|
27 May 2000
Transcript: Pickering Press Discussion in Pakistan
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering told
representatives of the Pakistani press in Islamabad May 27 that "there
has been movement within recent days on a number of economic questions
which are of great importance to Pakistanis and the future economic
stability of this country."
Pickering told the press that he had had "a long and fruitful
conversation" with General Musharraf May 26. Among the issues
discussed, he said, were "our deep concerns about the continued
presence of Usama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan and the need for a peaceful
settlement in Afghanistan."
Following is the State Department transcript:
Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering
On-the-record Press Conference
With Pakistani Press Representatives
May 27, 2000
U/S Pickering: Good morning and thank you all very much for coming. I
thought I would at least set the stage for our talk by describing my
visit. I've been in India. I'm half-way through my visit here in
Pakistan. In India we had the opportunity to conduct an extensive
dialogue with the Foreign Ministry. I had an opportunity to meet with
ministers and other senior officials to discuss our follow-up to the
President's visit and a number of issues that are very much on the
mind of the United States in the region including obviously the issues
of Kashmir, questions of continued activity on and around the Lines of
Control and inside Kashmir, the hope of the United States that India
and Pakistan can engage in a peaceful dialogue over the situation in
the spirit, if I could put it this way, of Lahore. There was an
opportunity in India to review a number of issues in the region more
broadly conceived, including questions of Afghanistan and Central Asia
and so on. We had an opportunity to discuss our bilateral relations.
I've been here since Thursday night. I had an excellent opportunity
yesterday for a long and fruitful conversation with the Chief
Executive Officer General Musharraf. We focused on the questions that
you would all be very familiar with: Kashmir and the issue of the
continued activity in and around Kashmir and our hope for a peaceful
dialogue. We discussed Afghanistan, our deep concerns about the
continued presence of Usama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan and the need for
a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. We discussed nonproliferation in
some detail including United States hopes for an early signature in
both major countries in South Asia of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty; the need for continued improvement in export controls; our
hopes for negotiations on an early basis of a Fissile Material Cutoff
Treaty and the need for a moratorium; the importance the United States
attaches to the continued unilateral moratoria in both India and
Pakistan on nuclear testing; the need for exercise of strategic
restraint in the configuration and deployment of forces in this
region; the United States long term commitment to nonproliferation as
a major and significant part of the United States foreign policy, and
the fact that both States in the area remain under a sanctions regime
until serious progress can be made in the spirit of UN Resolution
1172.
We discussed as well General Musharraf's recent statement on economic
policies that he is pursuing and I urged that he continue to remain on
steady course on this particularly important issue. We will of course
examine with deep interest the various steps and measures that he has
proposed. We discussed as well the recent Supreme Court decision in
Pakistan on moving to democracy over a three year time period and I
urged that Pakistan follow up on the Chief Executive Officer's
statement of March 23 with additional details and plans for electoral
processes and other institutional changes that the government plans
with respect to installing or reinstalling democracy in Pakistan under
circumstances that will give it strong chances for success.
The conversations that we had with the Foreign Ministry were extensive
and wide ranging. They gave us an opportunity to examine many
bilateral questions and a wide range of regional issues. I look
forward to further conversations today including with the Foreign
Minister and with others to continue to round out our understanding of
Pakistan's views and to convey to Pakistan a full appreciation of
American views on so many of these important issues which I've touched
in my overview.
I look forward to going to Sri Lanka after the weekend to have an
opportunity to bring myself up to date on what's happening in that
very troubled situation. The United States is concerned about the
possibility of a real humanitarian tragedy in Sri Lanka, the need for
an earnest attention in the region to peaceful settlement and support
by the United States for the initiatives that have been taken for some
time by Norway and supported by India to find a way to reach a
peaceful settlement. And, of course, it goes without saying that, as I
said in India and I repeat here, the United States does not envisage
an independent Ilam in the island but we support the territorial
integrity and the need for a peaceful solution that will provide
Tamils in the island with the opportunity to find full expression of
their views. We hope within an autonomy arrangement that needs to be
arrived at between both parties. We will do what we can to encourage
that from our own vantage point.
But that should be enough to suggest to you in what areas you might
want to pursue questions, and so I'm very much open to hearing from
you and commenting on your thoughts and questions.
Q:Javed Siddique, Urdu-language daily Ausaf. Since the visit of
President Clinton do you think that there has been some forward
movement on the part of the government of Pakistan on the issues which
are of concern to you: the restoration of democracy, curbing terrorism
and easing the tension along the Line of Control. Has there been a
movement forward?
