Premium
This is an archive article published on January 16, 2004

Dialogue should be at foreign secy-level: Pak

Pakistan has said that next month’s composite dialogue with India should be at foreign secretaries-level and expressed its apprehension...

.

Pakistan has said that next month’s composite dialogue with India should be at foreign secretaries-level and expressed its apprehension that ‘‘bitterness’’ could set in if the talks are prolonged.

Dialogue at a level lower than foreign secretaries will send a ‘‘negative signal’’ and give an impression that the ‘‘process was not serious’’, said Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri.

India had suggested that the dialogue be at joint secretaries-level.

Story continues below this ad

While acknowledging that no time table had been fixed for the dialogue, Kasuri said there was no danger that a longer process could ‘‘get bogged down like the peace efforts in Palestine’’.

To a question whether Pakistan was concerned that the talks would get delayed as India was on the verge of General Elections, Kasuri said Islamabad was satisfied with the remarks made by Indian foreign secretary Shashank that elections would not come in the way of peace process. He added that the January 5 meeting between Vajpayee and Musharraf and the subsequent interactive sessions between him and External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha and National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra focussed more on sharing each other’s ‘‘strategic vision’’ than the architecture of the dialogue process.

Kasuri said the most striking aspect of the meeting between Vajpayee and Musharraf was the way with which they represented their national interests. He added that the process has gathered momentum as people of the two countries have realised that the adversity was mutually detrimental. ‘‘Whether leadership wanted it or not, the people of both the countries became aware of the dangers they faced in case of war. They realised that they gain by cooperating with each other.’’

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement