08 October 1997
INDIA, PAKISTAN AND THE U.S.: SIGNS OF A 'NEW APPROACH'
Editors in India and Pakistan found much to discuss in their post mortems of meetings September 21 and 22 between President Clinton and the prime ministers of India and Pakistan. The discussions, held in in the wings of the opening of the UN General Assembly in New York, prompted analysts in India to conclude that a "perceptible change" had occurred in the U.S.' attitude toward New Delhi, one that was "likely to unravel interesting developments in both Indo-U.S. and Indo-Pak relations." The view from Pakistan, however, was less sanguine, with most commentators detecting only the "pretense of progress" in relations with its populous neighbor. Analysts in Pakistan expressed great concern about the contentious issue of Kashmir and about what some saw as "India's ambitious hegemonic designs." Most writers urged their govenment to give "top priority" to a "defense system that can serve as a deterrent to aggression." Following are major trends in the commentary: INDIA: A majority of Indian pundits held that President Clinton's UNGA speech and his meeting with Prime Minister Gujral signified "the beginning of a major shift" in U.S.-Indian relations. Writers attributed this "more mature relationship" to the U.S.' recognition of India as a major economic player. "India's size, technical sophistication and potential make it a prime candidate for American corporate attention," declared the nationalist Hindustan Times. Speaking of "corporate karma," the centrist Times of India likewise concluded: "A democratic and secular India striding along the path of liberalization seems to hold better promise of serving American interests in Asia." Analysts were divided as to whether or not the CTBT--which India refused to endorse at last year's UNGA meeting-- would lead the U.S. and India "into choppy waters." The centrist Hindu opined, as did others, that "the U.S. now appears disinclined to make the bilateral agenda hostage to a single issue--nuclear non- proliferation--on which the divergence continues to be sharp." Several writers took special note of the president's statements that the U.S. "had no intention of mediating in the Kashmir dispute," hailing it as a "victory" for India. Many analysts also expressed high hopes that India would secure a seat on the UN Security Council, a move that one paper deemed would turn the "gap" between India and Pakistan "into a yawning chasm. India will then rise out of reach and be up there with the major powers." PAKISTAN: Writers in Pakistan focused primarily on the issue of Kashmir, with most remaining convinced that India was determined to "hold on to Kashmir by force." Op-ed pieces also stressed that Pakistan should not be "forced into Oslo or Camp David-type agreements" over Kashmir. "Kashmir can be resolved only by applying the UN resolutions," insisted leading, Urdu Jang and others. The widely shared tenor of the commentary--which saw U.S. diplomacy as "one step removed from the kind of active diplomacy Pakistan desires"- -was best summed up by the independent Dawn. "Just as 'one swallow does not summer make,'" it said, "so a courtesy call on the U.S. president, a run-of-the-mill fruitless meeting with the Indian prime minister and an (UNGA) address...have not achieved anything." This survey is based on 37 reports from 2 countries, September 25 - October 8. EDITOR: Kathleen J. BrahneyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below SOUTH ASIA INDIA: "Two Democracies In Search Of An Alliance" The centrist Pioneer ran this analysis (10/8) by assistant editor V. Sudarshan: "Though the United States and India have certain notional commonalities, widely described as 'affinities'...there has always been a high degree of political discomfort between India and the United States. Whatever relationship...emerges from the ongoing exchange of ideas between New Delhi and Washington has to address meaningful ways of ameliorating this discomfort factor.... There is enough empirical evidence to believe that trade and investment flows from the United States alone could prove inadequate to sustain a strategic dialogue of the kind that is being hinted about.... The president of the United States senses an historical opportunity to get the CTBT in the bag and ratified and in force as an enduring legacy.... India remains the biggest stumbling block in front of President Clinton's goal.... The United States is not likely to dilute an accord so painstakingly achieved by accommodating India's concerns." "Enhanced Strategic Ties With U.S. Aimed At Getting UN Seat" This analysis appeared in the centrist Times Of India (10/7) by special correspondent Apratim Mukarji: "The next few months will be witnessing an unprecedented level of Indo-U.S. interaction signifying the beginning of a major shift in Indian foreign policy. India is (acting)...interaction on (the)...assumption that it is wiser to respond to Washington's overtures to improve relations...and (since) New Delhi can only gain and not lose by such a dialogue, there is really little harm in trying it out.... New Delhi appears to believe that it is entering the proposed strategic dialogue with its eyes and ears open, and plans to proceed only if its national interests are adequately served.... "While the proposed