics of force preemption. Speaking about bilateral relations between Pakistan and China, M. A. Bhatti noted that the trade turnover between the two countries fluctuates at the level of $ 1 billion, and the PRC has a significant positive balance. China, which has previously provided significant assistance to Pakistan in the development of infrastructure and heavy industries, is going to allocate more than $ 1 billion. for the implementation of a number of important infrastructure projects, mainly in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.

At the fifth session, the seminar participants reviewed the policy of another leading world power, Japan, towards South Asia. T. Hiroshi from Tokyo focused on some features of Japan's foreign policy, in particular its close partnership with the United States. She noted that the latter fact often causes confusion in South Asian countries, especially since Japan was once subjected to a nuclear attack by the United States. Despite the fallout from the past, the Japanese, Hiroshi said, are mostly grateful to America for what it has done for them since the end of World War II and are not going to give up their strategic partnership with the United States. With regard to South Asia, Japan provides assistance both at the region-wide level (SAARC) and especially at the bilateral level, and intends to step up its policy in the region.

Of the other three reports on Japan, the most informative seems to have been made by A. Kalam, a university professor from Bangladesh. It noted that the country has remained the main source of "official development assistance" for South Asian States since the late 1980s. The region ranks second after Southeast Asia in this respect, accounting for 15% of the funds allocated by Japan as a donor country. However, trade with countries in the region has stabilized over the past decade due to the recession experienced by the Japanese economy. Nevertheless, Japan still accounts for 10-11% of the region's foreign trade turnover, while the share of South Asia in its external trade turnover is significantly less (1.5%). The volume of Japanese direct investment is small. The largest investments are in the Indian economy, while Bangladesh and especially Pakistan attracted limited attention of Japanese investors. A. Kalam argued that Japan's interest in the South Asian region, which is traditionally very small, will increase significantly in the near future. The main arguments in this case will be the growing interest of China in this region and strengthening its position in it, as well as Japan's obligations arising from its allied relations with the United States.

At the last meeting, the results of the seminar were summed up. A detailed review of the submitted materials was made by lawyer Sh. Jamil, formerly the Minister of Justice. The final speech was delivered by the President of the Institute of Regional Studies, retired Major General J. Ayaz Khan.

In conclusion, I would like to note the atmosphere of goodwill that prevailed at the seminar regarding the Russian Federation, as well as the participation of representatives of India in its work. The seminar took place during a period of warming in Pakistan-India relations. At the same time, a highly publicized Pakistan-India meeting organized by the South Asian Free Press Association was held in Islamabad. The 59-member Indian delegation was headed by the former Chief Minister of Bihar, L. P. Yadav.

Permanent link to this publication: