Q: What is the purpose of your visit to Sri Lanka ?

The purpose of my visit is that Pakistan wants to share its thinking on recent developments with friendly countries of the South Asian region. We want to let our friends know that we are interested in peace and stability in the region. We want peace cooperation and goodwill. We want to promote the objectives of SAARC which means cooperation in different fields.

Unfortunately there are serious political impediments to the progress that we would like to achieve. Last year the SAARC leaders had already recognised that there was need for informal political mechanism to consult on the various political problems , disputes because the original SAARC charter did not envisage discussion of contentious issues.

Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Special Envoy, Akram Zaki briefing reporters at the High Commission. Pakistan High Commissioner in Sri Lanka Basit Alia Haqqani is on his left. (Pic by Gamini Mendis)

Q: Does it mean discussion of contentious issues in the SAARC forum ?

No. we decided on an informal consultative process. This is the time to think forward in view of the new developments and nuclearisation of South Asia and the new anxieties and concerns of the member countries. It is important to think ahead and see how we can operationalise the declaration of the Male Summit.

As you know the situation was already tense in our region. We were making every effort to improve our relations with India through bi- lateral negotiations. Last year in June,the foreign secretary level talks had produced some advances. It was agreed that India and Pakistan would set up working groups to deal with various issues simultaneously Unfortunately three months later . India retracted on two working groups : One, dealing with security and confidence building measures and the other dealing with Jammu and Kshmir. Then came the elections of India and BJP contested the elections on an agenda which included introduction of nuclear weapons.They started working on the agenda after coming into office.

On April 3, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Nawaz Shariff addressed a letter to leaders of several important nations including the five important members of the Security Council

saying that India was in the process of operationalising the nuclear weapons programme and something should be done to prevent such an unwelcome development. The United States informed us through their Special Envoy Mr. Richardson, who after visiting India told us on April 16 that India had given assurances that they had no such plans. And they were ready to resume negotiations with Pakistan. . But then to everybody's surprise On May 11, India announced three nuclear explosions. Later they followed with another two.

The most unfortunate aspect was their attitude of total change, They dropped the diplomatic language and adopted a bellicose language of threats. India's Prime Minister said that in case of conflict they would use the nuclear weapons which are Pakistan specific and deployed on Pakistan's borders. Another statement was that they would place nuclear weapons on Prithvi missiles.They moved more troops into the Kashmir area. They already have over 600,000 security forces with licence to commit every conceivable brutality including murder arson burning of villages, rape . The Home Minister of India Mr. Advani said : We will seize Azad Kashmir. Bal Thakeray said : Time has come to bring Pakistan to its knees.There were several other bellicose statement smade. This was a very serious situation.

The World community instead of taking a very serious notice of this violation of international legality and followed by threats to Pakistan started to put pressure on Pakistan not to follow India's example. and stand on high moral ground.. The people of Pakistan were living in terror and put pressure on the government to give a matching response to the Indian nuclear explosions. So considering all aspects: as a threat to Pakistan's security, and independence, Pakistan decided to carry out its own nuclear tests On may 28.. This was essential to redress the stress and psychological balance. And Pakistan's tests also had a desired effect the threats from India stopped after our tests.

Q:Do you consider this nuclear issue merely a bi- lateral issue between India and Pakistan or is an issue that concerns all the countries in the region ?

We consider nuclear tests and nuclear weapons as dangerous and undesirable. We do not want to go into this field. We were compelled to carry out tests in self defence. India's tests were an act of provocation and the threats to Pakistan were nuclear blackmail. Under article 51 of the UN Charter. The Charter forbids threats or the use of force. and India was threatening to use force against us. So we had to deter aggression by our tests..

Your have made several proposals to India after the tests were conducted,. What do you consider the most significant of your proposals ?

Since '74 since its first nuclear test we have been trying to make South Asia a nuclear free zone. We went to the UN with the resolution. Now Only India, Bhutan and Mauritius oppose that resolution. The rest of the world wants South Asia as a nuclear free zone. We have made a number of proposals to India with that objective.. In 1978 we asked India to join us in a bi- lateral declaration not to manufacture or possess nuclear weapons.. In '79 inspection of each others nuclear facilities.. Later on in '79 again we proposed simultaneous signing of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. In ' 79 again we proposed simultaneous acceptance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards. India rejected all this. In 1987 we proposed a bi-lateral nuclear test ban treaty. Again rejected. In '91 we suggested the holding of a five nations conference with the US, USSR, China Indian and Pakistan. Everybody accepted but India refused. Later on UK and France also expressed a desire to join the proposed conference.. When India was testing missile in '93 we proposed a zero missile regime.. India rejected all these proposals..

In '92 we said " Let's ban all weapons of mass destruction-- Atomic, biological , Chemical and missiles" India said they were willing only to talk about chemical weapons.. We accepted. And we signed a bi -lateral agreement not to manufacture or process chemical weapons. Ironically, when in '96 we signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) they declared a stockpile of chemical weapons. This is a clear proof that they violated the bi lateral agreement of '92 by secretly manufacturing and possessing a stockpile. This is our background record.After the nuclear tests. Pakistan made various proposals. First we have proposed a unilateral moratorium. to halt further tests. Second, we have renewed our original proposals of a bi- lateral or regional test ban agreement.. Third we have proposed to India that we resume talks between the foreign secretaries. on the basis of the agreement reached in June '97 and in fact asked for talks to take place on June 20. This is now past. we also said that Pakistan was willing to sign a non aggression pact within the framework of settlement of Indo- Pakistan disputes..

The idea of no first use has come from India and not from us.. This is an old Indian idea which we consider as being totally inadequate because these days it is very difficult determine whoever fires first or second. People who start aggression some times start by accusing the other party. The time difference firing a missile and hitting the target between India to Pakistan is two to three minutes.. How do you determine the validity of the first use ? Secondly we recognise as the world community has that the real cause of Indo Pakistan dispute is the unsettled question of Jammu and Kashmir. And unless the basic dispute is resolved, the non proliferation issue cannot be resolved.. We want to stabilise the nuclear standoff. We don't want to enter into an arms race. We also want to stabilize the the balance of conventional forces consistent with each sides security requirements,.,. the idea of non first use cannot be any one of these requirements... We consider it a ploy to evade the real issues.

Q: India says tha tthe threat they face is from China. India's defence Minister Mr. George Fernandes said so a few days before the Indian nuclear tests. What are your observations?

India's claim that China is the real threat is incomprehensible. Since '88 when Mr.Rajiv Gandhi visited China, there has been a tremendous improvement in Sino- Indian relations. Their trade has expanded, technical and cultural cooperation has increased.They have relieved tensions on their common borders. Although the dispute is not settled, they have withdrawn the troops. from a position of confrontation that persisted before '88. The bulk of India's forces are poised on Pakistan's borders with more than 600,000 troops in Kashmir alone. Most of India's air bases are around the Pakistan frontier. The Prithvi missiles are also deployed against Pakistan.. And there is no physical sign of India's defensive deployment against China Therefore, Mr. George Fernandes's statement a few days before India's nuclear tests was designed to raise the China bogey with the west. Secondly, China is a recognised nuclear power which India is not and China is the only country which has adopted the doctrine of non first use. India's nuclearisation is therefore a violation of the international legality . India cannot claim party with china..

Q: But India has not signed the NPT.

A: I said " Violated the international legality not the NPT.'

Q:What are the effects of sanctions being imposed on Pakistan ?

We acknowledged our economy is in serious difficulties. But Pakistan has been under US sanctions since the October 1990, under the Pressler law. Even earlier from '74 to '80 we were under sanctions of the Glenn amendment Solarsz amendment etc.. Ironically none of these laws were applied to India. In fact Pakistan tired to purchase a reprocessing plant from France . Heavy pressure was used to have that agreement nullified.. On the other hand\the purchase and acquisition of a re processing plant by India was facilitated. India was also supplied heavy water and fast computer to facilitate its nuclear prgramme. Secondly which the American satellites, which they say can tell the make of a golf ball could not see the ground activity in Pokharan ( where the Indian nuclear tests were conducted).. Were they deliberately looking the other way ?.

The new sanctions would adversely if the US prevents the international.agencies like the World bank ,IMF and ADB doing their normal programmes in Pakistan. The charters of these organisations say that decisions should be made on economic grounds and political grounds. The IMF and World Bank mission visited Pakistan and approved Pakistan economic policies.

The US is seeking flexibility on imposition of sanctions on agricultural commodities probably because of their difficulties of trying to find use of their agricultural surpluses

Q:Will Pakistan sign the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty(CTBT) and the Nuclear non proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Pakistan is studying the international and national implications of the CTBT. Already a bi lateral test ban treaty with India has been proposed. The decision to sign or not to sign will be taken after viewing all the advantages and disadvantages. As for the NPT, one point is very clear. the NPT was extended indefinitely in '95 without amendments. If the nuclear powers want to restrict the number of such powers to five, then they have to act first in New Delhi and prevent India gatecrashing into the nuclear club.

However if there is to be more than five nuclear powers then it cannot be six. It has to be five or seven.

Q:What prospects does the Colombo summit hold ?

Like other SAARC summits it offers an opportunity for high level bi lateral talks between India and Pakistan is committed to resolving disputes through peaceful negotiations. All SAARC meetings have been committed to establishing peace and stability in South Asia./ South Asian nations can play a constructive role and exercise much influence But if India sticks to its policy of bi lateralism which infact means unilateral imposition of India's views then the tension swill persist.

What was Pakistan's reaction to statements made by the Sri Lanka government after India conducted its nuclear explosions ?

A: we did not react because we thought we should discuss and consult to understand each others views.

What is the future of SAPTA ?

A: At male the date for SAPTA was advanced to 2001 but a group of eminent persons that were appointed at male to go into the future development of SAARC had thought the 2010 would be more realistic.

Hartford, Connecticut — Affirmative action, the focus of much debate at a meeting of human rights agencies in Hartford, Connecticut, was strongly supported by most speakers, but some expressed concern that such programs are misdirected.

Although most of the human rights organizations represented at the International Association of Human Rights Agencies' (IAOHRA) 50th conference represent states in the United States and provinces in Canada, there are a small number of representatives from overseas human rights commissions.

One speaker pointed out that some countries, such as South Africa, have adopted the American idea of affirmative action, but tailored it to their own circumstances. In the case of South Africa, for example, affirmative action is geared to advancing an under-represented majority (of black people) rather than minority, as in the United States.

Joyce Tucker, a former commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), part of the U.S. federal government, expressed strong support for U.S.-style affirmative action wherever there is lack of diversity in the workforce and other areas of national life. In the United States "we need it because minorities and women are still under-represented in college admissions and in the workforce, especially in the better job categories," she said. "You need a color-conscious solution to a color-conscious problem."

Tucker cited recent court decisions restricting the scope of affirmative action, but stressed that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have not declared affirmative action as a whole unconstitutional. The passing of Proposition 209 in California, which outlawed state affirmative action there (but not federal affirmative action programs) was "a warning sign" that affirmative action "is not popular in some places, but it never has been," she said, citing court decisions dating back to 1978 which limited it.

Samuel Carradine, executive director of the National Association of Minority Contractors, a 5,000-member organization, said "it is critical that affirmative action remain." But supporters must face the fact that the "landscape is changing politically" as far as affirmative action is concerned, he added.

In a town hall-style conversation on race, sponsored by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities -- an event that took place on July 10 just prior to the conference -- some speakers voiced the case against affirmative action. Abigail Thernstrom, one of its most outspoken critics, said: "Let us not forget that we agree on ends, on the goal of racial equality, that we are differing over means."

Ward Connerly, the originator of Proposition 209 in California, said: "I think that diversity is a value. The question is how do we achieve it?" Those who support Connerly and Thernstrom's view generally believe in treating everyone equally under all circumstances. They oppose preferences.

The policy of the Clinton administration is to support affirmative action, although it believes some aspects of the program need reforming. "Mend it, don't end it," in the words of President Clinton.

Affirmative action began in the early 1960s with a limited initiative by the Kennedy administration. Now it comprises a myriad of programs at the federal, state and local levels of government, as well as in the private sector.