strategic dialogue is scheduled to begin with...Thomas Pickering's visit later this month, New Delhi seems to be zeroing in on one major goal, gaining a permanent membership of an expanded UN Security Council.... The coming months, as U.S. dignitaries troop in and out of New Delhi, culminating in President Clinton's visit probably in February next year, are likely to unravel interesting developments in both Indo-U.S. and Indo-Pak relations." "Elite Self-Delusion" This analysis appeared in the centrist Times of India by columnist Praful Bidwai (10/7): "Such is the propensity for self-delusion among a large section of our elite that the 30 minute-long Gujral-Clinton meeting has been hyped into a major triumph of Indian foreign policy. The mere fact that the United States did not explicitly offer to mediate in South Asia, and the claim that India-Pakistan tensions did not figure in the discussion, have been taken to signify a paradigm shift in Indo-U.S. relations. The claim is open to question.... The truth is that Washington is nowhere near treating India in the manner that our policymakers favor.... In some ways, the U.S. concedes India's pre-eminence, so self-evident, in South Asia. But India has a very low priority in the U.S. scheme of things, whether strategically, as an investment destination, or as an 'emerging market': India is still 'emerging.'... The United States still remains at the apex of an unequal triangular relationship with India and Pakistan. The only perceptive change is Washington's withdrawal of an aggressive mediatory posture, especially over Kashmir.... Our long-term interests lie in working for a nuclear weapons-free world, not brandishing weapons of destruction. Similarly, rather than expand the Security Council while retaining the veto system, we should argue for placing the Council under the General Assembly's effective control and for the UN's extensive democratization." "India After The Cold War" This analysis by noted columnist Prem Shankar Jhain appeared in the nationalist Hindustan Times (10/7): "No one who has followed the press on the meeting between Prime Minister Gujral and President Bill Clinton in New York from the time when it was first mooted till it took place can fail to notice the complete volte face in perceptions in these four weeks. How is it that...the United States, which till yesterday was viewed as being fundamentally antagonistic to India's policy of settling issues with other countries in the region bilaterally, is now being seen as a potential friend?.... The precise moment when the earlier fears were replaced by a mild euphoria was when...the American President made it clear that the United Sttes had absolutely no intention of mediating in the Kashmir dispute.... Barring some unforeseen shock in the future, the Clinton-Gujral meeting could mark the beginning...of a more mature relationship unmarked by suspicion of each others' motives.... "For the Americans, the Gujral doctrine seems to have resolved the enigma of India in a way that even Gujral cold not have anticipated. It has shown the regional pre-eminence that India wants is not of a kind that is threatening to its neighbors. It has also shown that India's foreign policy concerns are no longer mired in the past.... The reappraisal that has begun in the U.S. of India's nuclear status and policies, and the willingness expressed by the American President to continue the dialogue on nuclear proliferation issues despite India's reiterated stand on the NPT and CTBT, is a direct outcome." "Inscrutable India" An analysis in the centrist Times of India by pundit K. Subrahmanyam (10/6): "The idea of strategic dialogue between India and the United States got a boost in the wake of the Gujral-Clinton meeting in New York.... Thomas Pickering...Madeline Albright and the president himself are to visit India in the next few months.... There is a perceptible change in the U.S. approach towards India that needs to be taken note of. Till now, in all Indo-U.S. dialogues, the U.S. side took for granted that they had to be conducted within the framework prescribed by the Americans.... "Until recently, as long as India did not spell out its strategic objectives, the United States tried to pressure India into fitting in with its strategic framework.... If India can clearly articulate its world view, the rationale for its policies and its goals commensurate with its population, potential and civilizational tradition, the dialogue with the Americans will be productive. The Indian government has no tradition of such articulated thinking.... Strategic dialogues with other powers should aim at explaining India's national and security interests. It should not just be praise of motherhood, simple life and disarmament." "Gujral Visit Upgrades India" An analysis in the nationalist Hindustan Times (10/6) by Washington correspondent N.C. Menon: "Considering the subterranean convulsions within the foreign policy establishment, prior to the summit, over whether Prime Minister Inder Gujral should or should not accept President Clinton's invitation for a meeting in New York, it is par for the course that judgments on what emerged from the summit should be equally contentious. Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn by some in India's government and media are not based on what is good for today's India, but on ideological predilections of the past.... The whole brunt of the criticisms was a throwback to an older ideological era. There was an inherent warning to be careful of the designs of the big, bad capitalist wolf which stood ever ready to swallow poor, little socialistic lambs. In fact, at the Gujral-Clinton meeting, Finance Minister Chidambaram made an excellent presentation about India's accelerating rate of growth and its rising need of investment, particularly in the areas of power and infrastructure.... "India's size, technical sophistication and potential make it a prime candidate for American corporate attention. Washington is, therefore, eager to assuage India's apprehensions about discriminatory treatment. The Clinton administration is well aware of the disquiet in New Delhi- -and indeed in many other capitals--about what is perceived as America's tendency to turn a blind eye to trade and proliferation transgressions by China, even as it stick stubbornly to the letter of the law in the case of other law in the case of other countries.... For a variety of reasons, the U.S. administration is now fully convinced of India's potential and its geopolitical importance, factors that Pakistan cannot hope to match.... What is really bothering Pakistan is the distinct possibility that India will be selected as a new permanent member of an expanded Security Council.... It knows that if India becomes a permanent member, the gap between New Delhi and Islamabad in the global perspective will turn into a yawning chasm. India will then rise out of reach and be up there with the major powers." "Looking For A Secure Seat" Washington correspondent Seema Sirohi filed (10/6) for Calcutta's centrist Telegraph: "The meeting between...Clinton, and...Gujral, in New York served to signal the United States' 'new approach' to South Asia at the highest levels and establish there is no intention to mediate on Kashmir.... If the Clinton-Gujral meeting was an exploratory 'get acquainted' session, the encounter between...Nawaz Sharif, and Clinton was one fraught with 'dangerous' consequences for Islamabad. Pakistani leaders left New York forlorn in the knowledge that the United States does not intend to rescue them on Kashmir.... "But that is no cause for India's euphoria. Washington is neither leaning toward New Delhi nor is it abandoning Islamabad just yet.... As for progress in Indo-U.S. relations, Clinton clearly indicated his desire to put differences behind and not let more opportunities go by.... Unfortunately, in the U.S. scheme of things, most things are tied to India's nuclear program and the tangle is hard to break.... Since the positions are so far apart on the whole gamut of nuclear issues, it would take creative thinking on both sides to deliver something concrete.... Gujral's promise to engage in a dialogue on disarmament issues was a step forward.... The overarching sentiment emerging out of Gujral's odyssey to New York is not that differences exist but the possibility of a fresh start." "Clinton-Gujral Meeting: Hypermedia Hype" Columnist Sham Laled wrote from Calcutta on the editorial page of the centrist Telegraph (10/2), "Reading between the lines of what was said at official briefings, the outcome (of the Clinton-Gujral meeting) was not half as breathtaking as some sections of the press made it out to be. The self-induced euphoria of quite a few despatches could not altogether hide the sense of deja vu at what transpired at the meeting between the two men.... The United States may be more friendly to India than before. But the work of sorting out contentious issues and rubbishing what remains of the Cold War's evil legacy has just begun.... There is no point in slurring over the dismal fact that in regarding Kashmir as a disputed territory the U.S. view is still wholly in accord with Pakistan's. More, the United States has been too ready to buy the bogey of a nuclear holocaust in South Asia raised by Islamabad to pressure India to soften its stand on signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.... The bane of Indian foreign policy from the start has been a quixotic urge to play a role in world affairs out of proportion to its inherent economic and military strength.... No country...can deal effectively with difficult neighbors or cynical big powers...except on the basis of a strong economy, political stability and nuclear consensus on the imperatives of national security." "New York State Of Mind" Columnist Amitabh Mattoo in Calcutta opined on the editorial page of the centrist Telegraph (10/2), "Even those who have traditionally been suspicious about the United States' policy towards South Asia will be forced to concede that a fresh positive phase in India-U.S. relations seems to have begun. Clinton's display of extraordinary warmth towards...Gujral during their recent meeting in New York is only reflective of a larger review by the Democratic administration of its policy towards the Indian subcontinent.... For the first time...there exists the real possibility of the growth of a genuine partnership between the world's two largest...democracies.... "The rise of China and the continuing uncertainty in the Asia-Pacific region are, willy nilly...bringing New Delhi and Washington closer