U/S Pickering: I would believe obviously that it would be unrealistic
for me to say there has been no movement, of course there has been
movement. But it would be equally unrealistic for me to say that we
don't hope for a great deal more forward movement in each of these
areas. In my opening remarks, I recognized that there has been
movement within recent days on a number of economic questions which
are of great importance to Pakistanis and the future economic
stability of this country. I expressed hope for further movements in
that area and on democracy. We remain convinced that there needs to be
further movement with real action on the ground if I could put it this
way, both with respect to the continued violence across the Line of
Control and artillery shellings and small arms fire. We would hope for
signs of an early reduction of violence in Kashmir and that this is
something that obviously both Pakistan and India can find ways to
contribute to. But we would hope that this would help open early the
way to dialogue. We don't yet see a dialogue being started and we
believe that a dialogue will be important both in calming the
situation and increasing the search for peace.
In Afghanistan, we feel the process of finding peace in the region is
stuck. We attach urgent importance to the need to find ways to bring
Usama Bin Ladin and a number of his followers to justice. But we are
grateful to the Government of Pakistan for the steps it has been
taking over the past year, and particularly in recent months, to deal
with the passage of terrorists through its territory and the
possibility of finding ways to bring them to justice -- particularly
people who may have been associated with the bombings of our embassies
in East Africa in 1998.
Q:Suhail Nasir, Urdu-language daily Nawa-e-Waqt. I want to ask you
about Usama Bin Ladin. So far as this guy is concerned, Pakistan is of
the view that Usama Bin Ladin is not a Pakistani citizen. Pakistan is
of the view that it cannot use its influence on Afghanistan for the
extradition of Usama Bin Ladin. Pakistan is not responsible for
bringing him to Afghanistan and Usama is not a Pakistani citizen. Were
you told this viewpoint by Pakistani authorities during your dialogue
and what is the U.S. position on this issue?
U/S Pickering: I think that the Government of Pakistan speaks better
than I do for its position, and I would ask you to refer to it for a
full statement of its view. It is true that a number of the views that
you have expressed I have heard. On the other hand, the United States
has made it clear that it believes, from both public evidence and from
statements by Pakistan, that it has an extraordinary and important
strategic relationship in Afghanistan. It is hard for me to conceive
of the fact that Pakistan's continued support for the Taliban is
irrelevant to the question of the possibility of Pakistan playing a
very constructive role in bringing Usama Bin Ladin to justice, and
that remains the United States point of view. We hope in fact that we
can encourage in every conceivable way Pakistan to use all of its
contacts and all of its relationships with the Taliban to make it
clear to the Taliban that the United States considers the harboring of
Usama Bin Ladin as something very unfriendly to American interests --
particularly when it is clearly known and fully established that he
was responsible for the bombings of our embassies as well as closely
connected with, among other things, the individuals now on trial in
Jordan who sought to cause havoc and mayhem at the time of the turn of
the year. In a spirit of our continuing deep opposition to terrorism,
and particularly terrorism targeted against Americans, we would
encourage in every conceivable way Pakistan to be as helpful as
possible on this question. We believe, in fact, that for the reasons I
have stated it is something in which Pakistan can find further ways to
be helpful to us.
Q: Akram Malik, APP wire service: Do you think that the goal of
nuclear nonproliferation in South Asia can be achieved without the
settlement of the Kashmir dispute?
U/S Pickering: This is an important and significant question. We
believe, in fact, that nonproliferation is an important goal to pursue
for its own purposes. There is nothing that I have seen in any way
that convinces me or the United States Government that the round of
testing in 1998 did anything to contribute in a positive sense to
furthering the security either of Pakistanis or Indians. Therefore, we
don't believe that there is a valid reason to develop and test, and to
continue to expand the development of nuclear weapons, in the
subcontinent. If anything, the tests themselves have further strained
relations in the region and have made even more imperative the need to
find an early answer to turning around the continuation of violence
that takes place along the Line of Control. This, obviously, increases
the potential, in our view, for expanded conflict between India and
Pakistan. Something that we believe is in the interest of no one,
particularly because now increasingly it has the potential at some
stage for the use of nuclear weapons. Something we would consider
absolutely catastrophic. The fact is that of course tensions between
both countries are exacerbated and aggravated by the longstanding and
serious differences over Kashmir. So we have also focused our
attention in that region, and our discussions with both sides have
carried forward our concerns about that issue. If, in fact, progress
on Kashmir can serve both to reduce tensions and the potential for war
with all of the concern that we have about catastrophic consequences
from potential nuclear use, so much the better. Also, if they will
contribute to both side's policies of moving toward earliest as
possible signature of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, so much the
better. But the United States would be the last to believe that there
is any justification, Kashmir or otherwise, for proliferation of
nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles in South Asia. We believe that
issue must be tackled on its own urgently by both states.
