Title: Daily Digest 4/29: RICHARDSON TO SOUTH ASIADate: 19980429
Text:
FOREIGN MEDIA REACTION DAILY DIGEST
USIA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MEDIA REACTION
U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC 20547
BILL RICHEY, BRANCH CHIEF MEDIA REACTION, (R/MR)
TELE. No. (202)619-6511
ANN PINCUS, DIRECTOR
Wednesday, 29 April 1998
Daily Digest 4/29: RICHARDSON TO SOUTH ASIA
In copious editorial comment, opinion-makers in the four countries (excluding Afghanistan) on Ambassador Richardson's South Asian itinerary earlier this month welcomed the U.S.' "renewed interest" in the subcontinent, particularly with respect to increased trade and investment opportunities with America. Apart from the "breakthrough" achieved on Afghanistan (see 4/22 Daily Digest), however, analysts in the region and beyond expressed deep concern that a "dangerous" arms race was brewing on the subcontinent following reports of Pakistan's successful test-firing of the Ghauri intermediate-range surface-to-surface missile shortly before Mr. Richardson arrived in South Asia. Following are the main themes of the commentary from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka:
INDIA: 'OUR STRATEGIC DEPTH LIES IN TATTERS'--In commentary after commentary, Indian pundits stressed that the advent of Pakistan's Ghauri missile had grave implications for India's security. Many spoke of the event as marking a "decided turn for the worse" in Indo-Pakistani relations. Some analysts agreed with the nationalist Hindustan Times' assessment that India faced a threat not only from a "trigger-happy...military- mullah complex in Pakistan," but also from China, which that paper claimed had a "vast array of atomic weapons and ballistic missiles...targeted at India." Writers differed in their conclusions as to how India should react to the Ghauri. Some commended India's "measured" response, claiming that moderation might win India some "brownie points" with the U.S.--and possible U.S. endorsement of a UN Security Council seat. These editorialists tended to side with the centrist Times of India, which held that "real security" can never be achieved through an expensive arms race. Other commentators, distressed by what they called Pakistan's "bad boy" attitude, urged that India "get cracking." Endorsing that view, a nationalist paper joined others in insisting: "We need a state-of-the art missilery as a deterrent."
PAKISTAN: In Pakistan, the predominant editorial view was that the firing of the Ghauri was a "great accomplishment" that would allow Pakistan "to sit with more confidence at the conference table" in discussions with India. Some dailies, including mass-circulation Jang and second-largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt, argued that Pakistan should proceed with a nuclear explosion as further evidence of Pakistan's military strength. The center-right Nation touted Pakistan's parity with India, stating that now "India will have to treat Pakistan as an equal if it wants peace on the subcontinent." Only a few Pakistani observers agreed with Karachi's independent Dawn, which emphasized that neither India nor Pakistan could afford a "wasteful military build-up." In a notable exception to its usual editorial line, Islamabad's sensationalist, anti-U.S. Muslim, citing the U.S.' alleged interest in ensuing a "safe route for American multinationals to the riches of central Asia," judged that "Pakistan...has reasons to be satisfied with the (Richardson) visit."
BANGLADESH, SRI LANKA: Analyses from these two stops on Mr. Richardson's tour dubbed the visit highly "successful." Dhaka's centrist Independent saw ties with the U.S. and Bangladesh as being "poised to reach a higher level," especially in economic terms. Commentators in Sri Lanka declared that the Richardson visit "had helped reduce a few irritants" in bilateral ties, and welcomed the U.S.' call on the LTTE "to seek a negotiated settlement" to end the ongoing strife between Sri Lanka and the Tamil guerrillas.
This survey is based on 55 reports from 7 countries, April 11 - 29.
Editor: Kathleen J. Brahney
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Let's Face It, U.S. Has Soft Spot For Pakistan"
Former director of Intelligence Bureau M.K. Narayanan expressed this point of view in the centrist Asian Age (4/27): "The refusal of the U.S. establishment to believe its own agencies and sources regarding Pakistan's nuclear capers, actively aided and abetted by China (and North Korea), was...(a) warning. (The) muted criticism...of Pakistan for launching its Ghauri missile on the eve of the high-level U.S. visit to the region in April also conveyed a message of its own. Clearly, the United States would set right the earlier 'U.S. tilt' in favor of India.... Circumstances and fate have worked in favor of Pakistan, which has been pitchforked into the role of a front-line state in the new battleground for hydrocarbons and other energy resources.... Pakistan...has bartered its influence with the Taliban to regain the support of the United States. The principal gainer is the United States, having secured better ties with both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The main loser is India, for...it has been marginalized and is not even an invitee to the 6+2 talks in Islamabad....
"With Bangladesh as the new favored destination for U.S. investment, attracted by its great energy wealth--mainly oil and natural gas--India's importance is likely to decline further.... Instead of constantly harping on the possibility of Pakistan becoming a 'failed state,' India should factor the importance of Pakistan to the West into its strategic calculations. The new government would do well to prepare carefully for the Clinton visit, instead of seeking 'brownie points' from the United States. Rather than avoid taking hard decisions it should seek to enhance India's importance in geo-strategic terms."
"A Prickly Neighborhood"
The nationalist Hindustan Times featured this analysis by veteran columnist Kuldip Nayar (4/25): "China and Pakistan are not the best of neighbors. But geography has thrown us together. We cannot run away from it. However intransigent they may be, we have to live with them.... In any eventuality, we have to stay cool because no problem can be considered, much less tackled, if tempers are high. Unfortunately, (Indian Defense Minister) George Fernandes wants to raise the temperature, as his speeches indicate.... The U.S. delegation led by Bill Richardson...should have paid serious attention to building the climate for (the) India-Pakistan dialogue.... But what comes out after the visit of every high-powered U.S. delegation is that Washington's interest is primarily in the markets the region confer to the U.S.-made goods."
"Pakistan Adopts Mantle Of War"
Bureau chief Seema Mustafa judged in the centrist Asian Age (4/25): "(Are the) Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Babri...signs of a mature nation at peace with itself and the world?... The sweet talk is over. The veil of diplomacy has been shed as Pakistan adopts the mantle of war and indulges in rhetoric and action that are d esigned to assuage base sentiments at home and elicit base response from across the border (in India.)... The Indian government is playing it right for the moment, by refusing to react. Pakistan will continue with the hype, building upon it as the days go by as it knows well that reaction from the hardline constituency will have to be assuaged by the government that it has elected to power."
"Security In Perspective"
The nationalist Hindustan Times featured this analysis by M.L. Sondhi (4/24): "As soon as it is constituted, the (Indian) National Security Council (NSC) should address in detail the negative emphasis of the United States in seeking the nuclear disarmament of India without definite solutions to India's security needs. In spite of greater realism shown towards the Vajpayee government in this month's Indo-U.S. parleys, the agenda of Ambassador Tom Pickering still remains one of eventually capping and rolling back India's nuclear and missile program. To counteract the facile clich s which have found their way into Pentagon and State Department thinking, the NSC would have to address security and proliferation concerns to project India's capacity to stabilize and harmonize its strategies in relation to both the United States and India's own neighborhood on the basis of mutual respect and concern with the security of 'both sides.'"
"India's Foreign Policy Agenda"
Radha Kumar, former director of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly, put forth this analysis in the centrist Hindu (4/24): "While there has been considerable speculation on the new U.S. interest in India, there has been relatively little discussion of what India's interest in the United States can or should be. It is almost as if we have assumed that the two are interchangeable and that India's interest in the United States will follow its in us. This is a peculiar assumption, given the considerable differences between the two countries....
"Indian newspapers have been flooded with articles on India's external and internal security needs and the parliamentary debate on the BJP's nuclear intention has been vociferous.... If this government continues to play up Indian security concerns, which Pakistan's Ghauri has heightened, we could find ourselves back in a subcontinental arms race which would be even more expensive than previous ones. With luck and a few carrots, such as civilian nuclear technology transfer from the United States, we might avoid being plunged into a missile race."
"Countering Pakistan's War"
The centrist Pioneer's Hiranmay Karlekar held (4/24): "The military-fundamentalist- druglord syndicate, which is (Pakstan's) real ruler, does not want peace with India even if Nawaz Sharif and the emergent bourgeoisie do.... The fundamentalists, whose warped creed is an insult to Islam's true spirit of assimilation, tolerance and mercy, want to crush India.... The economic crisis facing the nation should be addressed immediately; economic strength is essential...to sustaining an accelerated program of missile development and the building-up of a nuclear arsenal large enough to cope with any threat from Islamabad. All this will not be easy to achieve. There will be opposition, not only from Pakistan, but from countries like the United States which have done everything to slow down India's missile program but have reacted remarkably mildly to Pakistan's test-firing of 'Ghauri.' India has to stand firm."
"Greater Sensitivity"
Senior editor Shubha Singh wrote on the op-ed page of the centrist Pioneer (4/23): "The second Clinton administration has brought a greater degree of sensitivity to managing relations with this region. More than anything else, the desire to understand and handle with care the relationship, should go a long way in building up a cooperative equation covering a variety of spheres. India and the United States can agree to disagree on some points and still look for areas of cooperation."
"Trigger Happy"
According to an editorial in the centrist Asian Age (4/23): "India's relations with Pakistan have taken a decided turn for the worse. The neighboring country has suddenly thrown all caution to the wind and is indulging in not just bad rhetoric but worse reaction. The missile program is provocative enough, but more so are the names being given to the missiles--Ghauri-Ghazni, Babri. Each to provoke and generate reaction from India.... And as if this was not enough, Nawaz Sharif confidante and Information Minister Mushahid Hussain decided to pay a visit to operate in Kashmir. Here, he praised the Lashkar-e-Traiba's commitment to 'jihad' and spoke in glowing terms about its activities. The leaders at the camp spoke of the liberation of Kashmir to be followed by the liberation of Indian Muslims. All very deliberate and dangerous."