together.... India's...arrival as a major economic player and particularly its growth as a huge market have also given a fillip to Indo-American ties.... Irritants like Kashmir or the issue of human rights will become marginal once the 'health' of the U.S. economy begins to depend...on the continued goodwill of India." "Indian Summer In Washington" The centrist Pioneer featured this analysis (10/2) by senior editor Shubha Singh: "A resolution has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives supporting India's entry into the UN Security Council as a permanent member.... The move heralds a significant attitudinal change in the view of India on Capitol Hill, where it now has a group of friends of India, instead of a lone India friend or two.... However, despite all these signals there is no need to rush into a state of euphoria on the question of Indo-U.S. ties. The Americans are being more polite, but their main interests remain the same, NPT, CTBT and India-Pakistan problems.... It is now quite clear that India needs to strengthen its ties with the United States, which is the largest investor in India, at the same time the United States is also interested in better ties with India.... "Washington has shown its interest in doing business with India. It is now time for New Delhi to present its point of view on the wide variety of bilateral issues in a manner in which the two sides can work for ties of mutual benefit. There is a tale--probably apocryphal--doing the rounds, which says that Clinton told Gujral, 'Prime Minister, you have two ambassadors for India in Washington.' Hillary Clinton's interest in things Indian is quite evident. Maybe, Indo-U.S. ties will no longer keep falling into sticky patches as they have been doing in the past." "U.S. Takes Advantage Of CTBT Loopholes" This analysis by Deepa M. Ollapally of Bangalore's National Institute of Advanced Studies appeared in the centrist Times of India (10/2), "The U.S. has so far conducted two so-called 'subcritical' tests. Last year in Geneva, India held out for a truly comprehensive test ban, which would leave no loopholes permitting technically-able weapon states to continue refining and developing their nuclear arsenals at their test sites and laboratories, and refused to sign the CTBT. If current developments are any indication, India's concern was not misplaced.... While India did not sign the CTBT, its behavior for well over two decades has been entirely consistent with the spirit of the CTBT, long before the treaty itself was devised.... Having signed the CTBT, the United States now cannot be allowed to reap its political benefits, and at the same time, take advantage of its technical loopholes." "Clinton Gujral Summit: 'Corporate Karma'" An analysis in the centrist Times of India (9/30) by senior assistant editor Ajit Kumar Jha: "Recognizing the increasing importance of this economic partnership, the Gujrat-Clinton summit was more in the manner of India Incorporated meeting U.S., Inc.... The United States neither lectured as an 'arrogant northern superpower,' nor did India screech as a 'radical southerner.' Altruism has given way to egoism, and hard bargaining across the table has replaced diplomatic niceties.... A democratic and secular India striding along the path of liberalization seems to hold better promise of serving American interests in Asia. But two pertinent questions remain unanswered. First, is it possible for the United States to delink its bilateral ties with India from those of Pakistan? And second, will Washington's pursuit of a strategic relationship with New Delhi provide India with a veto over American policy towards Islamabad?" "India Loses Out To Pakistan On Media Coverage In U.S." This analysis by special correspondent Apratim Mukarji, who accompanied the Prime Minister Gujral on his trip to the U.S., appeared in the nationalist Hindustan Times (9/30), "The initial euphoria over Prime Minister Gujral's sojourn in New York seems to have given way to a shocked realization in New Delhi that Pakistan's offer of a non-aggression pact, brushed aside hastily by an overconfident Foreign Office, is going to haunt it for quite a while. Thanks for these uncomfortable developments are certainly due to India's singularly inept publicity, which presented only a closed mindset to the international press by resorting to stock phrases and monosyllables making no sense to the uninitiated.... "The impression gained ground that India was unreasonably hostile to a well-intentioned proposal.... Once again India ignored the opportunity to put across its position on what looked like an excellent proposal. The situation was compounded by the decision to cancel three important engagements that Prime Minister Gujral had with the U.S. media and by the decision not to allow the Washington-based Indian correspondent an access to him. New Delhi's uneasiness over the exercise in New York is only bound to increase with the awareness that the U.S. is zeroing in inexorably on two well-marked targets-- India's stand on the CTBT and an eventual mediatory role in the India- Pakistan feud." "Indo-U.S. Nuclear Dialogue" An analysis in the centrist Hindu by strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan (9/29), "Dark forebodings of impending American pressure and a 'nuclear sellout' by New Delhi are already being expressed in the Indian commentaries on Gujral's visit to New York. A large section of influential public opinion has convinced itself that any dialogue with the united states on the nuclear question is dangerous.... "The Clinton administration is signalling that it is willing to engage India on a broader political front. There are also indications that Washington may be ready to live with the nuclear realities in the subcontinent and accept that it cannot roll back India's nuclear and missile capabilities. What India needs is greater confidence in its own ability to deal with the outside world on nuclear issues. Above all New Delhi needs to impart some clarity to its nuclear objectives. If India is prepared to exercise its nuclear option in a non- provocative way, stabilize deterrent relationships with its nuclear neighbors, and accept some limits on its nuclear capability, New Delhi may be in a position to win significant political and technological cooperation from the United States." "Gujral's U.S. Visit, Small Step In A Long Journey" An analysis in the centrist Times of India (9/29), "No doubt a foundation of sorts has been laid by what is perceived here as a 'successful' visit. Judging from the first assessments, this 'new phase' makes good sense for both Washington and New Delhi. However,... It might be useful to inject a dose of realism into any projections that imply that bilateral relations are poised to take off.... "It is on the issues of security and CTBT that U.S.-India relations could run into choppy waters in the future. Washington may have decided it will steer clear of getting mired in another Cold War dispute like Kashmir and instead encourage the two neighbors to the negotiating table. It is not a strategy that thrills all South Asia watchers here.... For Clinton, now threatened by one domestic crisis after another, the...one issue he is keen on is [seeing] that the CTBT comes into force." "Dealing With America" The nationalist Hindustan Times (9/29) featured these words by Kanti Bajpai of the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University: "We must see that the prime minister's tentative steps toward deal-making is a maturing moment in India's approach to the world. The strategic objective is to make India more secure. Nuclear weapons...will not achieve this objective." "Gujral's Diplomacy In New York" The centrist Hindu's associate editor K. K. Katyal held (9/27): "For some time, there has been a perceptible change in the pointers from Washington.... The United States now appears disinclined to make the bilateral agenda hostage to a single issue--nuclear non-proliferation- -on which the divergence continues to be sharp. Also, the earlier rigidity, evident in the exhortation to India to 'cap, reverse and eliminate' nuclear capability, may melt into a recognition of the current nuclear reality.... New Delhi would, however, do well to shed its inhibitions in projecting its nuclear status.... "New Delhi has reasons to derive satisfaction from Clinton's 'desire to move towards the future, to be able to envision a future that is not tied to all the problem in the past.' As a result of a conscious policy decision, India has now ceased to be Pakistan-centrist. This is a major departure from the past when the obsessive concern with Islamabad was the mainstay of our foreign policy and our diplomatic effort in important world capitals.... However, at some other level, there was the need for responding to Sharif's offer of talks on a non- aggression pact--so as not to let him get away with propaganda dividends he sought to garner.... The treaty of the type now proposed by Sharif was on the anvil between 1981 and 1984.... If Pakistan is serious now, all that the two sides have to do is to pick up the old draft from the archives. Any such agreement would not be worth the paper it is signed on, unless it incorporates the concept of peace along the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir." "Back To The Grind" An editorial in the centrist Times of India (9/27) stated, "By any standard of reckoning Prime Minister Inder Gujral's New York odyssey would measure as a success.... In his interaction with President Clinton, Gujral confirmed the irreversibility of Indian economic reform, welcomed an increasing U.S. role in the Indian economy and agreed to a strategic dialogue without yielding ground on vital Indian security interests. Gujral used the visit to procure an assurance that the United States will not play a mediatory role in Kashmir. He also administered a silent admonishment to the Pakistani prime minister for his vitriolic attack on India by totally ignoring it and yet persuading him to continue the dialogue.... He is now back, but only to face unrest within the country.... The contrast between Gujral's performance on the external field and in the domestic sphere cannot be starker." "Gujral's U.S. Trip" New Delhi's pro-Congress Party, Urdu-language Quami Awaz (9/25) said: "President Clinton assumed a positive attitude toward India not only during his meeting with Prime Minister Gujral but also in his address to the UN General Assembly. The president's change of attitude may well indicate the end of the pro-Pakistan tilt that has traditionally prevailed in American foreign policy. This positive outcome has doubly increased the significance of the prime minister's latest visit to the United States. Against all (prior) apprehensions...it was clear from the Gujral-Clinton meeting that the U.S. president had no intention of interfering in Indo-Pakistan affairs, especially anything relating to Kashmir.... There is no doubt that India and the United States differ on many issues, including CTBT, ballistic missiles and trade, and that at times they have conflicting approaches to various global issues. Efforts to change the course of the Indian economy to make it more favorable to U.S. interests are also resented in India. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly clear that in South Asia the United States is attaching greater importance to India than to Pakistan." "Favoring India" Independent, Urdu-language Awam told its readers (9/25): "Whatever his real intentions, President Clinton's recent overtures indicate a definite shift in the U.S. tendency to ignore India.... Although Washington cannot abruptly snap relations with Pakistan, a long time ally that is still useful in certain areas, especially in the Middle East, a shift in India's favor is clearly discernable. For some time now, the United States has not demonstrated the kind of indifference and prejudice with which it used to deal with India, presuming it to be a hostile country.... Why the change?... Anticipating a serious challenge from China in the future, friendly relations with India are now seen as a good strategic move for the United States. Pakistan alone is not dependable in this respect, given its warm relations with China.... India's large market is another important factor which has played a decisive role in re-focusing U.S. attention from Pakistan to India." "Gujral-Clinton Meeting" Independent, Urdu-language Milap had this to say (9/25): "Whatever its importance from India's point of view, this meeting was just a part of the U.S. administration's effort to...promote better relations with the developing world. Notwithstanding Gujral's assertion on the bilateral nature of the Kashmir issue, which makes any third-party interference unnecessary and unacceptable, President Clinton has yet made his point by insisting that India and Pakistan must resolve their differences sooner rather than later. He made it clear that such differences caused inconvenience to the United States, which, in pursuit of its global interests, would like them to be settled expeditiously. The exercise was also aimed at enhancing the president's domestic image as a great player on the international scene." "World Is Waiting" Independent, Urdu-language Siasat of Hyderabad judged (9/25): "Addressing the UN General Assembly, President Clinton made an impressive appeal for the resolution of differences between India and Pakistan. He said that people all over the world were keenly waiting for such a resolution, so vital for the stability and development of the two countries and of the region as a whole. To bring his point home, he preferred a gentler exposition, which showed his sincere concern. He could have directly asked for an early end of the tensions between the two neighbors, which would sound rather authoritative and less effective. By declaring that peace between India and Pakistan was something that the whole world was longing for, he not only shared the U.S. concern with the world community, but also gave the issue an entirely new dimension and significance." "India And U.S.: Let's Get Ready For A New Ball Game" The centrist Times of India featured this analysis (10/1) by former Foreign Secretary S.K. Singh: "Now that the ice-breaking (tasks) have been performed by the Clinton-Gujral and the Pickering-Vora duos, India's relations with the United States have acquired greater salience and significance.... India recognizes that nuclear explosions and tests are easily done, but need to be avoided if the concept of a world without nuclear weapons is to be promoted. But then...our right to have nuclear weapons, if unavoidable, must not be questioned by others, or abandoned by us, to the detriment of India's defense.... In the arenas of economics, technology, and politics, (the United States) is a 'can-do, must-do' society driven by impatience and the quest for achievement. India remains a calculating and contemplative society, tending to delay decisions and their implementation.... "The United States and India have two distinct styles of negotiating. India's negotiating style is oblique, generally opaque. The American negotiating style is direct, tough, open, although not entirely transparent.... Times have changed. The United States now promotes human rights and environmental concerns. India needs to understand and change too.... The greater India's success and strength in managing its own productivity and stability, the more support it will receive from the corporate United States and the Congress. Therein lies the key. India needs U.S. friendship more than the United States needs India's friendship." PAKISTAN: "Pak-India Relations And U.S. Views" An op-ed column by Ata-ur-Rehman in the leading, mass-circulation, Urdu-language Jang (10/7) read, "Now that Madeleine Albright is definitely coming to Pakistan and India in November, President Clinton's visit may also be expected. During these visits, Pakistan's higher-ups should do their best to convince the U.S. government that Clinton's desire to establish peace in South Asia--like that in the Middle East and Bosnia--during his second term in office cannot be fulfilled until and unless India is ready to resolve the Kashmir issue.... If...President Clinton wants to see his name in the history books as the man who brought peace to South Asia, then that could be a chance for Pakistan to play its diplomatic cards carefully and free Kashmir from India's claws.... Pakistani officials should make clear to U.S. policymakers that the issue of Kashmir cannot be approached using the Oslo formula.... Kashmir can be resolved only by applying the UN resolutions." "Misplaced Optimism" An op-ed by D. Shah Khan in the Karachi-based, independent, national Dawn (10/7) noted, "Once again hope has triumphed over experience. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's meeting with U.S. President Bill Clinton was the umpteenth effort by a Pakistani leader to resuscitate a relationship that died over a decade ago. The Americans finally pulled their stakes out of Pakistan soon after they extracted a pound of flesh from the Soviets in Afghanistan, leaving Islamabad to deal as best as it could with the mounting of debris created by the U.S.- sponsored 'jihad.'... Just as 'one swallow does not summer make,' so a courtesy call on the U.S. president, a run-of-the-mill fruitless meeting with the Indian prime minister and an address to the General Assembly could not have achieved anything. The Foreign Office would do well to clear up the haze by explaining the circumstances in which the strategy of the visit was drawn up." "Which Is Your Standard--The U.S. President's Or Your Nation's?" An editorial in the Karachi-based, pro-Islamic unity, Urdu-language Jjasarat (10/6) held, "Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif...said that President Clinton has also praised his newly-enacted anti-terrorism law. Now, it may be possible that Mr. Clinton actually admired Nawaz's government's efforts to deal with terrorism, but the question arises what is the relevant criteria for Mr. Sharif--the opinion of the Pakistani public or the opinion of the U.S. president? This question is important since the entire nation has spoken with one voice to reject this spurious piece of legislation and the only ones apparently in favor of it are Sharif and Clinton. How clearly this proves that our own rulers consider American leaders to be their masters! Times have really changed: What used to be done on the sly and kept secret is now proudly boasted in the open." "Harkin And The F-16s" Under the headline, "Restoration Of Military And Economic Aid," second largest Urdu-language Nawa-E-Waqt stated (10/6): "The Brown amendment paved the way for repaying Pakistan the money it paid to purchase F- 16s, but at that time the F-16s were cleverly separated from the main package of the legislation. Now that the Senate has approved another exception to its sanctions, it is high time for the infamous Pressler amendment, which discriminates against Pakistan, to be completely abolished, especially as regards the F-16 purchase." "Little To Be Gained By Going On With Pretense Of Progress" In the editorial view of the center-right Nation (10/3), "There seems little to be gained by going on with the pretence of progress in the negotiations when New Delhi seems determined to fly in the face of all reasonable opinion, internationally as well as domestically, and send signals which cannot be read as anything other than an obdurate continuation of its old policy of holding on to Kashmir by force, and devil take the consequences." "Rethinking India Policy" Under the headline above, an editorial in the centrist, national News(10/3) pointed out, "Despite all this, the Pakistan government put a pretty face on an ugly situation. It was less than a week ago that Mr. Sharif described his meeting with Indian Prime Minister I. K. Gujral in New York as very good, implying that there was hope at the end of the tunnel of talks with India. But none really existed, as Mr. Sharif has now discovered. It is difficult to say what will follow the government's recanting of faith in parleys with Delhi. Whether Pakistan will press ahead with the next round of foreign secretary discussions, but under protest, or will it make change in the Indian attitude on Kashmir a precondition for holding the fourth round." "U.S., UN--Pakistan's Targets And Obstacles" Leading, mass-circulation, Urdu-language Jang ran this op-ed piece (10/2) by former Information Minister Irshad Haqqani: "According to those in Pakistan's diplomatic circles, U.S. interest in Pak-India talks is a positive development but this interest would only be useful to the establishment of peace and stability in the region once the basic issue of Kashmir has been resolved and the United States is ready to be just on the question of the F-16s.... In the next six or seven months the U.S. president, secretary of state and other...dignitaries are planning to visit South Asia. During these visits the South Asian powers and the United States will make important decisions about South Asia. Pakistan's well-wishers have urged that Pakistan lay out its strategies at the highest level and review the entire appproach carefully. Clinton's visit will set long- range prospects for the region, and we should make a serious effort-- beginning right now--to protect our national interests." "U.S. Mediation On Kashmir--Be Cautious" Second largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt insisted (10/2): "The impression is both strong and widespread that the United States wants a Palestine-like solution to the Kashmir issue.... It is difficult to impose any solution, snce the United States is already experienced in its Middle East mediation, especially when the Kashmiri are unwilling to accept it.... Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand or support the views of the U.S. press secretary on the possibility of compromise with India.... If Clinton thinks that this region should avoid the possibility of war, then he must compel India to accept the UN resolutions. We will not accept the Nawaz government's being forced into Oslo or Camp David-type agreements arranged through silent diplomacy.... After recent statements by the White House press secretary, Prime Minister Nawaz should openly inform the people of Pakistan what he is expecting in the way of a solution to Kashmir and what the role of the United States will be." "Need To Respond Clearly To Indian Threats" In the editorial view of second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-E-Waqt(9/30): "It is our national duty no longer to prolong pointless talks with India with all their negative affects on the Kashmiri struggle nor we should pursue trade and cultural relations with India.... After the alarming statement by the Indian defense minister, Prime Minister Gujral's true colors should be clear to all and should be met with an equally clear response. Only then can we protect our national security and dignity." "Missile Threat" An editorial in the centrist, national News (9/30) held, "The formidable growth of India's war machine owes a great deal to the emphasis on indigenous defense production.... Nonetheless, there has been insufficient international pressure on India to rein in its imperial urge. "And New Delhi is not prone to stopping at anything short of recognition as a world power entitled to perks, such as admission to the elite nuclear club and a permanent UN seat. Pakistan can ill afford to enter a missile race in the region. It has no option but to give top priority to developing a defense system that can serve as a deterrent against aggression." "India's Sabre-Rattling" An editorial in the center-right Nation held (9/30): "Mr. Gujral may not appear to be belligerent, like his defense minister, but it is he who has ordered the production of more and more Pakistan-specific missiles. He may have posed as a man of peace before the world community, but it is he who recoiled from a no-war pact. If Mr. Gujral is really a man of peace, then it will be in his own interest to remove such dichotomy between his words and his deeds. Also, it will bring more credibility to his claims of peace if his ministers too desisted from throwing threats at Pakistan." "Positive Change?" An editorial in the center-right Nation remarked (9/26), "Although Nawaz Sharif managed to earn kudos as a peacemaker and upstaged Gujral through his non-aggression pact proposal, Pakistan's hopes from the change in U.S. attitudes must be tempered by the realities of global politics. Economic cooperation with the United States may counter to some extent the weight of economic opportunity presented by India's huge market. But U.S. policy in South Asia remains a step removed from the kind of active diplomacy Pakistan desires in order to overcome Indian obduracy over Kashmir." "India's Pound Of Flesh" An op-ed column by Ghani Eirabie in the centrist national News (9/26) said, "The U.S. president's New York talks with the prime ministers of India and Pakistan seem designed not so much to resolve the Indo- Pakistan disputes such as Kashmir as to build the subcontinent into a bulwark against growing Chinese influence.... Washington is convinced that a strong India, unbothered by any disputes with Pakistan, could help the United States contain China. However, it is still weighing whether, in the context of its global responsibilities, it can afford to pay the price demanded by India." "India's Strategic Offensive" An op-ed piece by Brig. (Retd) S.A.I. Tirmazi in the center-right Nation made this point (9/26), "Pakistan has always been considered as unwelcome neighbor, an enemy, a challenger and a spoiler. Therefore, all efforts are now focused at marginalizing Pakistan.... India's ambitious nuclear program, when fully developed, would pose a serious threat to the integrity and security of Pakistan. Over the period, India could also develop enough leverage to persuade the United States to accept it as a regional mini-superpower to counterbalance China. It is time to pick up the lost threads of Pakistan-Iran-China nexus. That could forestall India's ambitious hegemonic designs. In the strategic context, Pakistan is best placed to act as a bridge between Iran and the United States as it had done in the case of China and the United States." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 10/8/97 # # #
Return to Foreign Media Reaction Reports page
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
