|
27 September 2000
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Karl
Inderfurth addressed fundamentals of the U.S.-India relationship and
regional issues during an interview with the Voice of America
television show, "On The Line," on September 27. The program will be
aired internationally over the weekend of October 7-8.
While lauding the great success of Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's
recent visit to the U.S., Inderfurth denied that there was a
geopolitical "tilt" by the U.S. towards India and away from Pakistan.
"Neither relationship is targeted or directed at the other. This is
not a zero-sum game," he said.
Inderfurth stated that President Clinton brought the same message of
mutual restraint and dialogue on Kashmir and other issues to both
Delhi and Islamabad during his visit to the region in March. "The
resumption of dialogue is something that we think is absolutely
essential," said Inderfurth, who added that the issue of Kashmir has
represented a tremendous financial and human cost for both countries
for the past fifty years.
On the issue of nuclear proliferation, Inderfurth said that the U.S.
is engaged in a two-year dialogue led by Indian Foreign Minister
Jaswant Singh and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot to discuss
India's security concerns and U.S. concerns about the global
non-proliferation regime. "We've made progress in understanding each
other," said Inderfurth, who added that the U.S. believes India is
"committed to no further nuclear testing."
Following is the transcript of the Inderfurth interview:
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United States policy and
contemporary issues. This week, "U.S.-India Relations." Here is your
host, Robert Reilly.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee's visit to Washington was the first such trip by an Indian
leader in six years. Mr. Vajpayee addressed a joint session of
Congress and met with President Bill Clinton at the White House. Mr.
Clinton made a state visit to India in March. The reciprocal visits
are evidence of the further strengthening of U.S.-Indian relations,
which have improved markedly since the end of the Cold War ten years
ago. In fact, some observers claim to detect a tilt in U.S.'s policy
away from the U.S.'s Cold War ally, Pakistan, and toward India. But
the United States continues to be concerned about India's nuclear
ambitions and tensions between India and Pakistan, especially over
Kashmir.
Joining me today to discuss U.S.-India relations is Karl Inderfurth,
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs. Welcome to
the program. How would you characterize the achievement from this
visit?
Inderfurth: Well, may I make an historical point first?
Host: Please.
Inderfurth: I heard you use that word "tilt" in your introduction. I
think it's important to note that really "tilt" is Cold War
terminology. It was said during the Cold War that India tilted toward
the Soviet Union and that Pakistan tilted toward the United States.
During that time the United States was seen as tilting toward
Pakistan. That's over. The Cold War is over. In fact, it's been over
for ten years. And we believe that "tilt" is really no longer a
meaningful terms to use in the context of our relations in South Asia.
We're not tilting toward either country, India or Pakistan. We do have
a growing relationship with India, as the Prime Minister's visit here
and the President's visit there clearly demonstrate. But we also have
a longstanding friendship with Pakistan, one that we do want to
strengthen, and we will take those steps when we are presented with
those opportunities. But neither relationship is targeted or directed
at the other. This is not a zero-sum game, to use that expression.
Now, I can tell you that I'm very pleased that none other than General
[Perez] Musharraf of Pakistan himself supports that view that we're
not tilting. He said recently in an interview, he was asked whether
U-S priorities in South Asia had changed and whether it had affected
Pakistan. He admitted that U-S priorities had actually changed in
South Asia. However, he said it absolutely did not mean that the U-S
had marginalized Pakistan in any way. He said that the U-S was
transforming its relations with India for the sake of its bilateral
interests. And that's the key. Our national interests suggest to us
that we should strengthen our relations with India. But as he said,
Pakistan has not lost its significance either. We agree entirely. So a
rather long comment, but one that's important to address because we
need to break out of this hyphenated notion of thinking about Indian
and Pakistan. They are two separate countries and we'll deal with both
of them on their own merits.