"Wages Of Timidity"
Under the above headline, columnist Sumer Kaul emphasized in the nationalist Hindustan Times (4/22): "Let's make no mistake about it, Ghauri is no more than a comma in (Pakistan's) militarization program.... Real and escalating as the Pakistani threat is, it is not the only threat to this country.... China has a vast array of atomic weapons and ballistic missiles, some of them based in Tibet and targeted at us.... So, to our north and east we have a mighty nuclear power sitting pretty on considerable chunk of our land, with indications of coveting more, and to our west we have a blossoming nuclear power also in occupation of our territory and dominated by a military-mullah complex itching to pull the trigger.... So what is the all-too-familiar dither about now? Let us get cracking.... We need a state-of-the art missilery as a deterrent... We must shed our timidity and mark this golden jubilee year by deploying the Prithvi, producing the Agni, and developing the Surya. That will be at once the symbol and the guarantee of our national independence."
"The Bomb Next Door"
An editorial in the nationalist Hindustan Times stressed (4/20): "What is significant about the reiteration by...Pakistani nuclear scientist...Abdul Qadeer Khan that his country has a nuclear arsenal is its timing.... The fact that Khan chose the moment of...Bill Richardson's visit to Islamabad means that Pakistan feels that it has now reached a stage when it can afford to cock a snook at the United States.... The United States obviously still regards Pakistan as a dependable ally for helping to carry out its policies....
"Islamabad...presumably hopes that India will react in an intemperate and jingoistic manner.... In this, Islamabad is mistaken for, as Prime Minister Vajpayee's measured response ruling out the possibility of an arms race has shown, India will not be hustled into taking a step which can be to its disadvantage in diplomatic terms.... India will hope for a negotiated solution of all outstanding problems while keeping its powder dry."
"What Did U.S. Expect From India?"
Pundit K. Subrahmanyam opined in the pro-economic reforms Economic Times (4/20): "India has earned kudos from the visiting American officials for the restraint shown on 'Ghauri.' If the Americans had studied our history, they should have expected India to have done just that.... Unfortunately, in spite of their appreciation of our restraint, the Americans consider Korean missiles and the not-yet-developed or acquired Iranian or Libyan missiles as grave threats to their security. It is quite obvious that security does not have the same connotation for Indians and Americans."
"Ghauri Details"
Diplomatic correspondent Indrani Bagchi emphasized in the right-of-center Economic Times (4/19): "The whole matter (of the Ghauri missile) is an overelaborate sideshow in the larger shadow-boxing match between China and the United States.... What Pakistan hadn't bargained for was that India's stand on Ghauri would earn it unexpected brownie points with the United States. Though Bill Richardson and company failed to give the all-clear to India's bid for a Security Council seat, the approving noises made on his New Delhi visit this week may be a precursor to a 'rewards' program. And that surely couldn't have passed Pakistan by."
"Bad Boy Syndrome"
An editorial in the center-right Indian Express argued (4/18): "There is more to Abdul Q. Khan's new claims about Pakistan's nuclear and missile capabilities than sheer bluster or cussedness.... Khan was clearly seeking attention from President Clinton's special envoy, Bill Richardson.... It is not hing but the 'bad boy' syndrome all over again. The worse Islamabad behaves, the more it expects to be rewarded by Washington."
"Pakistan's Provocations"
The centrist Times of India maintained (4/18): "It is clear that Pakistan has embarked on a psychological warfare campaign against India. The names Ghauri and Ghaznavi...are deliberately provocative and meant, in fact, to elicit matching responses from India.... Evidently Pakistan calculates that both China and itself are beyond penalization by the United States (and) that the United States would repeat its earlier obfuscation of not reaching a finding on the missile technology transfer issue....
India should not rise to the bait by playing the role assigned to it in Pakistani calculations."
"India Must Resume N-Tests"
Under the above headline, noted columnist Prem Shankar Jha concluded in the nationalist Hindustan Times (4/18): "Today the hawks in Pakistan are in an unstable, and therefore dangerous, frame of mind. Their third attempt to seize Kashmir in 50 years has failed, and the world has lost interest in the dispute. The country is bankrupt.... India's response to the launching of the Ghauri should, therefore, be unequivocal.... It should shed its indecision and do whatever is needed to restore credibility to its nuclear deterrence capability."
"Widen The Focus"
According to an editorial in the centrist Statesman (4/17): "The principal focus of U.S. foreign policy in India remains the nuclear issue. Of course, Bill Richardson, Karl Inderfurth and Bruce Reidel have lots of things to discuss, but the fact that Inderfurth is an arms control expert and Reidel an expert on Indo-Pak relations, should leave no one in any doubt as to the principal thrust of their agenda.... From the Indian point view, it would make sense to focus as much on trade as on the nuclear topic, for the simple reason that having missed the ICBM bus, at least officially, the only way is to acquire a worthwhile international profile through trade, basically through the penetration of Western markets with a corresponding overture towards foreign investment.... (That) is a laborious process, hence the reluctance to tackle it."
"Strategic Dialogue On Course"
Diplomatic correspondent Prakash Nanda penned this analysis for the centrist Times of India (4/17): "If anything, the just concluded Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue has proven that given the political will, progress in areas of common interests is not hampered by the known irritants in the relations between two countries.
"In the latest round of Indo-U.S. talks, the United States has shown a sense of pragmatism in allaying the sensitivity of India on...issues which had cast a shadow on the bilateral ties in recent years.... It is now clear that one of the Vajpayee government's main foreign policy strategies is to project India's 'democratic credentials' and 'the responsibilities' associated with it."