Q: Sikandar Hayat, English-language daily Frontier Post: Does the
United States have any position on the accountability process now
going on in Pakistan where corrupt politicians have been tried and if
the U.S. does have a position, what is that?
U/S Pickering: As a guest, I, of course, hesitate to comment on
internal questions. On the other hand, the United States believes that
if in Pakistan there is reason to believe that individuals should be
held accountable for crimes committed during the period of the last
government, then that should proceed through a judicial process that
is fair and equitable. Individuals being held for trial should be
treated in accordance with basic international human standards. They
should be given the right to defend themselves and so on. This is
something we would respond with respect to any country, not to
particularly single out Pakistan in this regard. We would hope that
the government would, as it is required under Pakistan's law and
constitution, carry forward with appropriate judicial procedures
fairly, expeditiously, humanely, and if people are to be held
accountable, and we believe all governments have an obligation to hold
individuals whose service in government raises questions of
competence, corruption and criminal activity accountable for their
activities, this is a normal part of any democratic process.
Q: M. Ziauddin, English-language daily Dawn.Now that you've met the
leadership in both of the countries how far do you think they are from
starting the normal process or how close they are?
U/S Pickering: I find a remarkable conjunction of views in both
countries and that despite the fact that there is always the tendency
on your part-because that is part of your job to highlight differences
and find areas where there isn't a conjunction of views yet, it is
clear to me that from my visits thus far, people in both countries
earnestly seek a peaceful settlement of all disputes. That leaders and
people in both countries, clearly in my view, are committed to finding
ways to resolve disputes and problems and not to enter into or expand
or indeed positively to find ways to reduce conflict between them.
This is encouraging to me because I have the honor to represent a
country that considers itself a friend to both India and Pakistan, and
as a friend committed to try to finding all possible ways to help in
the resolution of differences as any friend would. The United States
is not a mediator. That would only come where both sides indicate they
wish the United States to take that role and that would then have to
be a decision by my authorities. But as a friend we conduct a friendly
dialog with both countries and hope to continue to be able to do that.
I am impressed in my visit by the broad areas of commitment on the
part of leaders and people in both countries to seeking a peaceful
settlement. This is one of the reasons why we remain encouraged to
continue the intensive contacts that the President began. I think
there is, as well in both countries, a clear expression of confidence
that with the President's visit there is further understanding of the
United States views, further understanding of the United States
commitment in this regard, and a hope that those meetings which the
President held now can be followed up actively. And, of course, one of
the reasons why I am here is to try to find further ways to be able to
do that both in our bilateral contacts and in our contacts and
discussions of regional issues.
Q: Ziauddin (follow-up) Do you have any idea what is keeping them from
starting?
U/S Pickering: I think you are as aware as I am that in any region
where there has been tension and differences for many years there is
distrust. The way to bring about a solution to that problem is to find
ways to talk together, take common actions, and by the building up of
trust over commitment to common endeavors, and following through on
actions committed to, states can, as we know, even with long historic
enmities, find ways to disburse distrust and to build confidence in
each other.
Q:Zafar Malik, Urdu-language daily Jang. I would like to ask you to
comment on the George Fernandez statement that something is going to
happen at the LOC. So, do you think that after your visit we can say
that chances of a limited war are minimized?
U/S Pickering: I'm not sure that I know particularly which statement
of Defense Minister Fernandez you refer to but I would say that in my
conversations with him, as well as in my other conversations in India,
there was a deep expression of concern on their part that violence
across the Line of Control continues, as well as violence inside
Kashmir. They expressed the hope that they could see an early
diminishment of these particular forms of violence and urge that that
happen. I have a sense that if that can happen, there is willingness
on the Indian side to find ways to take reciprocal steps. That is
certainly something I encouraged. I believe that a positive step has
been taken with the release of the Hurriyat leaders. That was
something that I expressed to Defense Minister Fernandez. We believe
and hope that this beginning of steps can be reciprocated and can lead
to further steps. I was impressed in Pakistan by the commitment I
heard from all leaders that I have spoken to, to the need for a dialog
and the urgency that was attached to that and I hope that this will be
a motivating force in both India and Pakistan to reach such a dialog.