Host: Well, the reason why some people continue to use the word
"tilt," quite outside of a Cold War context, is because of the
continuing tensions between Pakistan and India, which would lead one
to expect one side to react negatively if they see the United States
warming in its relationship with the other. But you just answered that
question so eloquently by quoting the head of Pakistan's government in
saying that they don't see it that way.
Inderfurth: I can't do it any better than to quote the head of the
Pakistani government, General Musharraf. In terms of Kashmir and the
continuing differences there -- very dangerous differences, by the way
-- when the president was in the region in March, he talked about what
have now become know as "the four Rs," and they apply to both
countries, namely: mutual restraint; respect for the line of control,
which is that dividing point between Indian-held Kashmir and
Pakistan-held; rejection of violence, meaning there cannot be a
military solution for this; and resumption of dialogue. And the
resumption of dialogue is something that we think is absolutely
essential. They can never resolve this difference unless they do talk.
The president said that in both New Delhi as well as Islamabad. In
that sense, we are trying to get the same message across to both, and
we'll continue pursuing that.
Host: What do you think is going to have to happen in order for that
dialogue to resume, which seemed to offer so much hope a couple of
years ago
when Mr. Vajpayee went to Lahore?
Inderfurth: Well, there was hope. When the prime minister went to
Lahore and met Prime Minister [Nawaz] Sharif of Pakistan. This was
fundamentally important. This was bus diplomacy. There was ping-pong
diplomacy in U.S.-China relations many years ago. Well, this was bus
diplomacy. There was a declaration issued. They agreed to discuss
Kashmir and other outstanding issues. Prime Minister Vajpayee went to
a memorial in Lahore called the Minar-e-Pakistan, which is actually a
symbol of the Pakistani State. This was a signal that was sent that
India recognizes the sovereignty of Pakistan. Very important.
Unfortunately, soon thereafter, there was the Kargil crisis, where
insurgents from the Pakistani side of the Line of Control crossed
over. We believe that there was Pakistani government support for that.
We said it publicly. Fortunately, that crisis did not escalate
further. The Indian military responded very forcefully to it.
President Clinton got involved with Prime Minister Sharif at a famous
Blair House meeting on July Fourth [1999]. And those forces that had
crossed the Line of Control withdrew; they went back across the line.
Since then, there has been very little movement. That's why we are
trying to support both countries in efforts to see a dialogue resumed.
But what will be necessary for that to take place is the level of
violence in Kashmir must be reduced.
Host: And it's actually increased in recent days.
Inderfurth: It has increased. It has spiked at various times with one
attack or another. There is no question that there is an
incompatibility between continued violence in Kashmir and dialogue.
There are also very legitimate concerns about human rights in Kashmir.
There are very legitimate concerns about governance in Kashmir. It's
the Kashmiri people that are suffering most from this. Somehow, all of
these things have to be addressed. But the first place to begin is to
lower the level of violence so that there can be an environment in
which talks could be productive. Talks are never productive when a gun
is being held to the head of the other party.
Host: There are obviously people interested in subverting such a
dialogue because they are continuing to commit the acts of violence,
which are preventing that dialogue from taking place.
Inderfurth: We believe that, on both sides, in both New Delhi and
Islamabad, there are those who want to see a peace process begun. We
believe that they recognize that the cost to both countries of this
conflict, which has gone on now for almost fifty years, fifty years
exactly, is one that cannot be sustained by both countries over time
in the sense that it pulls them both back. And quite frankly, Pakistan
pays a greater price because of India's larger economy. It's a larger
nation. So it's pulling both countries back. But there are those who
do not want to see a peace process started.
Host: Who are they?
Inderfurth: Various militant groups and those who cannot see the
future and are only tied to the past. We see that in the Middle East.
We see it in Northern Ireland. We see it in conflict areas around the
world where the sides are so entrenched that some want to break out of
it and some will not alter their longstanding positions. The fact is,
for Kashmir to be resolved, there will need to be some accommodation
and flexibility on both sides. Both sides will have to recognize that,
whatever agreement is reached, it must be acceptable to both New Delhi
and Islamabad, and vice versa.