"Nuclear Blackmail"
Noted columnist Prem Shankar Jha had this assessment in the nationalist Hindustan Times (4/17): "Today...it would be rank folly for India not to assume, while framing a nuclear policy, that Pakistan's nuclear bomb technology is almost certainly more reliable than India's.... The plain truth is that to retain its nuclear credibility with its adversaries and with its own armed forces, India needs to explode a bomb, but Pakistan does not. But once India does so, the Clinton administration will be bound by its own past declarations and under pressure from the U.S. Congress to make its displeasure felt.... Pakistani nationalists...feel a compulsion to work toward India's undoing. It is this streak of irrationality that has made Pakistan bankrupt itself trying to maintain military parity with India, and become party to any scheme, no matter what its cost to society, if it gives it a political or military advantage over India."
"Pakistan's Muscle-Flexing"
Former Indian Foreign Secretary S.K. Singh raised these concerns in the centrist Hindu (4/17): "Pakistan's Ghauri missile is certainly not a confidence-building measure meant to persuade India to continue the ongoing bilateral dialogue.... (Pakistan's) crude and rude message to India (is): 'We have our (Shahabuddin Mohammed) Ghauri ready to fight your Prithvi (Raj Chauhan). Please behave and hand over Kashmir, or else.'"
"U.S. And India's Periphery"
The centrist Hindu carried this analysis (4/16) by strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan: "The new strategic dialogue between India and the United States is premised on Washington's assurance that it will no longer treat New Delhi and Islamabad as the 'Siamese twins' that must always be paired together, and that it will engage India on an independent basis.... However, there is considerable skepticism in India whether the United States really means what it says.... The two countries need to move from the current focus on their relations with Islamabad to greater cooperation on managing the instability arising from within Pakistan, as it teeters on the brink of becoming a failed state. Beyond China and Pakistan, there is a broader agenda of cooperation awaiting India and the United States. Promoting regional and subregional cooperation within the subcontinent, encouraging political pluralism in India's neighborhood, combating terrorism and its connection with narcotics-trafficking on India's periphery, building a positive engagement with the Islamic world, working toward a more secure Persian Gulf, cooperating in protecting the sea lanes in the Indian Ocean and building cooperative energy security are among the areas that must become the foci of the Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue."
"Is Ghauri Gory?"
The centrist Pioneer told its readers (4/16): "New Delhi cannot ignore the far-reaching significance of (the launching of the Ghauri) for the security situation, not only in the South Asia region, but also beyond our immediate environs.... A missile with a range of 1500 km. can reach countries like Iran, Iraq, parts of the Gulf and many Central Asian republics. Since this range covers the area India calls its extended neighborhood, there is reason for grave concern.... It is now imperative that such a review be taken up im mediately within a specific time frame, so that a comprehensive defense and strategic policy is evolved."
"U.S. Cool To India's Outburst Over Ghauri"
According to the centrist Telegraph's diplomatic correspondent Pranay Sharma (4/16): "India appears to have shed tears in vain. Its complaint to the U.S. president's special envoy Bill Richardson about the involvement of Pakistan and China in nuclear proliferation in the region...failed to spark the expected castigation of either country.... The guarded response of the United States to both Pakistan and China on the missile issue is understandable. Pakistan is a time-tested U.S. ally and, despite the present bonhomie between New Delhi and Washington, the Clinton administration would not like to improve ties with India at the cost of Pakistan. As far as China is concerned, the United States, though aware of (China's) involvement in violating missile technology transfer laws, would not like to castigate it publicly. Washington is keen to i mprove ties with Beijing, and U.S. President Bill Clinton is scheduled to visit China in June. Therefore, it does not want to bring up any issue now which might cast a shadow over Clinton's state visit to the country and jeopardize bilateral relations."
"Indian Officials Draw Comfort From Richardson Talks"
The centrist Hindu ran this analysis by associate editor K. K. Katyal (4/16): "The two-day discussions of...Richardson with the Indian leaders...(were) described as 'useful and successful'--especially because of the indication that the relationship with India was not to be viewed through a narrow prism--of the ups and downs of India-Pakistan ties. The claim by the Indian side that the dialogue helped to take bilateral relations to a qualitatively new level testified to continuity of the positive trends that had been evident, of late."
"Of Missiles, Blind Men And White Elephants"
Security affairs analyst Praful Bidwai insisted in the centrist Times of India (4/14): "Ultimately, it is in neither India's nor Pakistan's interest to pursue nuclear or missile development. Such adventurism can only help the most rabid, right-wing and jingoistic elements in the two countries at the cost of sobriety, pursuit of restraint regionally and globally, and long-overdue social agendas domestically. Real security can never come through nuclear weapons and missiles."
"India's Strategic Depth Lies Shattered"
Under the above headline, the centrist Pioneer featured this comment by security affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney (4/14):
"No single event in this decade has carried such adverse implications for India's security as the Pakistani acquisition of an IRBM, the Hatf-5 or Ghauri. In one stroke, India's real military advantage over Pakistan--its strategic depth--lies in tatters.... It is also important not to overlook America's subdued, almost-acquiescent reaction to Pakistan's magical acquisition of an IRBM system."
