Military

Rumsfeld Says India, Pakistan Aware of Conflict Risks

(Defense secretary sees both asserting leadership in "positive" way)
(2770)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says India and Pakistan ought to
have an understanding whereby "they recognize that it's always proper
to fire in self-defense" and to prevent territorial infiltration, but
beyond that, less artillery shelling and more diplomatic talk would be
desirable.
Speaking to reporters June 13 while flying en route from Pakistan to
Bahrain, the secretary said both India and Pakistan "are sensitive to
the risks" posed by tensions between them. He also said he was
impressed in his meetings with officials from each nation that "they
are both asserting leadership in a way that is positive rather than
negative."
Asked if he discussed nuclear weapons with Indian and Pakistani
contacts during the South Asia portion of his trip, Rumsfeld said:
"I'm not going to talk about nuclear weapons. I think that the
elevation of that subject is past us and both of those leaders are
managing their affairs [the way] people responsible for weapons of
that power ought to manage them. I think to get in and start
discussing that isn't useful."
On a trip taking him to NATO and the Persian Gulf as well, Rumsfeld
said the common thread in each region was that President Bush's
message about the urgency of the war on terrorism and the risks posed
by weapons of mass destruction "is clearly getting through." He also
said NATO "has moved substantially" with respect to its awareness,
interest and contributions to the global war on terrorism.
Following is the transcript of Rumsfeld's remarks:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense
DOD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
June 13, 2002
(Press briefing en route from Islamabad, Pakistan to Manama, Bahrain.)
Rumsfeld: A couple of thoughts. One, as different as the three
segments of the trip were -- and they are noticeably different -- the
NATO piece, the [Persian] Gulf piece and the India-Pakistan piece --
there really is one common thread, it seems to me. That is, the fact
that President Bush's message on the global war on terrorism and the
sense of urgency that's needed in the world because of the risks of
weapons of mass destruction, is clearly getting through.
The one thing that you could say is common in each of those very, very
distinctively different trips was that NATO has moved substantially,
in terms of its awareness and interests and contributions with respect
to the war on terrorism. Clearly the [Persian] Gulf States -- the
stops there reflected that -- and then there is no question but that
you heard both and in India and Pakistan there, the extent to which
they are engaging the subject.
A couple other thoughts on India and Pakistan. My wife's father used
to say if you're coasting, you're going downhill. And in the case of
an escalating situation, if you coast and you're not making progress
-- you're not doing something. If it's not getting better, then you
very likely are in a situation where it may be getting worse.
Another way to phrase it is -- after the ambassador heard me say that
in a meeting, suggesting the importance of seeing that it keeps
improving or risking having it deteriorate -- he said his grandfather
used to say that he would picture a two-horse buggy carrying a very
heavily loaded wagon and it's going up a hill and it stops. If it
stops, it starts back. There is nothing other than going forward or
going back because it can't stop.
Q: Do you have the sense that they are stopping?
Rumsfeld: No. I have the sense that there is that risk and that it's
worth people recognizing that and making certain that they don't --
that no -- well, let me rephrase that.
As you move towards election periods in both countries, there will be
pressures within parties and between parties to do or say things. My
view is that temptation has to be balanced against the wagon image.
The other thing that I might say is the subject of -- someone asked me
about the shelling. It is worth thinking about the fact that there
have been periods when there was not shelling. The current situation
is: there is artillery, mortar, machine-gun and small-arms fire. On
the Pakistani side of the line, the populations live fairly close --
men, women and children who are not combatants. On the Indian side of
the line, that's less so.
The point I was trying to make was that is seems to me that if you
want things to get better, then one of the things you would prefer is
that more people not become harmed. When women, men and children who
are not combatants die because of the shelling across the line, the
effect of it is that their families and friends are unhappy and
heartbroken and in some cases, anxious to find revenge for that.
So it seems to me that one of the easy things that can be done --
since both are now in a position that they don't favor infiltration
across the line -- would be to have some sort of an understanding
where they recognize that it's always proper to fire in self-defense,
and certainly if both sides are interested in not having infiltration
across the line -- as they have both indicated -- then one would think
that if firing were dropped down to zero and used only for the purpose
of self-defense or for stopping infiltration, that fewer people would
be killed and you could begin a process of easing some of the
lingering hostilities that inevitably result from conflicts like this.