Q: Nasir Jafri, Online wire service. Mr. Pickering, there are reports
that India is planning to conduct additional nuclear tests. Pakistan
has also said that it reserves the right to respond if India detonates
more nuclear devices. So how do you view this particular situation?
U/S Pickering: First, the United States is deeply concerned by the
prospect of any further nuclear test in the region or elsewhere.
Secondly, Indian leaders confirmed to me their commitment to their
unilateral moratorium as indeed have Pakistan's leaders. We would
remain concerned about any rumor, report or indication of an impending
test on either side and, clearly, as a friend would wish early to
raise those questions with both sides. The results of my visit and the
contacts which our Ambassadors have had in both countries continues to
be positive, that both countries tell us they have no such intention.
We hope and believe that that ought to continue to be the case and the
way to solidify that, as we have emphasized in both countries, is the
earliest possible signature of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which
will make permanent the moratoria that both countries now tell us is
unilaterally in effect on both sides. The notion that one country must
test after another has, in my view, no relevance to the question of
weapons developments which is the usual pretext for conducting tests.
It indicates to me, in effect, how difficult the problem of
proliferation in the subcontinent has now become and is deeply
discouraging that tests should be conducted by one country only on the
basis of tests conducted by another. This smacks of the worst elements
of an arms race in the region. Something we would deeply deplore,
strongly work against and believe would produce no valuable results
for anybody in the region or beyond -- which is one of the reasons why
we are redoubling our efforts to seek to get each country to commit
rapidly to a comprehensive test ban treaty.
Q: Anwer Sindhu, Engish-language daily The Nation. You seemed
encouraged in your earlier remarks by the economic restructuring steps
being taken by this government. Does the U.S. intend to assist
Pakistan in any way in its quest to acquire international financial
assistance from multinational donors.
U/S Pickering: The United States has taken the view with respect to
Pakistan and the steps, that first and foremost these need to be the
decision and the responsibility of the Pakistan Government. We have
strongly urged that it continue to take steps to reform Pakistan's
economy and we will make our own judgments and give them privately to
the Government on the views that we have, if we have them, of the
efficiency or the efficacy of each step. Certainly it is self-evident
that the Pakistan Government needs to find appropriate ways to
increase revenue. It can't continue to deal with the immense problems
before it with regular budget deficits. Secondly, with respect to
international financial support, we have made clear and continue to
make it clear that the former government's inability to provide
correct figures, if I could be diplomatic, to the international
financial institutions, is a serious burden that the present
government is to be complimented by, on the fact that having
recognized the fact that reported it clearly to the international
financial institutions and is prepared to undertake the burden of
rectifying that issue. Thirdly, we have made clear our view that as
soon as Pakistan can meet the obligations it has with respect to its
policies of the international financial institutions, we are ready to
support the disbursement by those institutions on their side of the
funds they are committed to make available to Pakistan, and that this
is a cooperative process in which steps forward by Pakistan will
enhance its ability to meet the conditions of the international
financial institutions and therefore the support of the United States
in that regard.
Q: Javed Siddiq, Urdu-language daily Ausaf. The Supreme Court has
given this Government three years to return to democracy. There was a
statement from somebody in the U.S. administration that the U.S. does
not agree to this-do you want to clarify the position or what you
recommend?
U/S Pickering: I don't usually respond to anonymous statements,
particularly ones I haven't seen. What I will say is that we have
continued on a regular basis to urge the military government to move
as rapidly as possible toward democracy in Pakistan. That we were
supportive of the statements of the Chief Executive Officer General
Musharraf on March 23 about the holding of local-level elections in
Pakistan in the year 2001. We believe that obviously any statement of
the Supreme Court of Pakistan needs to be respected, considered
positively and honored if it can find a way to move rapidly toward the
return of democracy to Pakistan. We understand that many Pakistanis in
the military government currently feel that more steps and
institutional changes and so on need to be put into place to solidify
that. We would welcome those as early as possible. We have said we
would welcome further details on the plans and proposals of the
Government to meet the three-year commitment that the Supreme Court
has now placed before it. And that we would welcome, obviously, all
efforts on the part of the present Government to meet that important
deadline. That in no way has changed our hopes that not only can this
be a solid, progressive, but also speedy process. If things could be
done before the three-year deadline we would not be disappointed,
provided they could be done well.
Q:Sikandar Hayat, English-language daily Frontier Post: There are
reports that Russia is planning to attack so-called training camps in
Afghanistan. What does United States think of this development? What
is the reality on the ground and what will be the reaction in case
these attacks do materialize?
