26 June 1998
TEXT: INDERFURTH 6/26 BRIEFING ON INDIA, PAKISTAN
(US seeks to work with India, Pakistan to chart path for future) (1070) Washington -- "We have a strong interest in keeping open the lines of communications with both India and Pakistan," Assistant Secretary of State Karl (Rick) Inderfurth said June 26 at the Foreign Press Center. "We must remain engaged and, while sanctions will indeed exact a price, we must also work with both governments to chart a path for the future. That future ideally will produce concrete actions by both governments to demonstrate a strong commitment to nuclear and missile restraint and to reducing regional tensions," he said. Responding to questions, Inderfurth said that "what we would like most to see" from India and Pakistan is an agreement by both parties to ask the international community to help them resolve their problems. Were this to happen, he said, the international community would respond immediately. "It would happen in a heartbeat," he commented. As for the possibility that President Clinton might still visit the subcontinent this fall, Inderfurth said the President very much wants to make the trip, but that a decision would depend on how much progress has been made by the two parties by then. Pakistani Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed is due in Washington on June 29, Inderfurth said. He is scheduled to meet with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to India. Following is the text of Asst. Sec. Inderfurth's prepared remarks: (Begin text) Six weeks after the first Indian nuclear tests, we are still facing a serious situation in South Asia. Tensions between India and Pakistan remain high although their rhetoric has moderated. Both India and Pakistan have declared moratoriums on testing, but there are still many steps they could take to reinforce the global nonproliferation regime. Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Sharif have agreed to meet during the SAARC Summit in Colombo. We hope they will hold productive discussions which address the differences between them, including Kashmir, and will lead quickly to resumption of their senior level dialogue. It is clear that direct talks between the two countries are essential. In the end, no effort to restore regional stability or resolve tensions can be effective unless the brunt of the responsibility and effort is borne by India and Pakistan themselves. The United States has imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan under the Glenn Amendment. Other countries have joined us. The sanctions will exact a price, but their purpose is not simply to punish, but to influence the behavior of the two countries. As was demonstrated yesterday at the World Bank, we do not want to increase the burden on the poor of India and Pakistan. The United States considers India and Pakistan friends. We want to see both countries prosper in peace. We believe that an intensified, nuclear arms race in South Asia would be a tragedy. Besides the terrifying threat of an accident or an outbreak of war, emphasis on high-tech nuclear and missile competition will greatly strain both countries' economies. New Delhi and Islamabad already recognize that spending on education and social services is inadequate. Increased military outlays will further deplete budgets and prevent the kind of development of human resources that both countries so badly need, and we want to support. We have a strong interest in keeping open the lines of communication with both India and Pakistan. We must remain engaged, and while sanctions will indeed exact a price, we must also work with both governments to chart a path for the future. That future ideally will produce concrete actions by both governments to demonstrate a strong commitment to nuclear and missile restraint and to reducing regional tensions. These actions should include signing and ratifying the CTBT without conditions, refraining from missile tests and agreeing not to weaponize or deploy missile systems, halting the production of fissile material and participating constructively in negotiations towards a fissile material cut-off treaty, formalizing existing pledges not to export or transfer nuclear and ballistic missile technology or expertise, and for the sake of regional stability and prosperity, resuming direct dialogue to address the root causes of tensions, including Kashmir. Deputy Secretary Talbott's June 12 meeting with Jaswant Singh, a close advisor and confidant to Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, was a good meeting and we are looking forward to further contacts. We want to engage India and find some basis for moving ahead. We will be having similar meetings with Pakistani officials, starting with Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed, who will be in Washington this coming Monday. The purpose of this senior dialogue is to restore the sense of confidence and direction we had hoped to build in advance of the President's planned visit to the region in November, which is now under review. We want to see how much progress can be made by early Fall before deciding whether the visits can take place. The international community will also remain focused and working productively on these matters. Following on the P-5 and G-8 meetings we will continue to encourage other nations and organizations to be involved. We stand ready to share our expertise and capabilities to help India and Pakistan monitor military activities and avoid miscalculation, and above all, to assist the two in settling their differences. India and Pakistan already have confidence- building measures in place, such as non-attack on nuclear installations, limits on approach to each others airspace, advance notification of military movements and hotlines between the Directors General of military operations and the Prime Ministers. We and others could help them establish more. Some examples include helping to establish agencies to verify agreements, sharing experience on inspections, help with remote monitoring of borders, facilitating dialogues and strengthen agreements on observance of military exercises. I would like to make a fundamental point. While we do not accept the rationales given by India and Pakistan for testing or possessing nuclear weapons and believe that the tests have diminished their security, we must continue to recognize that as sovereign nations, both India and Pakistan have legitimate security concerns and interests, and we must bear that in mind as we move forward. We have far too many national interests at stake to do anything other than engage under these terms. (end text)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