I guess that's kind of a -- just a thought -- but such that I'd have,
if I had it.
Q: What do you think (inaudible)?
Rumsfeld: Well, you know things just need to gestate, to roll around
in people's mouths and heads a little bit. And we'll know. There is a
whole series of things -- I mentioned a series of things there in
answer to one question. And I know what it was, when that fellow asked
me about dialogue.
He asked me, what are you talking about? And I said well, you know, if
you have two neighbors, at some point you have to talk about a lot of
things. You have to talk about roads, buildings, airports and the
communications across the Line of Control -- and who's going to do
what, when and how do you do those things. You have to de-conflict,
and it seems to me all of those things are useful in getting it, in
getting it not so it's going up the hill and going backwards.
Q: With the elections, one could imagine where the leaders would feel
pressured not to compromise ahead of elections for fear of losing
office. What can America do to help strengthen these leaders so that
compromise becomes not a political liability in the elections?
Rumsfeld: Well, you heard the foreign minister at the end use the
phrase, "good offices." That is, I suppose, a diplomatic phrase that
is distinguished from arbitration or mediation or micro-involvement.
And it reflects more of a friend facilitating and I think that's
basically what the United States has been doing. If you have the
president of the United States calling the leaders of those countries,
and if you have the secretary of state calling the leaders of those
countries, that -- what you end up with is an accurate indication that
the -- you have the [British] Prime Minister Blair, you know, and any
number of other people who are engaged in one way or another.
But you end up with an indication to the populations of those two
countries that in fact the international community is aware of what
they perceive to be the difficulties, that there is an interest in it,
that their leadership is in fact talking to the international
community about these things and that for the moment, not withstanding
the absence of direct interaction and dialogue, there are in fact
communications going back and forth through others.
Silence, if you will, or the absence of that facilitating of "good
offices" -- it seems to me conceivably would leave populations with a
different impression. But I don't know.
Q: You have never once mentioned in all of this any commitment from
either side to withdraw ground troops. Nobody appears to be talking
about that.
Rumsfeld: We are. That's why I, when asked the question, answer it
directly -- that in fact the alert status has stayed roughly the same.
There have been over the past two weeks, several weeks, maybe three
weeks -- minor changes but they have tended to go both ways -- some
getting higher alerts, some getting less. But if one looks at that
status over that sustained period, there have not been notable
differences on either side and India remains at a level of alert,
depending on who you talk to, that I would characterize as somewhat
higher than Pakistan's level.
Q: Could you characterize what you have accomplished in India and
Pakistan?
Rumsfeld: Well I wouldn't. I mean, they can characterize whatever they
want.
Q: (inaudible)
Rumsfeld: Well, I think it was a good decision to go. Further, I think
it was a good decision for the president to be in touch with them. I
think it was a good decision for (Secretary of State) Colin (Powell)
to be in fairly continuous touch. I think it was a good decision for
(Under Secretary of State) Rich (Armitage) to go and in that respect,
I am pleased that I went.
I think that the discussions were helpful. We've got important
relationships with each. I think that all of that process has been
useful. But I don't think you can take pieces of it. You know, it is a
continuum -- it is not from here to there, it is a continuum.
Q: Did Pakistan inform you about any recent al-Qaida arrests including
an associate of the dirty bomber and maybe some Americans who might be
al-Qaida?
Rumsfeld: Did they in this trip?  No.
Q: But do you know of such a thing? These six people who were arrested
are said to be of U.S. origin, possibly. There have been a bunch of
very odd stories.
Rumsfeld: I have not pinned any of those down.
Q: Have you taken any of these people into custody, U.S. custody, with
either military or law enforcement?
Rumsfeld: I have not pinned any of the stories that I've seen down to
anything that I have heard.
Q: Going back to the question of the shelling and so on, just so I
understand. Did you encourage them to do something like that on the
shelling?
