31 May 2002
Powell Warns Against Military Action by India, Pakistan
(Says use of nuclear weapons in South Asia not tolerable) (3840)
In a May 31 interview with BBC News, Secretary of State Colin Powell
warned that Indian military action against Pakistan would not yield a
permanent result to the problem of terrorist infiltration into
Kashmir.
"Both sides realize that little can be gained from a war," said
Powell. "If the Indians attacked, it's unlikely that they would be
able to take care of the problem that they are attacking against on a
permanent basis. It would of course draw a response from Pakistan.
That is very destabilizing for the whole region."
In his interview with BBC reporter Jon Leyne, Powell said world
opinion would not tolerate the use of nuclear weapons by either side,
adding that Indian and Pakistani leaders also recognize that a nuclear
exchange would be "the most horrific thing that could happen in the
year 2002."
"It is not just another weapon in a toolbox of weapons. It crosses a
line that the world does not want to see crossed in 2002. And the
condemnation that would go against whichever country did it would be
worldwide and it would be immediate, and we really don't want to see
this kind of action," said Powell.
With regards to defusing the current crisis, Powell said that although
he had seen indications that instructions have been given by Pakistani
authorities to stop terrorist infiltrations into Kashmir, "I think it
is still too early to say that it has stopped," adding that it needed
to be stopped permanently.
Once that occurs, said Powell, the United States and the international
community will have a basis to "make a case" for telling India to take
de-escalatory steps, and possibly moving towards a dialogue between
the two countries "on the outstanding issues between them, and
especially ultimately the issue of Kashmir," he said.
The secretary said that while the United States does not wish to come
in as a mediator between the two sides, its good offices could be
useful "because we have such solid relations with both countries."
Turning to the Middle East, Powell said people should not expect a
forthcoming summer ministerial meeting to end with a wide ranging
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, but rather to make
progress on specific issues such as security, economic development,
humanitarian assistance, and discussions on a political solution.
"[W]e'll see what progress we have made," said Powell. "And I'm sure
there will be other meetings and conferences in the future."
Powell also repeated Bush Administration assertions that there is no
"war plan" against Iraq on the president's desk, despite overt desires
to see the end of Saddam Hussein's regime.
"All speculation to the contrary is nothing but speculation to the
contrary," said Powell.
Following is the transcript of Secretary Powell's May 31 interview
with BBC:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
For Immediate Release
May 31, 2002
2002/468
INTERVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL BY JON LEYNE OF BBC
NEWS
May 31, 2002
(8:10 a.m. EDT)
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, let me ask you first of all about the
situation between India and Pakistan. I want to ask you first of all
about who's going there -- who, where, when, why.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we have been in touch with our friends around
the world, frankly, to keep a constant diplomatic presence in the
region to talk to both sides to encourage restraint on the part of
both sides and to find a solution. Chris Patten from the European
Union was in a week or so ago. As you know, your Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw was in a few days ago. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz of
Defense -- Wolfowitz is in Singapore with Minister of Defense of India
Fernandes talking about the issues.
So next week, we will be sending in Deputy Secretary of State
Armitage, who will go in and visit both parties. And then the week
after, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who will be traveling in the
area -- he will be going to NATO meetings and down into the Persian
Gulf, so it made sense for him to continue his journey around to India
and Pakistan because there is a unique defense dimension to this that
is of interest to Secretary Rumsfeld, and that is how could a
potential conflict between these two nations affect our campaign
against terrorism in Afghanistan.
So we're going to work with friends around the world, all the leaders
of the world, to do everything we can to keep this situation from
turning into a conflict. And as you also know, there's another meeting
where the two leaders are going to Almaty in Kazakhstan, and President
Putin and other regional leaders will be there also to discuss with
Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf the situation.
So we're putting a 100 percent full court press on this, and of course
I speak to both sides on a regular basis. I guess I've spoken to
President Musharraf, oh, five times in the last six or seven days.
QUESTION: Any plans to go there yourself?
SECRETARY POWELL: Not yet, but it's always a possibility. Right now
I'm able to do what I think I have to do by telephone and by
essentially coordinating what we are doing with my friends and
colleagues, and especially with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
QUESTION: Now, a week ago you said you were watching to see whether
General Musharraf had fulfilled his promise to stop infiltration
across the line of control. A week later, what do you see?
SECRETARY POWELL: A week later, I have seen indications that
instructions have been given to cease this kind of activity. I think
it is still too early to say that it has stopped. And when and if it
does stop, it must also stop permanently. It can't be something where
you turn a tap on or off; we will stop it for a while and get out of
this problem, and then we'll turn it on again. I think what we're
expecting President Musharraf to do is to use all of the authority he
has to stop it, and to keep it stopped, so that we can get this crisis
behind us.
Now, if it becomes obvious that he has done that, and we can actually
detect this, and more importantly the Indians can see that it's
stopped, then we have a basis for saying to the Indian side: "Okay,
look, that's been stopped. We have assurances that it will be on a
permanent basis. Now we are hopeful and expecting you to take
de-escalatory steps so that you can start to bring these troops away
from this very tense border and start moving in the other direction."
And then both sides can take further steps, ultimately I hope leading
to a dialogue between the two sides on the outstanding issues between
them, and especially ultimately the issue of Kashmir.
QUESTION: Well, what about the issue of dialogue? It's all very well
to pull the troops back if you succeed in getting that. Are you
pressing the Indians to enter into a dialogue if things calm down?
SECRETARY POWELL: I have told both sides that if things calm down, if
we get back to where we were before the assault on the parliament and
the attack in Srinagar, if we can get back to a more stable, less
tense situation, the United States would be encouraging both sides to
enter a dialogue. And to the extent that we can be helpful in causing
that dialogue to take place, we are more than willing to do it. We do
not wish to come in as a mediator, but I think our offices -- because
we have such solid relations with both countries, our goods offices
could be useful.
QUESTION: How long does General Musharraf have to deliver?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I can't answer that question. I mean, what we
are concerned about is that the Indians might find that they have to
attack. I don't know what their timeline is. There are weather
considerations. There are lots of other considerations.
What I am impressed with right now, however, is that both sides --
both sides -- seem to be looking for a political solution. Both sides
realize that little can be gained from a war. But, you know, wars
start anyway when people realize little can be gained from such wars.
But little can be gained from this war. If the Indians attacked, it's
unlikely that they would be able to take care of the problem that they
are attacking against on a permanent basis. It would of course draw a
response from Pakistan. That is very destabilizing for the whole
region. It would affect US interests in that region and our war
against terrorism, against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
But more significantly, both sides are nuclear-armed. Now, I think
both sides recognize that the most horrific thing that could happen in
the year 2002 is, for the second time in history, a nuclear exchange
to take place. The whole world would condemn whoever does that, and I
think that is a sobering reality that both understand. Nevertheless,
they are nuclear-armed, and we don't want to go down this road to test
any propositions as to whether they will or they won't.
But I have communicated to both that I have a little experience in the
employment of nuclear weapons. It was my job for many years as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a corps commander, as a
battalion commander. We don't want to go down this road. It is not
just another weapon in a toolbox of weapons. It crosses a line that
the world does not want to see crossed in 2002. And the condemnation
that would go against whichever country did it would be worldwide and
it would be immediate, and we really don't want to see this kind of
action.
QUESTION: Intelligence reports circulating in Washington say between
50 and 60 training camps reopened in the last few months. Were eyes
taken off the ball here?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, I'm not familiar with that particular
intelligence report. We have been following this and monitoring this
on a constant basis, so I don't think any eyes have been taken off any
ball. I've stayed in close contact with the situation.
We were disappointed in the spring that some initial steps that we
thought were being taken to shut down activity across the line of
control did not continue, and we did not see the kind of cessation
that we were expecting based on what President Musharraf said in his
January 12th speech. And that's why we are now pressing General
Musharraf, President Musharraf, very intensely to essentially do what
he said he was going to do. He spoke very candidly on January 12th. He
once again told the world that he was a member of this campaign
against terrorism and he was going to shut down this terrorist
activity. He also said that there are certain rights that the Kashmiri
people are anxious to enjoy. And so he has not lost his commitment to
that cause, but he was going to shut down terrorism, and that is going
across the line of control to conduct attacks that kill innocent
people.
And so we expect him to make good his word, and the assurances he has
given me in the many conversations we have had in recent weeks lead me
to believe that he is going to do that. But I can't go anywhere with
that assurance. The only time I can go somewhere and make a case with
the Indian side or to the world is when we see the action taking
place, that it has been stopped.
QUESTION: Last question on this topic. What is the state of plans to
pull out US citizens in India and Pakistan?
SECRETARY POWELL: We will be making an announcement this morning that
we are moving to what we call authorized departure. That means that
those nonessential personnel and their family members who believe that
they should leave, or would prefer to leave, will be authorized to
leave, and we will take care of them in their departure. There are
tens of thousands of American citizens in both countries, and they
will make their own decisions. We are also reinforcing our Travel
Advisory, warning people that this is probably not the best place to
visit and travel to at the moment.
QUESTION: On the Middle East, a couple months ago you were talking
about a conference in early summer; now you're talking about sometime
in the summer, and it's been downgraded to the status of a meeting.
Why the delay, why the downgrading?
SECRETARY POWELL: There's really no delay. I said early summer once,
and then I shifted to summer because I couldn't quite tell when in the
summer I was going to do it. So I didn't want to box myself in with
people saying it's the 21st of May, summer has begun, or whenever
summer begins in June, and therefore it's early summer, why don't you
have your conference? So I've been saying summer.
I still am hoping to have this meeting/conference -- call it what you
choose -- in the summer, and that's why Ambassador Burns, Bill Burns,
my Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, is in the
region now. He has met with Chairman Arafat, he has met with Arab
leaders. He is meeting today with Prime Minister Sharon, and he will
come back early next week.
Director Tenet, our Director of the CIA, leaves today to go to the
region as well to make a security assessment, meet with Chairman
Arafat and his security officials, to see how we can start cooperation
going again between the two sides so that they can share information
and try to find these terrorists who are not only killing innocent
Israeli civilians but they're killing the Palestinians' dream for an
independent state.
And when George Tenet comes back from his trip next week, we will
bring all this information together, see where we are, also make a
political judgment as to what the political scale will bear right now
in terms of the Israeli point of view, Arab point of view and
Palestinian point of view, and see how we bring all these pieces
together and focus them on a conference or a meeting sometime in the
course of the summer.
Now, the reason we shift between conference and meeting -- the
President said to me one day, "Colin, what's the difference?" I said,
"As far as I'm concerned, Mr. President, nothing. People are going to
come together." But what I'm trying to do is not over-hype it in the
sense that it is going to be one of these big summit meetings where
all the heads of state come. I'm looking for something that's at the
ministerial level, that I will be representing the United States and
there will be other people who are representing different parts of the
Madrid Quartet and the Palestinian Authority, and I hope the Israeli
Government, if we get that far -- others. We'll see.
But I want it to be understood that this is a modest step forward,
flowing from the President's 4 April speech, the vision he laid out of
two states living side by side, Israel and Palestine -- the end of
terror, the end of violence, and a more active role for the Arab
nations to play, and also for a transformed the Palestinian Authority.
We are working all those pieces. And we're starting to see some
things. The Palestinians themselves have said they need to do some
reform and transformation. I was pleased yesterday that Chairman
Arafat signed a basic law that sort of -- you know, was necessary to
implement the Palestinian constitution, and it's been waiting since
1996 for signature.
So there's clearly an understanding that we need to move forward, and
I hope at this meeting/conference/seminar -- whatever it is -- that we
start to bring these pieces together. But don't expect us to come out
of that meeting and say we've got a solution. Expect us to come out of
that meeting saying we've talked about security and we've made
progress; we've talked about economic development and humanitarian
help for the Palestinian people and we've made progress; and we've
talked about a political solution. And we'll see what progress we have
made. And I'm sure there will be other meetings and conferences in the
future.
QUESTION: George Tenet's mission -- he is reorganizing, or advising on
reorganizing the Palestinian security forces, but they're still going
to answer to Yasser Arafat, who you have criticized for his security
actions.
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, George Tenet can't take command of the
Palestinian Security forces, but he is one of the authors of the plan
that created these Palestinian organizations, the security
organizations in the first place. He helped to create them some years
ago. So he brings a great deal of expertise and experience to the
task, and we're asking him to take that expertise and experience back
in, discuss it with the Palestinian security officers, discuss it with
Chairman Arafat, discuss it with other Palestinian leaders, and see if
we can not get a more rational organization for all the Palestinian
security forces and start to wash out of the Palestinian security
force those organizations that are not doing their job, and in fact
have turned to non-helpful action, and even in some cases terrorist
activity. And so that's what George is doing.
Chairman Arafat -- he has been taking some steps recently, but we'll
see where all of that leads us. But we're not only working with
Chairman Arafat; we're working with all Palestinian leaders who, it
seems to me, are coming to the realization that that they have to make
changes in the way they're organized; they have to put in place the
right kind of a government that will gain the respect of the
international community, that has transparency in its system, that is
democratically based, that is non-corrupt, that will be an authority
that one can work with, that we can work with and ultimately the
Israelis can work with.
QUESTION: On Iraq, we keep hearing there are no plans on the
President's desk to invade Iraq. What does that mean?
SECRETARY POWELL: It seems to me a rather clear declaratory sentence:
There are no plans on the President's desk. He has received no
recommendation from his advisors to undertake a military operation
against Iraq. There is no question however that we believe the regime
should be changed. So we're working with the international community,
with the UN to put smart sanctions in place, and we've succeeded with
a great deal of help, and frankly leadership on the part of the
British Government. And now we are trying to get the inspectors back
in. The President has called for the inspectors to go back in
repeatedly.
And at the same time, outside these multilateral efforts, the
President believes, we all believe -- I certainly believe -- I've been
watching this fellow for a number of years -- that the people of Iraq
and the people of the region would be better off if there was a change
in regime. And we are constantly reviewing options and plans that
people come up with as to how this might be accomplished --
politically, diplomatically, and yes of course we examine military
options as well. But as the President has said repeatedly, and in
recent days again, he has no war plan on his desk and his advisors
have not provided one. All speculation to the contrary is nothing but
speculation to the contrary.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I have to ask you about your own position
because there is a perception abroad that perhaps you're losing the
battle for influence, losing the battle for the President's ear to
what are generally called hardliners there. Are you still going to be
there in 2004 if the President wants you?
SECRETARY POWELL: What evidence do you have for this position, sir?
QUESTION: It is the evidence --
SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, please.
QUESTION: It's the evidence of the daily policy battles in Washington
when --
SECRETARY POWELL: There are always daily policy battles in Washington.
It's been going on since, oh, 1789 or thereabouts. Sure, there are
policy battles in Washington, but in terms of how our agenda has
moved, we have just come back from Europe where we succeeded in
arriving at a treaty with the Russians, which I think is a landmark
treaty, to reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads. We signed a
political declaration with the Russians. We then went to Italy and we
signed a new document that created the NATO-Russia Council. We had
excellent bilateral meetings with our friends in Berlin and Paris and
Rome and in Moscow.
So that was a pretty good trip, and I don't think I argued against any
of these ideas; in fact, one might say that I was an advocate for most
of the things that we accomplished last week. And so if I've lost the
ear of the President, neither I nor the President are aware of it.
QUESTION: On the Middle East, are you happy that the Defense
Department has such a major role in policymaking?
SECRETARY POWELL: The Defense Department should have a major role in
policy development. First, it is a department that very often, when
diplomacy fails, is the one who has to carry out whatever military
missions come along. But it is also led by a good friend of mine,
Donald Rumsfeld, who has decades of experience in foreign policy and
defense policy. He's been Ambassador to NATO, he has been a Middle
East negotiator. And the President and I deserve to hear from Don
Rumsfeld and to hear his views and opinions. And there are many other
voices in town that we listen to or don't listen to, but I listen to
Don Rumsfeld because he brings a great deal of experience.
And I think it serves the President very, very well when you have a
variety of strong-willed individuals in your cabinet who can discuss
an item, more often than not agree on a particular outcome; and when
we disagree, we have sufficient confidence in our standing with the
President and sufficient respect for each other that we can disagree
in an agreeable way; and the President benefits when he hears
different points of view sharply presented, not rounded off like some
pebble on a beach, but sharply presented with all the edges. And
occasionally one of these edges is visible to the press and it
generates all kinds of stories that there is a war in the heavens.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, thanks very much indeed.
SECRETARY POWELL: I'll be around.
###
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