"Seeking Answers"
According to an editorial in the centrist Times of India (4/13): "A high-powered American delegation led by Bill Richardson, is visiting India at a time when the strategic contours in East and South Asia are getting more clearly delineated. On the eve of the visit, the official U.S. spokesperson admitted that Washington understands the concerns India has over China.... The assertion of Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes that China is the mother of Pakistan's Ghauri missile (is) relevant.... Pakistan's nuclear and missile capabilities are part of the problem of China's growing power and role in Asia.... The continuing U.S. unwillingness to make a determination on the transfer of M-11 missiles from China to Pakistan in 1993 does not speak well of Washington's commitment to non-proliferation.... North Korea is also suspected to be a source for Pakistani missile....
"The impression is bound to gain ground that the United States is helpless in halting proliferation in Asia and, therefore, it is logical for India to have its own threat assessment and nuclear and missile policies to ensure its security."
PAKISTAN: "Indian Terrorism--Need For Prompt And Meaningful Response"
Under the above headline, an editorial in the second largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqtstressed (4/29): "Unless (our weapon) is actually tested, it is not likely that India will come to its senses and will continue with its mischief. Before the United States steps up the pressure on Pakistan to close down A. Q. Khan Laboratories, we should proceed quickly--and achieve the ultimate (in weapons testing). Then, as a member of the nuclear club, we could face the world community, particularly the United States, from a much better position."
"Allies Forever?"
Under the above headline, the centrist News featured this op-ed piece by Samina Ahmed (4/25): "Problems arose even before Richardson arrived on Pakistani soil, and largely of Pakistan's own making. During the first leg of Richardson's trip, to India, and the first-ever meeting between the new BJP government and a high-level US policy-maker, the right-wing Hindu fundamentalist party presented itself as the very picture of restraint. Pakistan had only itself to blame. The timing of the testing of Hatf-V (Ghauri) couldn't have been worse.... Richardson refused to be publicly drawn into an even more hazardous area, the Kashmir issue.... Although Richardson declared that his visit signified the importance of 'Pakistan as an important friend' and that the United States considered Pakistan a strategic, economic and political ally, there were no indications of a changed U.S. policy on Kashmir....
"At the conclusion of the visit, a Pakistan government spokesman described Richardson's visit as useful and successful with positive results.... It seems that the 'strategic' part of the relationship fell by the wayside during the visit, and with it any Pakistani hopes that a new U.S. policy would acknowledge, through more than mere words, Pakistan's strategic importance and role in the South Asian region."
"Another Strategic Alliance?"
M.B. Naqvi concluded in Karachi's independent Dawn (4/24): "It does look as if the immediate and specific purpose of the mission headed by Bill Richardson...was to revive the U.S.-Pakistan strategic alliance focused on Afghanistan.... Friendship of an ordinary kind is desired with the United States. No second-rank country can ignore or annoy the only superpower. We should welcome more trade and economic cooperation--of a mutually beneficial kind. But no special or strategic relationship, involving any undercover working together or even open military cooperation, should be countenanced with America. Pakastani-U.S. military cooperation in the past has played havoc with Pakistan's public life. Let that chapter finally be closed."
"Irritants In Pakistan-U.S. Ties"
Under the above headline, Munzur Ejaz opined in the centrist News (4/23): " Four major irritants--non-proliferation, terrorism, child labor and religious persecution--still mar Pakistani-American relations. However, country-specific sanctions against Pakistan are giving way to more generalized restrictions and conditionalities that the United States is imposing on all the developing countries. In general, the United States is not bent upon singling out Pakistan, nonetheless, it will continue blaming the government in Islamabad for not complying with U.S. laws."
"Mian Saheb's Revolt Against U.S."
Leading, mass-circulation Urdu-language Jang carried this op-ed piece by Abdul Qadir Hasan (4/22): "Pakistan, it seems, is poised to remove the American shackle from around its neck. It had become so tight that it was becoming difficult to breathe.... If the United States were not such a big, very big, power, Pakistan's Foreign Minister might have used the expression 'betrayal' instead of 'unfaithfulness' to register his feelings about the United States. The history of U.S.-Pakistan relations is fraught with treacherous disloyalties.... Pakistanis...are now wondering if our government will really be able to maintain such defiance. And then will we be able to survive the consequences? Or will this act of defiance meet the same deadly fate, as Bhutto and Zia-ul-Haq?
Defying the United States is not going to be easy....
"The political leadership, the officers of the foreign office and other bureaucracies and many other important national institutions are under the pay and protection of the United States.... Still, a defiant attitude and robust language (like 'unfaithfulness') aimed at the United States may prove a commendable step for Pakistan's future.... The United States is a big power, and a dangerous one.... Diplomats have said that you cannot deal effectively with the United States using flattery; you must confront her in order to achieve results."
"Important Decision Time For U.S., Subcontinent"
This op-ed piece by senior editor Irshad Ahmad Haqqani ran in leading, mass-circulation Urdu-language Jang (4/20): "There is no doubt that the arms race in South Asia should end. Otherwise, both India and Pakistan will not be able to use their limited resources to improve the lot of their peoples.... But the question is, how great a price can Pakistan afford to pay to achieve this goal?... The slant U.S. diplomacy is taking prior to President Clinton's visit, or the shape it may take in the time to come, is making some patriotic circles in Pakistan curious and apprehensive because they feel that the United States may pressure Pakistan, the weaker of the two parties, to extract extra concessions, and may try to force us to accept a solution of Kashmir, which may not be in our best interests."
