DATE=1/6/2000
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=INDIAN PLANE HIJACKING: A VICTORY FOR TERRORISM?
NUMBER=6-11620
BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-3335
CONTENT=
INTRO: The U-S press is continuing to assess the
fallout from the hijacking of that Indian Airlines
jetliner. Many newspapers worry that the incident
represented a victory for terrorists, and may have
made international air travel more risky.
We get a sampling of opinions now from ___________ in
today's U-S Opinion Roundup.
TEXT: Five armed hijackers took over the plane during
the Christmas holiday on a flight from Katmandu
Airport in Nepal. After a wild and dangerous series
of stopovers, the plane ended up in Kandahar,
Afghanistan, where Indian government officials
negotiated the release of the 155 passengers and crew.
Although the Indian government said it would not
negotiate with terrorists, it eventually released
three Kashmiri militants from Indian jails in return
for the people aboard the plane, and safe passage from
the scene for the hijackers.
Already, one of the men released from jail has told a
large, cheering crowd in Pakistan that Kashmir will
one day be under Pakistani control, and he sharply
criticized both India and the United States.
Several newspapers in this country are concerned that
allowing the hijackers to negotiate the release of
militants and then escape with them, may lead to a new
outbreak of attempted airline hijackings or other
terrorist acts. We begin in Maine, where this
editorial headline recently greeted readers of The
Portland Press Herald: "Giving in to hijacking means
more will happen."
VOICE: Freeing Pakistani hostages was a big mistake
by India. The negotiated settlement that freed three
Pakistani insurgents ... endangers airline crews and
passengers all over the world ... The hijackers and
their freed compatriots, who fled the airport in
Kandahar, Afghanistan ... have not been found. The
precedent they have set, however, will come back to
haunt the world.
TEXT: In Maryland, The Sun in Baltimore is very much
of the same mind, suggesting:
VOICE: Air travel is less safe after the hijacking
... the hijackers attained a major demand and got
away. Others will be tempted to do the same. The
peace of the world is less secure because, in the
aftermath, two nations that have fought three wars and
now have nuclear weapons are hurling accusations. ...
Pakistan and Afghanistan support the secessionist
goals of the insurrectionists in India-occupied
Kashmir, while claiming not to aid the terrorism.
They must make good on this disavowal with respect to
these hijackers. To protect the skies and seas for
all peoples, the United States has returned hijackers
to Cuba despite sympathizing with their political
goals. Until Pakistan and Afghanistan do the same,
they stand, if not guilty, at least suspect.
TEXT: In the nation's capital, The Washington Post
complains:
VOICE: ... Once the hostages were safely released,
the Afghans could have done more to prevent the
hijackers from escaping. They allowed them to drive
off, with one Afghan official accompanying them as a
hostage. That hostage has now returned, but seemingly
without information about the hijackers' identity or
whereabouts. ... Afghanistan and Pakistan are trying
to have it both ways on terrorism. They play host to
terrorist groups, yet wax indignant when terrorists
hijack an aircraft - , or, as in the case of Osama bin
Laden, resident of Afghanistan, blow up U-S embassies.
This limp ambivalence will encourage more hijackings
and bombings.
TEXT: In the northern Midwest, The Milwaukee
[Wisconsin] Journal says the Indian officials had to
make a tough call [Editors: "difficult decision"] in
ending the hijacking but says they:
VOICE: ... broke the first rule in the negotiators'
book ... when they agreed to give up three jailed
guerrillas in exchange for the freedom of 155 hostages
taken captive ... That rule is: Never give in to the
demands of terrorists; doing so only encourages more
terrorism. Nevertheless, one is bound to feel
sympathy for the negotiators and the terrible
predicament they and the hostages were in. In the
end, the decision to swap the jailed guerrillas for
the captive hostages was probably the right one. ...
Hijackings, in the Indian subcontinent or anywhere
else, will be deterred if the hijackers and the
militants they freed are found and punished by
Pakistan or any other country where they might seek
refuge.
TEXT: Florida's Times-Union in Jacksonville is not
only upset with India for giving in to the hijackers'
demands, but with Washington as well.
VOICE: The Clinton administration's unexpected
acquiescence to the deal with the Indian Airlines
hijackers may embolden other terrorists. ... the
State Department issued the following statement: "The
United States cannot second-guess or judge how the
Indian government handled the hijacking. This
incident presented very difficult decisions ...
Obviously, they weighted all the options after days of
negotiations and rigorous domestic debate." This
comes from an administration that habitually second-
guesses decisions of foreign governments - and from a
country that for many years has insisted that under no
circumstances should any concessions ever be made to
terrorists.
TEXT: The New York Times puts the hijacking incident,
and the escalating tensions it has evoked between the
two long-time enemies, in a broader context, as it
suggests:
VOICE: Though the hijacking episode ended peacefully,
it served as another reminder of the broad dangers of
India-Pakistan enmity. Their mutual distrust and
hatred have churned along for decades, without people
outside the region paying much attention except at
major flash points. That situation is no longer
acceptable. Pakistan has asked repeatedly for the
United Nations to become involved, a step India
opposes because of its desire to negotiate all
differences directly with Pakistan. Some sort of
outside push may be needed, however, if not from the
U-N then from the United States or other interested
intermediaries. Mr. Clinton's scheduled visit later
this year could provide just such an impetus to get
the two sides talking instead of firing accusations at
each other.
TEXT: India's decision gets a more favorable review
in Minnesota, where the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune
says in part:
VOICE: India made the best of a bad situation by
trading three jailed radicals for the hijacked Indian
Airlines plane and its load of unfortunate hostages.
Debate, no doubt, will continue on whether India
encouraged further terrorism by bowing even partially
to the hijackers' demands. But beyond that, this
episode holds important lessons for the Indian
government and for the U-N Security Council. For
India, the lesson is that hijackings and other such
horrors are what it reaps from the repression and
brutality it sows in Kashmir. For the Security
Council, the lesson is that it must cool the Afghan
cauldron that spews bloodshed and rebellion across a
volatile region. It was no coincidence that this
drama played itself out on the territory of the
Taleban.
TEXT: Lastly, from the capital of Kansas, The Topeka
Capital-Journal wonders: "Is it really over?... It is
difficult for disinterested observers of this incident
to conclude anything other than that terrorism won a
round. ... The problem is, the dispute between India
and Pakistan over the Kashmir region has not ended
with the plane's deboarding - and, in many ways, has
only intensified.
TEXT: With that view from the heartland of America,
we conclude this sampling of editorial comment on the
recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane, and how
the crisis was resolved.
NEB/ANG/JP
06-Jan-2000 13:53 PM EDT (06-Jan-2000 1853 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