Rumsfeld: We talked about a full range of things and certainly,
obviously, among them was what's going on along the Line of Control by
way of infiltration, by way of shelling and -- you know, a full series
of things were discussed in each country.
Q: I was wondering if we could we say that you encouraged the leaders
of India and Pakistan that scaling back on the shelling would be a way
of starting to cool this thing down?
Rumsfeld: My instinct is to not get into the precise things that I may
have talked with them about.
Q: Did you encourage them to begin talking directly with each other?
Rumsfeld: They have had periods where they have had dialogue. There
have been periods when that, for whatever reason, the dialogue has
been broken.
You can't have two countries living next to each other for very long
-- with a million people staring at each other with weapons -- and not
recognize that there are certain things that would be desirable. One
would be to have less shelling, another might be to have more talking.
Now there are lots of others, and the question then is how do they do
that, when would they do that, how does that fit into each of their
respective circumstances, what pieces of these things do they want to
move around on the table? And each is doing things -- each one has
already done things, and each is thinking about things, and each will
do things in their own good time.
Q: What's next up for you regarding India and Pakistan?
Rumsfeld: India and Pakistan?
Well we've got a big bill that we owe Pakistan for purchases that we
made and not paid yet. In the supplemental is a fairly sizable sum --
and we certainly hope that we can get the supplemental passed prior to
the July 4th recess.
There's a series of other odds and ends. I don't mean to minimize any
of them. I mean, they're all important in each country.
But when you have a chance to have these visits, things surface that
could be worked out better or that we want to find ways to improve our
connections and relationships. So you go back with a handful of those
things that you then worry on that seem to be stuck in the interagency
process or stuck in some bureaucracy.
Q: What do you think the next step for India and Pakistan is, in view
of the nature of the crisis thus far? It's a continuous situation. How
do you get them to not stop but to continue moving forward?
Rumsfeld: I think they're both sensitive to the risks and I was
impressed in talking to them and I think they are both asserting
leadership in a way that is positive rather than negative.
Q: (inaudible)
Rumsfeld: Oh I am sure that Secretary Powell and the president will
stay involved and the Department [of Defense], in terms of
military-to-military relationships, will continue to try to work
through those things where we could be helpful.
Q: Will you be briefing the president tomorrow morning?
Rumsfeld: We send cables and then I will brief him, probably tomorrow
or whenever. I haven't even bothered to look at my schedule. Depending
on his calendar, it will be either -- what day is today?
Q: It's Thursday.
Yeah, I don't even have any idea where he is.  Is he in --
Q: (Inaudible)
Rumsfeld: I suppose, as you always do, you could say almost anything
you want. You can be certain if there is an NSC [National Security
Council] meeting tomorrow [June 14], or if he has time on his
calendar, that I will be briefing him. And if not, it will very likely
be Saturday by phone or it would be Monday when we have the next
meeting.
Q: Regarding the shelling, and the zero shelling plan you've discussed
in this conversations.
Rumsfeld: Well, wait a second. I didn't say zero, I don't think. I
think your goal, if you have two countries that are staring at each
other, a goal would be to have less firing. And so what one might do
is to say, let's have as a preference no shelling because people get
killed.
Q: But isn't it -- ?
Rumsfeld: Just a minute. But I'm a realist. I think none is very
little -- if for no other reason--
When I do rules of engagement, I certainly always include self-defense
and if each has an interest in reducing infiltration, then I would
also say they ought to probably not only self-defense, but they ought
to say, unless you're stopping infiltration, each of which would be a
perfectly rational thing to do. That's not zero.
Q: Is this one of the linkages that you've talked about on the idea
that -- ?
Rumsfeld: Well, it would be probably wrong to elevate it out of a
whole host of other things that are being discussed by the president
or by Secretary Powell or by the ambassadors or me or whoever. But as
I said, this is just a laundry list of things that each of them are as
aware of as any other person who looks at it objectively.
Q: Did either side discuss their nuclear weapons?
Rumsfeld: You know I'm not going to talk about nuclear weapons. I
think that the elevation of that subject is past us and both of those
leaders are managing their affairs as people responsible for weapons
of that power ought to manage them. I think to get in and start
discussing that isn't useful.
Thank you.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)