"What Does U.S. Have Up Its Sleeve?"
Editorial comment in Islamabad's sensationalist, anti-U.S. Muslim asserted (4/18): "Pakistan...apparently has reasons to be satisfied with the (Richardson) visit. First, it marks a shift from a unidirectional, non-proliferation-centered U.S. policy to a multidirectional policy based on economic cooperation. The West, particularly the United States, has hitherto targeted Pakistan (because of) its nuclear program. Pakistan has suffered arm-twisting and discriminatory treatment on this account. Now that the United States has agreed to put Pakistan's nuclear program on the back burner and explore new avenues of cooperation with this country, Islamabad will naturally feel greatly relieved.... America's long-term planning appears to be to knit together South Asia in an integrated economic bloc and create huge markets for itself in the sprawling region. Then there is resource-rich Central Asia. A stable Pakistan and Afghanistan can assure a safe route to the American multinationals to the riches of Central Asia."
"American's Correct Response"
Islamabad's rightist, English-language Pakistan Observer pointed out (4/18): "The understanding and appreciation of Pakistan's security concerns by the U.S. administration in the wake of India's frenzied nuclear and missile development programs and her unabated stockpiling of conventional weapons is obviously a matter of satisfaction.... The remarks of the U.S. president's envoy thus manifest good understanding between Pakistan and the United States, whose relationship of mutual cooperation in defense and economic fields is spread over several decades....
"Pakistan was compelled to demonstrate its capability in missile technology earlier this month for self-defence and it is heartening that the United States is appreciative of her compulsive security needs."
"Double Talk: Approach With Caution!"
An editorial in the second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt argued (4/18): "According to (Pakistani) Foreign Office sources, the visiting U.S. delegation has praised and supported measures Pakistan has taken to improve its defenses, and has expressed repentance on the delay of the repayment of money Pakistan has paid for the supply of F-16 aircraft.... If the U.S. leadership has realized that Pakistan is justified in taking steps for strengthening its defenses, than it should also act to remove the Pressler amendment, which is biased against Pakistan's nuclear program. And, it should also take steps to undo the damage done to our bilateral relations by this amendment.... The United States should remove the notion from its mind that, by accepting the Ghauri missile, it would be able to make us sign the CTBT or make us stop the nuclear program.... Expecting such concessions from the present Muslim League government would be in vain. Therefore the United States should change its strategy in the region and adopt a more realistic policy approach for achieving an environment of peace, security and prosperity. The key to the Kashmir Problem lies in following the UN resolutions."
"Stabilizing South Asia"
This op-ed piece by Anwar Khalil ran in the center-right Nation (4/14): "Pakistan's test-firing of its first ballistic missile was essentially a threat-reduction initiative and does not signal any change in Pakistan's policy of settling all outstanding disputes with India through mutual talks.... The central point of this policy is a settlement of the Kashmir dispute according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people expressed through internationally recognized processes and procedures.... A new initiative now seems to have been undertaken to restore normalcy and promote close working relations with Pakistan. The initiative started with the arrival in Pakistan of a high-level delegation from the United States' three most important trade and investment organizations.... One rule has been accepted for long: When the Americans look to be serious about investing their money in an economy, the rest of the world follows.... The dispatch of such a powerful trade and finance delegation, however, is indicative of a renewed U.S. interest in Pakistan as a good partner. The International Military Education and Training (IMET) might be the next step."
"Richardson's Advice"
An editorial in the Peshawar-based independent Frontier Post declared (4/13): "Prithvi's deployment by India and test-firing of Ghauri by Pakistan seem to have permanently altered the geostrategic complexion of the region, with their fallout being felt across Western capitals. The development has prompted Washington to redouble its efforts to help resolve regional irritants which have pushed things to the precipice. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson, who has embarked upon a tour of South Asian nations, has urged both New Delhi and Islamabad to 'go the extra mile' and resume dialogue on Kashmir and other issues.... As implied by Bill Richardson, the root cause of regional tensions is the unresolved Kashmir dispute. The international community should see to it that it is resolved in accordance with the provisions of two Security Council resolutions on the issue."
"After The Ghauri Test"
The center-right Nation's editorial argued (4/13): "With the rapid spread of scientific knowledge around the globe, such (nuclear) technologies cannot be kept under wraps for ever. If the Indian scientists can acquire this knowledge through their research, why not the Pakistani scientists? In the final analysis what India fails to understand is that by acquiring a nuclear edge or a missile edge over Pakistan it cannot dictate terms to it.
"Such a military advantage can only be a temporary one. Pakistan will always catch up. In other words India will have to treat Pakistan as an equal if it wants peace on the subcontinent."
"Ghauri--A Great Accomplishment"
In the view of leading, mass-circulation, Urdu-language Jang's Asadullah Khan Ghalib (4/12): "Mr. Prime Minister, Pakistan has now made the great accomplishment of Ghauri. Isn't now the right time to keep the promise you made at Neela But (Azad Kashmir) to demonstrate that Pakistan is equipped with a nuclear capability? A nuclear explosion today will bestow on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif an everlasting place in history."
