DATE=2/1/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=CLINTON-INDIA-PAKISTAN
NUMBER=5-45359
BYLINE=DAVID GOLLUST
DATELINE=WHITE HOUSE
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: The White House has announced that President
Clinton will make a long-delayed trip to South Asia
the week of March 20th. He will stop in India and make
an unprecedented visit to Bangladesh. But
administration officials say a decision is still
pending on whether Mr. Clinton will go to Pakistan. V-
O-A's David Gollust reports from the White House.
TEXT: Mr. Clinton will spend several days in India on
the first visit by a serving U-S President since the
then-President Jimmy Carter went there in 1978. The
President has long wanted to make the journey. But
plans have repeatedly been stalled by developments in
the region, including the Indian nuclear weapons tests
in 1998 that were quickly matched by neighboring
Pakistan.
In an exchange with reporters as he met congressional
leaders here, Mr. Clinton said it is important for the
United States to engage the world's largest democracy,
even though India has failed to sign the nuclear test
ban treaty as sought by the administration:
/// CLINTON ACTUALITY ///
Just as I believe we have to engage China that
has a political system very different from ours,
we have to engage India that makes decisions
that sometimes that we don't agree with, but is
a great democracy that has preserved their
democracy -- I must say -- against enormous
odds. We have an enormous common interest in
shaping the future with them and I'm looking
forward to it. I think it's unfortunate that the
United States has been estranged, and if not
estranged, at least has had a distant
relationship with the Indians for too long.
/// END ACT ///
White House officials left open the possibility that
the president may also visit Pakistan. Relations with
that country have been strained by the overthrow of
civilian rule there last October, and by reports of
links between Pakistan's military and the Kashmiri
group blamed for the hijacking of an Indian jetliner
in December.
A spokesman said if the president were to visit
Pakistan, the administration would first have to see
what he termed "significant movement" on combating
terrorism, weapons non-proliferation and the
restoration of democracy.
The advisability of a Pakistan visit has been a matter
of debate among both senior administration officials
and U-S South Asia scholars
Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at Washington's
Brookings Institution, told V-O-A Mr. Clinton should
make at least a brief stop to express U-S concerns
directly to military leader General Pervez Musharraj,
and by extension to the Pakistani people:
/// COHEN ACTUALITY ///
I think there should be a proportionate trip,
that is engagement with the Pakistanis shouldn't
be quite on the same lavish scale that I would
expect the India trip would be. But I do think
we have serious business to conduct with the
Pakistanis. And the president needs to talk to
them directly and also tell them - tell the
Pakistani people - that we do support a return
to democracy, we do want a restoration of civil
liberties in Pakistan and economic reform and
cleaning up some of the corruption.
/// END ACT ///
Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution.
William Taylor, senior vice president at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,
said presidential visits to both South Asian powers
are "long overdue" in light of their nuclear
competition and worsening dispute over Kashmir. He
strongly rejected the idea of making a Pakistan visit
conditional, or threatening to put Pakistan on the U-S
list of countries supporting terrorism.
/// TAYLOR ACTUALITY ///
They're not going to deal with us when we deal
with hubris and arrogance, labeling other
countries to be certain things. You can't do
that with Pakistan. Let's deal with Pakistan.
Let's try to modify this sort of interim
government of Pakistan, try to influence it --
not stiff-arm it and cut off dialogue.
/// END ACT ///
However James Phillips, research fellow at the
conservative Heritage Foundation, says Mr. Clinton
should refrain from visiting Pakistan unless it
confronts terrorism in a serious way, not only in
Kashmir but in the broader South Asian region:
/// PHILLIPS ACTUALITY ///
In a perfect world, it would be appropriate for
him to visit Pakistan automatically when he
visits India, because both are long-time rivals
in the sub-continent. But at the current time,
U-S-Pakistani relations have been strained by
allegations that the Pakistanis support
terrorism -- not only some of the Kashmir
separatists but also in Afghanistan with the
Taleban, and of course the Teleban's support of
Osama Bin Laden. So those are very important
issues that should be cleared up before the
president goes. He should pass by (skip)
Pakistan unless it makes good-faith efforts to
crack down on terrorists in its own backyard.
/// end act ///
James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation.
One administration official told V-O-A there is a
"fairly good chance" Mr. Clinton will stop in Pakistan
but will not go without some expectation of results.
No President has gone to Pakistan since Richard Nixon
visited in 1969 - evidence the Brookings Institution's
Stephen Cohen says, that the United States has
"grossly neglected" the Asian subcontinent. (Signed)
NEB/DAG/gm
01-Feb-2000 16:36 PM EDT (01-Feb-2000 2136 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
