DATE=3/26/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=CLINTON-INDIA-PAKISTAN
NUMBER=5-46012
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
CONTEN =
VOICED AT:
INTRO: The leaders of India and Pakistan have praised
President Clinton's trip to their countries. Beyond that,
they are non-committal on his pleas for nuclear restraint
and compromise on Kashmir, suggesting the struggle will
continue with little change. V-O-A's Ed Warner reports
some views of the presidential visit and how it may affect
on the India-Pakistan conflict.
TEXT: It has been 22-years since a U-S President has
visited India, says Stephen Cohen of the Brookings
Institution, and that is too long. But now that a
President has made the trip, he would rate it as quite
successful:
// COHEN ACT //
It is a qualified A or A-minus because any true
evaluation of the trip will have to wait until
later this summer when we will know whether or
not he has been successful in helping India and
Pakistan avoid a conflict that neither wants but
which seems very possible.
// END ACT //
Samina Ahmed of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government gives the trip a lower grade:
// AHMED ACT //
In some ways actually, it might even have an
adverse effect on regional stability. Five-days
in India, five-hours in Pakistan, a very
conciliatory tone in India and a pretty harsh
tone with Pakistan, which means it will fuel the
kinds of hostilities that you see creating the
problems that we have in that region.
// END ACT //
The same point was emphasized by the Pakistani press.
A leading columnist wrote that Washington's friendship
with Pakistan seems to have ended.
U-S officials note India is a fast-growing economy of
increasing importance to the United States. It could
serve ultimately as a counter-weight to an assertive
China.
President Clinton emphasized a more conciliatory
attitude toward disputed Kashmir and a relaxation of
the dangerous nuclear arms race.
Judging from his own recent trip to the region, Mr.
Cohen says he is doubtful of much progress in these
areas:
// COHEN ACT //
Everybody in the region is talking about a war.
Nobody in the region wants war, but everybody
feels that it might happen - could happen - and
nobody can quite figure how to get out of it.
// END ACT //
There is an exhaustion of ideas, says Mr. Cohen.
Nobody seems to have a vision for peace.
Samina Ahmet notes the nuclear threats continue, as
well as a constant artillery bombardment across the
dividing line in Kashmir:
// AHMET ACT //
The Indians have upped the ante (increased the
threat) in conventional and nuclear terms. They
are talking about deployment, and they have
raised their defense expenditures by 28-percent.
That is unprecedented. On the Pakistani side,
we find there is even a harsher line on Kashmir.
(General) Pervez Musharraf has said that this is
not a terrorist movement. These are not
insurgents. They are freedom fighters, and we
will support freedom fighters. He does not go
on to say Pakistan is arming the freedom
fighters.
// END ACT //
Though Kashmir is the most obvious point of conflict
between India and Pakistan, Mr. Cohen says there are
other issues - religious and economic - dating back to
the partition when Britain left South Asia.
He adds each country's media tends to demonize the
other:
// COHEN ACT //
The identity of India is being redefined to
include an anti-Pakistani component. In other
words, to be a patriotic Indian, you must hate
Pakistan. There has been an element of that in
Pakistan for many years because to be a
patriotic Pakistani, many Pakistanis have said
you have to fight the Indians.
// END ACT //
Stephen Cohen says one presidential trip is not
enough. There must be chronic U-S involvement to keep
the precarious peace in South Asia. (SIGNED)
NEB/EW/RAE
26-Mar-2000 14:03 PM EDT (26-Mar-2000 1903 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