"Ghauri, Kashmir And Current U.S. Stand"
An editorial in the second-largest Urdu-language daily Nawa-e-Waqt (4/12): "Following the Ghauri missile text, Pakistan can sit with more confidence at the conference table and hold frank discussions with India.... The U.S. presidential envoy (Mr. Richardson) and other members of his delegation, during their South Asia visit must focus their attention on finding out how can they persuade India to hold sincere talks on settling the Kashmir dispute and what can be done to ensure success at these talks."
"No Gambling With Security"
According to Karachi's independent, national Dawn (4/11): "It is plain that both India and Pakistan are investing their limited resources on a wasteful military build-up which neither country can really afford. Both of them should indeed appreciate that they have been paying a very heavy price in the form of a continuous drain on their scarce resources. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect that a radical change could be brought about so long as the prevailing security perceptions persist. With India, which is the bigger power, providing the thrust towards the militarization of the region it will have to shoulder the responsibility for this trend. A reordering of priorities would be inevitable in the long term if tensions in the region are to be defused. Thus alone can the unrealized development potential of the two countries be realized."
"Ghauri's Significance"
Nasim Zehra observed in an op-ed piece in the centrist, national News (4/11): "Pakistanis, given the regional context see the retention of the nuclear option as key to their national security.... The Ghauri launch, although prompted by India, potentially provides a leadership slot to Pakistan in the security arrangement of the Muslim countries lying west of Pakistan.... (There is also) the belief within the Pakistani defense and civilian establishment that demonstration of force is critical for effective deterrence."
BANGLADESH: "Richardson's Visit"
Pro-Awami League, Bangla-language Janakantha had this editorial view (4/17): "Richardson's visit has been successful. This visit has highlighted Bangladesh's economic potential and its political importance in the region. For these reasons, the lone superpower of the world is considering Bangladesh among its development partners. And for this reason President Clinton is coming. His visit will no doubt strengthen the bilateral political, economic and diplomatic relations between Bangladesh and the United States."
"Richardson's Landmark Visit"
According to the centrist Independent (4/17): "Official relations between Dhaka and Washington are poised to reach a higher level.
"This is matched, at the private level, by the increasing economic ties between the two countries. If the United States is a prized market for Bangladesh garments, American entrepreneurs are apparently eager to invest in the energy and power sector in Bangladesh. The impact of the possible involvement of the American oil giants in the economy of Bangladesh on the relations of the two countries will obviously be great and far-reaching. Richardson's visit is likely to facilitate this development, and if so, then his visit will be considered a landmark in strengthening relations of the two countries in the real economic sense."
"South Asia And The Richardson Visit"
The independent Daily Star had this editorial analysis (4/17) by Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury: "The talks that the politician-turned-diplomat of the United States had in the capitals of South Asia are viewed by area analysts and diplomatic circles as not only important, but in some ways also crucial for stability and peace in the region.... Seldom is such a visit from a ranking figure of the U.S. administration made to South Asia, and...rarely are as many as five nations included in one go. He successfully secured a cease-fire in Afghan istan, at least for the time being, although skepticism persists about real progress there."
"Richardson's Visit"
According to the independent Daily Star (4/16): "President Bill Clinton is due later this year. We are delighted at this disclosure made by Bill Richardson, the U.S. ambassador to the UN during his recent whistle stop visit to Bangladesh. We welcome the first official visit to this country by a U.S. president and look forward to the arrival of the Clintons.... Mr. Richardson however was not a mere harbinger of the Clintons' planned tour of South Asia.... In several public pronouncements during his stay here Richardson dwelt on the growing importance of Bangladesh in U.S. policy and the increasing interest of American investors in Bangladesh. It is heartening to know that Bangladesh as an investment destination is not ignored any longer. We would like to believe this 'enhanced interest' has not been aired with an eye to monopolize U.S. interest only, certainly not at the cost of Bangladesh's own interests."
SRI LANKA:
"India's 'Tough' Image"
The government-run, English-language Observer told its readers (4/27): "The CTBT is perceived by India as an attempt by the five nuclear weapon states--Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States--to retain their nuclear hegemony.... India (has taken) up the position that the treaty would enforce the divide between the nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots.'... The BJP, reportedly beset with problems to stay in power, may well project...(a) 'tough' image...sorely needed to ward off 'threats' from Pakistan and China, to shore up support at home.... India is well on the road to asserting itself as the regional power."
"Business Calls"
The independent, English-language Sunday Times noted (4/26): "According to Mr. Inderfurth, with East Asian economies on the brink of collapse...Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries--if they position themselves smartly--could spur greater trade and investment interest regionally from U.S.-based companies."
"Some Irritants Removed By Richardson Visit"
This commentary appeared in the independent, English-language Sunday Times (4/26): "Mr. Richardson, it is learned, had a free and full exchange of views with President Kumaratunga and, on the whole, his visit helped to reduce a few irritants that have emerged in U.S.-Sri Lanka ties....