U/S Pickering: We have seen these reports. Obviously we have concerns
about any widening of the military conflict in the region. I would
direct your attention to statements made on behalf of the Secretary of
State of the United States following her meeting with Foreign Minister
Ivanov two days ago in Europe, where it was clearly stated that the
Foreign Minister indicated that there were no current plans on the
part of Russia to carry forward with this statement made by an
official spokesman of the Russians a few days before that. We're
gratified by that statement. We believe that the way to resolve the
problem in Chechnya is not by widening the war. Both sides should have
a responsibility to avoid that and we believe and in fact have
encouraged consistently and constantly the Russian Government to
undertake political contacts as the appropriate way to end the
conflict. We do not believe the issues in Chechnya can be solved by
military methods.
Q:Akram Malik, APP wire service: Do you support the OIC UN process to
restore peace in Afghanistan? Are you in favor of this Loi-jirga
proposal to call all Afghans together to restore peace in that
country?
U/S Pickering: Without being specific with respect to any individual
proposal by any organization or government, we are fully supportive of
political processes to achieve peace in Afghanistan on the basis that
we have long outlined. We believe peace in Afghanistan must be
achieved in a way that all parts of the body politic, all views, all
aspects, all sectors should be participants in any future government.
No group or sector should be excluded. Secondly, we believe in
particular that the present practices of the Taliban, particularly
with regard to women and human rights, need to be brought rapidly into
conformance with international standards. We believe that's extremely
important. It goes without saying that we believe it is a serious
mistake that Pakistan, pardon me I mean Afghanistan -- we have to make
that straight -- Afghanistan has become a haven of international
terrorists and their training camps. That obviously any settlement in
Afghanistan, even before a settlement, we would hope that these issues
would be radically and immediately rectified.
Q:Javed Iqbal, Pakistan TV: Looking at the past record of Pakistan
and India for resolving their mutual issues, particularly Kashmir, do
you see any chances of any significant progress without the help of a
third party mediator?
U/S Pickering: Yes, I do. I believe, and my government believes, that
a process of resolving the long-standing issue of Kashmir should
include a number of factors. It clearly needs to include a direct
dialogue between the two governments most concerned. We would hope as
well that any process would find ways effectively to include and
incorporate responsible views from Kashmiri people themselves. Who,
after all, are in many ways the principal focus of an effort to try to
resolve this conflict and their views need to be included. A dialogue
between the two governments would have the value of working out
questions between themselves. There would be, in our view, the
potential for a real resolution of the problem and a commitment to the
solution if it is arrived at by the two states most deeply concerned.
Individual states might help through their own bilateral relations
with each party. Clearly each party is in close contact with many
countries, both in the region and beyond, like the United States, who
feel that a solution to this question is important, that it will
contribute greatly to the stability of the region and to the
improvement of relations between India and Pakistan.
Q:M. Ziuddin, English-language daily Dawn: General Musharraf in his
press conference made a very interesting observation that we have to
be friendly with the Taliban because we want the Pushtoon to be on our
side. Now have you seen that observation? He added that he is telling
this to our friends and they understand it. Did he tell you this?
U/S Pickering: I'm fully aware of this statement on his part because
it was as I understand made in public, but it has also been made to us
in private. We understand General Musharraf's aspirations in this
regard and we believe he considers those important. We believe any
aspirations in this regard need to be as well carefully balanced
against the importance of a peaceful settlement of the Afghan conflict
to Pakistan, which Pakistan has also expressed to us as being
important to it. This is a position of Pakistan and it is not for the
United States to support such a position or oppose such a position as
long as it can be dealt with in -congruence with what I consider to be
the very, very significant and important objectives of a peaceful
settlement in Afghanistan along the lines that the United States
government supports and which I have just described.
Q:Nasir Jafri, Online news service: Does the United States support
India's candidacy for a permanent seat in UN Security Council?
U/S Pickering: The United States has been very careful to make clear
that it's view on the expansion of the United Nation Security Council
and, in regard to that, additional permanent seats on the Council are
governed by a number of principles. One of those principles is that
the Council has to remain an effective international body and preserve
it's efficiency and capacity to operate adequately. Secondly, with
respect to the candidacy of any individual state for permanent
membership, the United States will have to take into account, as it
always has, the commitment to international principals including those
of disarmament and non-proliferation. Thirdly, with respect to
expansion of the Council, the United States believes that there needs
to be the development of a significant consensus, particularly among
principal states in various regions, who are the leading candidates
for new permanent seats. The United States has told India, as it has
told many other countries, that it will consider its candidacy against
the backdrop of these principles, and that is precisely what we are
doing.
Thank you all.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