Host: I know that, during the prime minister's visit here and in other
discussions, the concern had been raised about terrorism in South
Asia. Prime Minister Vajpayee mentioned specifically Afghanistan and
the role of the Taliban. The United States is apparently beginning
joint efforts with India to combat terrorism. To what extent is that a
problem in fomenting the trouble in Kashmir?
Inderfurth: Well, it's certainly a part of the problem. Afghanistan is
becoming a launching pad for terrorist activity throughout South Asia
and beyond. Just recently, we've had a team in New Delhi, led by our
coordinator at the State Department for counter-terrorism, Ambassador
Michael Sheehan, discussing counter-terrorism with the Indian
government. We recognize that this is a problem that must be addressed
by the international community. India and the United States have both
been targets of terrorist activities. We have a lot to discuss. And we
will see where we can take appropriate action together.
Host: I just want to take a moment to remind our audience that this is
On the Line, and we're discussing U.S.-India relations with Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Karl Inderfurth. Let's
turn for a moment to the nuclear issue and its impact on these
tensions between India and Pakistan. In a way, may not the fact that
these two countries are now nuclear powers have brought a kind of
sobriety to the situation in that, if they let these tensions between
themselves over Kashmir or any other issues get out of control,
they're faced with consequences that are truly catastrophic?
Inderfurth: One would hope that would be the case, but clearly groups
continue to operate inside Kashmir that are not looking at the longer
term
consequences, or the possible longer term consequences, of their
actions. The fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons
should be
a sobering thought for all concerned. They have fought three wars. The
Kargil crisis is sometimes referred to as a fourth war. Having nuclear
weapons should serve as a break for further violence because these
things cannot get out of control. During the Cold War, which I
referred to earlier, the United States and Soviet Union never fired
directly at
each other. We were not neighbors. We had oceans separating us. India
and Pakistan are not in that category. They are neighbors. There is
firing across the Line of Control everyday. There are people killed in
that context, as well as attacks inside Kashmir. These things inflame
public opinion. You can never be certain that something that you see
might not escalate, either through calculation or miscalculation, into
a
larger conflict. This needs to be resolved. The fact that they have
nuclear weapons puts an exclamation point on the need to find a peace
process.
Host: Of course, India has other security concerns. When President
Clinton was in India last March, his intimation to the parliament that
India might not be all that better off having nuclear weapons was not
received with great acclaim. They are faced on one side with a nuclear
power, Pakistan, and on another side with the largest country in the
world, China, which is, of course, a nuclear power.
Indefurth: We understand that. We understand that there are security
concerns of the Indian government. We've engaged in a two-year
dialogue led by their Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and our Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbot. We have met in several locations on
numerous occasions to discuss India's security concerns as well as our
concerns, U.S. concerns, about the global non-proliferation regime.
We've made progress in understanding each other. We do believe that,
as the joint statement that was issued after the prime minster's visit
to the states, India is committed to no further nuclear testing. In
fact, in that statement, it says that India will continue its
voluntary moratorium on further testing until the C-T-B-T, the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, comes into effect. So that's a
firm statement of intention. And we know that efforts are under way in
India to see if a national consensus can be developed for signing
that. We hope that that will take place. But at the same time, we have
entered into this discussion with India with a firm understanding that
it has its own perception of its security needs. At the end of the
day, it will make its own sovereign decisions.
Host: What about this perception that Indian government
representatives have put forward in the past? And that is that they
are concerned that they are the object of a pincer movement conducted
by China through China's relations with Pakistan and with Burma, and
that China's diplomacy is aimed at keeping India from becoming a
regional power. That is not a concern that they've expressed?