"The U.S. envoy has for the first time anchored the superpower's commitment to the resolution of the ongoing ethnic conflict. Further, it was significant to note the United States' call (on) the LTTE to seek a negotiated settlement, while emphasizing to the government the need to adopt a bipartisan approach together with the main opposition party. In light of President Clinton's role in the Irish settlement and Tony Blair's efforts in brokering the peace talks between Israel and the PLO this week on behalf of the United States, it is likely that British and U.S. efforts will surpass any traditional influence India had hitherto over Sri Lanka."
"Fallout From Ghauri"
Gamini Weerakoon commented in the independent, English-language Island (4/25): "The fallout of Ghauri was far-flung--from Washington to the subcontinent--and it was apparent that Islamabad timed it for the arrival of the two American diplomats. The United States...is concerned (that) this new development that could lead to a new (round) in the sub-continental nuclear race.... The United States regrets the test firing but the letter...Mr.Bill Richardson carried from President Clinton to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff indicated that the United States was making a renewed effort to improve relations with Pakistan.... It...appears that the era (in which) all U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan was halted because of Pakistan's alleged nuclear program is long past and a new beginning is commencing, despite the launching of the Ghauri."
"Visit Augurs Well For South Asia"
An editorial in the government-run, English-language Daily News (4/23): "The visit to Sri Lanka by...Bill Richardson and...Assistant Secretary of State,Karl Inderfurth, has hardly caused any jitters in this part of the world. Moreover, peacemaking in South Asia seems high on the Washington agenda.... It is (also) a self-evident truth that strong interstate economic ties are impossible without political stability in the sought-after regions. The economic opportunities in South Asia are then spurring the United States to play the role of peacemaker.... All this augurs well for us... Perhaps the relative prosperity that will follow in South Asia could be used as an inducement among countries of the region to put aside petty irritants and rivalries."
"Heed Diplomat's Comments On Human Rights, Corruption"
An editorial in the English-language, independent Island stressed (4/20): "It would have been reassuring to the Sri Lanka government to have the two senior U.S. officials (Richardson and Inderfurth) reiterate the earlier stand taken by the U.S. government of the LTTE as a terrorist organization.... Those att empting to find out the significance of the visit of the two officials, while not paying much regard to diplomatic niceties expressed, should take heed of the notes of caution sounded about Sri Lanka's human rights record and 'unfortunate commercial disputes.' Whether we like foreign powers lecturing to us about human rights or not, today small nations like ours have to take cognizance of such observations.... Today's diplomats, unlike those in the pre-1990's era, are more...salespersons...than traditional diplomats. They are expected to protect their country's commercial interests, and if one of their companies is clearly making the best bid, losing such a contract is a blackmark for the embassy and its head. Corruption in the award of international tenders, it is well known, results in the country being placed in the category of a 'Banana republic.'"
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
CHINA: "Richardson To South Asia"
Li Wenyun wrote this for official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 4/20): "UN Ambassador Richardson's visit to South Asia indicates that the United States is redefining and underlining its South Asian policy in its diplomatic agenda.
"Richardson's mission...is more than preparation for Clinton's forthcoming visit. One of the purposes of this visit is to ease the tensions in South Asia, focusing on improving India-Pakistan relations. The United States has always failed to concentrate on the India-Pakistan relationship, the nucleus of South Asian affairs."
INDONESIA: "Nuclear Arms Race Between India And Pakistan"
Pro-government, Islamic-oriented Harian Pelita said (4/29): "The international community is concerned that the issue of Kashmir will bring India and Pakistan to another destructive war. Especially destructive since both possess adequate arms and military personnel, and even more alarming if it turns out that both possess nuclear arms.... We are also concerned that a purported arms race between the two countries could quietly have been their preparation to redetermine the status of Kashmir.... We call on the two parties, therefore, to seek rational, reasonable, and credible solutions. If both of them continue their current stances, it will be difficult to come to a total settlement."
EUROPE
CANADA: "Blind Eye To Catastrophe"
In the opinion of fthe conservative Ottawa Sun's foreign affairs columnist Eric Margolis (4/27): "Richardson's trip (to South Asia) was not a success. India refused to stop developing its nuclear arsenal. As a result, so did Pakistan. Neither nation has signed the NPT.... While the United has done little to oppose and has even aided, India's growing nuclear capabilities, Washington has singled out Pakistan for severe and unusual punishment. Last week, U.S. officials claimed Pakistan's 'Ghauri' was based on smuggled technologies from North Korea's 'Rodong' missile series.... The United States next tried to bribe Pakistan into halting missile tests by offering 'to help resolve' the long-standing issue of (the) impounded F-16 aircraft.... Cash-poor Pakistan even turned down offers by Iran in 1990 to pay Pakistan's entire defense budget for ten years in exchange for nuclear know-how. But the United States, under heavy Israeli pressure, continues to embargo and punish Pakistan....
This all amounts to a gigantic foreign policy mess, in which U.S. strategic interests, domestic politics and commerce are at loggerheads. India and Pakistan aren't likely to junk their nuclear programs. India insists, with reason, it won't disarm until China does.... Pakistan rightly says its national survival against hostile, nuclear-armed India depends on nuclear weapons.... A nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan could kill millions.... Defusing this threat should be the priority of international diplomacy. Alas, it is not."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
