news details |
|
|
| 2007 to be a watershed year for Indo-Pak ties, says Pakistan | | |
Islamabad, Mar 15
Pakistan has said that 2007 could prove to be a watershed year as far as relations with India are concerned. The country's Foreign Secretary Riaz Muhammad Khan said that the current year provided an opportunity for peace and it should not be wasted.
At the end of two-day talks in the fourth round of the composite dialogue, Khan said that it was high time to resolve all outstanding issues.
'In the 60th year of Independence we are having a dialogue to forge peace with each other and to turn a new page in our relations. 2007 is a critical year that can prove to be a watershed. In the past few years we have taken steps and engaged each other in serious discussions on issues that have divided us. We must move forward from problems and dispute management to the resolution of problems and disputes,' The News quoted Khan as saying at a joint press conference with his Indian counterpart SS Menon.
Khan read out a number of issues that both sides hope to tackle in the coming months. Also, no agreements were arrived at and the two-day discussions ended in 'futuristic' promises in several fields.
He added: 'We noted the significant improvement brought in our relations by the dialogue process, especially in promoting people-to-people contacts. We agreed that our relations today are qualitatively better than they have been for a very, very long time. And that the composite dialogue has a proven record of success.'
Pakistan has put forward suggestions for a number of Kashmir-specific confidence building measures (CBM's), which include a helicopter service across the Line of Control, sports events while India had earlier proposed a Kargil-Skardu bus service.
Pakistan says it will examine the Kargil-Skardu bus service proposal. Both sides have agreed in this regard ensuring implementation of the already agreed Jammu and Kashmir related CBMs, operationalisation of a truck service and rationalisation of the five crossing points.
The two foreign secretaries did not agree that the process was too slow and not enough time has been given to deliberations. They felt that in the final analysis the results would speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