Inderfurth: I've never heard references to pincer movements and the
rest. That has not been an expression of the Indian government in the
meetings that I've attended. But what is important is to understand
this: that China is a very large and important player in Asia and,
indeed, globally. So is India. We intend, the United States, intends
to deal with both of these giants of the Asian mainland. Some have
suggested that, by our increased attention to India, we're trying to
offset or, in some fashion, do a balance-of-power with China. Again,
these things are old-think. We are going to pursue our relations with
China and India on their own merits. They both have nations of one
billion people plus. They both play an important role regionally and
internationally. We're going to deal with of them. So the notion of
pincer movements and the rest did not come up.
Host: Did they mention at all their relations with China?
Inderfurth: Oh, yes. In fact they were very pleased to report that
Indian President [Kocheril Raman] Narayanan recently had a very
successful visit to Beijing. President Narayanan, when he was there,
said to his Chinese host, President Jiang Zemin, that India and China
have a historic necessity to be closer friends. And we urge them to do
so.
Host: Let's turn to the interesting contrast in the economic
development of these two countries. I saw a figure that there has been
forty-five times greater capital investment in China over the past
decade than in India. Does India contain the kind of economic promise
that a country of its size, with a democratic system, seems to offer?
There is that sardonic joke that India is the country of the future,
and always will be, because it seems to offer this promise but then
doesn't fulfill it. Do you think it's taking off?
Inderfurth: I think India is increasingly the country of the present,
not of the future. I think that it is very clear that India, which
began its economic reforms much later than China -- remember those
reforms under the Chinese government, Deng Xiaoping began in 1978.
China had a real head start in terms of liberalizing its economy,
attracting foreign investment, making it clear that it wished to be a
part of the global marketplace. India's reforms only began in the
early 1990s. So they have come a very far distance in a short period
of time. Prime Minister Vajpayee is committed to what he calls a
second generation of economic reforms, which are taking place. There
may need to be a third and fourth generation. But they're moving in
the right direction and they're beginning to realize that potential.
The Chinese relationship is still ahead economically. But India is
moving forward especially in areas like information technology and
software. China can't match India in those areas. Another reason why
China and India may draw closer is because the Chinese recognize that
they can gain a great deal from the Indians in those areas that will
be so important to the world economy in the twenty-first century.
Host: One thing that I wanted to mention is that in the state dinner
that the president hosted for the prime minister, I believe the
largest in the history of the White House, seven hundred people
attended, many of them from the American community of Indians, who
have either immigrated or are maybe second generation, who are the
wealthiest single ethnic group in the United States now because of
their entrepreneurial skills in this high-tech area.
Inderfurth: Exactly right. The president called attention to the fact
that, at this very large and very warm dinner, and I don't mean the
weather outside. It was just a feeling of good will that permeated the
evening at the White House. It was under a large pavilion on the south
lawn. The president said that, as he looked out over the audience, I
think that at least half of the Indian American community is
represented here. He said I welcome you. He said, on the other hand,
the other half are all mad at me that they're not here as well. He did
something that was actually one of our primary purposes with the
visit, which was to focus attention on the enormous contributions
being made by the Indian-American community. In this country, almost
two million strong. Across the board, whether it be literature or in
I-T or even in the national spelling bee. You know the winner of the
national spelling bee this year was a twelve-year-old by the name of
George Thampi, who is the son of Indian-American parents. Fortunately,
he spelled the word that won that prize for him correctly which was,
for those of us at the State Department very important, the word was
demarche. We live with that word and he spelled it.
Host: Can I close with just one last question? As India's importance
continues to grow, is the United States prepared at some point to meet
its request to support its claim for a permanent seat on the U.N.
Security Council?
Inderfurth: There's no question that India is a very strong contender
for permanent membership on the Security Council. Its size, its role
in the world, its economy, its contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, all
of these things make it a very serious and strong contender. But I
want to go back to your first question about the prime minister's
visit. It was a great success and I believe it will be carried into
the next administration and beyond because this is fundamentally
important, the new relationship.
Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have this week. I would like
to thank our guest -- Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State
for South Asian Affairs -- for joining me to discuss U.S.-India
relations. This is Robert Reilly for On the Line.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
