05 June 2002
Rumsfeld, Hoon Urge India, Pakistan to Ease Tensions
(Both must step back from the brink of war, they say) (3190)
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and British Defense Minister
Geoffrey Hoon said June 5 every effort is being made to convince India
and Pakistan to step back from the brink of war over the disputed
Kashmir region.
"There are a great many countries in this world who recognize that
conflict between those two countries is not in their best interest and
certainly not in the best interests of the world," Rumsfeld said
during a media briefing in London.
Hoon added that there is no formula for a quick resolution of the
dispute between India and Pakistan.
"What we do have are arguments that we can put to both sides to
prevent that first step from which we are concerned there can be very
significant escalation," Hoon said.
Rumsfeld was wrapping up the first stop on his 10-day trip that takes
him next to the NATO defense ministers' meetings in Brussels, and then
on to stops in Germany and Estonia. After that will come scheduled
visits to India and Pakistan, and three Persian Gulf states.
Rumsfeld said recent meetings that Russian President Vladimir Putin
held separately with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and India's
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee were useful. He said both leaders
recognize that war is the worst option, and that they "may very well
be looking for ways to tamp things down rather than see things
escalate."
Following is a transcript of the Rumsfeld and Hoon media briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
June 5, 2002
(Joint press conference with British Secretary of State for Defence
Geoffrey Hoon in London, England)
Hoon: Good afternoon. We have spent some time today discussing how
NATO can adapt and modernize its structures to meet new challenges
particularly the challenge of a future enlargement. As you would
expect we have also compared notes on the tensions between India and
Pakistan and we will continue to work closely together to try and
reduce those tensions. Finally, of course, we've also discussed the
close cooperation between our forces in Afghanistan. Donald.
Rumsfeld: Thank you very much Mr. Minister. I will not repeat the
topics of discussion that Minister Hoon has just outlined, but I do
want to say that it is a real pleasure for me to be here in London and
to be able to meet with Prime Minister Blair and Minister Hoon and
tell them personally, how grateful we are for their superb cooperation
in the global war on terrorism and the fact that we work so closely
together in Afghanistan as well as other places around the world. We
had good discussions and I would be happy to respond to questions with
The Minister.
Q: Michael Evans from The Times. President Bush the other day said the
war on terrorists should now go to 60 other countries I think he said,
did you...
Rumsfeld: Sorry I missed that.
Q: President Bush said in a speech that other day that 60 other
countries where Al Qaeda are supposed to be hibernating or being
harbored, did you see or have you asked the British government to
supply military assistance to help in the war on terror in a lot of
other countries?
Rumsfeld: Well I'm not sure I got every word that you said, but I
think that President Bush did not say that the war should go to 60
countries. I think what he pointed out was that there are Al Qaeda
cells in 50 or 60 countries around the world, which is what the best
intelligence suggests. And the global war on terrorism as a task, has
to be to try to persuade those nations, and of course some of those
nations include the United States of America where Al Qaeda are
operating, to do everything possible to put pressure on the terrorist
networks and on the nations that are actively harboring or are
providing assistance to the terrorist networks.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Jon Snow from Channel 4 News. President Putin has
said that this is the most dangerous crisis, the Indo-Pak threat of
nuclear war, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, would you agree with that
or would you go further?
Rumsfeld: There's no question that when you have two nations that have
nuclear weapons and the situation is as it is between India and
Pakistan today, it is a dangerous situation. I think fortunately that
people across the globe recognize that and there are a great many
nations, including this country, and the activity that Prime Minister
Blair has been engaged in with respect to India and Pakistan as well
as President Putin in Russia and certainly the United States, all
recognize the seriousness of the situation and are anxious to work
with those two countries so that in fact the tensions are some what
relieved rather than made worse.
Q: Shouldn't you be going there sooner?
Rumsfeld: Well, clearly I don't think so. I would be here. There are,
as I say, a great many people that are talking to the people in India
and in Pakistan. President Bush has been involved, Secretary Powell's
involved, Deputy Secretary Armitage, I believe, is going in today or
tomorrow and be there. And I think that all of that is helpful and
useful and my guess is the timing of my visit will not be
inappropriate.
Hoon: Can I just emphasize that the US administration and the UK
government have been coordinating their efforts to try and reduce
tensions on both sides. We have a complimentary role to play in
ensuring that both sides are aware of our concerns and a great deal of
effort is being made at all levels in both governments to ensure that
Pakistan and India are fully aware of our concern.
Q: How would you characterize your contribution to this when you do
reach India and Pakistan? You've said that you are not going there to
mediate; you are not going there with a bag of goodies, with a bag of
incentives for the two sides. What is it you hope to bring yourself?
Rumsfeld: Well, I have met on a number of occasions with the senior
officials from both countries and my instinct is in matters like this
is to talk to them rather than to talk to the press about what I will
talk about to them. Maybe that's kind of a idiosyncratic behavior on
my part and it seems quite rational to me. I think I will stick with
it.
Q: Wyatt Andrews CBS, for both the Minister and for you Mr. Secretary,
is there anything even approaching a plan, a step by step plan, that
is being forwarded, for example by Minister Straw, by Mr. Armitage, by
you, by which both these nations are being asked or given some sort of
formula on a step by step basis to back away from the brink.
Hoon: The first step is to back away from the brink. I don't think
that we can possibly plan out what happens there after, both sides
clearly have to see as we see real advantage in stepping back from the
brink and preparing to discuss the issues of Kashmir and the issues
that divide them that there is not a formula because there cannot be a
formula in what is a rapidly changing situation. What we do have are
arguments that we can put to both sides to prevent that first step
from which we are concerned there can be very significant escalation.
Rumsfeld: I just want to add, that these are two sovereign nations,
they have histories and have experience and to the extent that they
are going to make judgments about what is in their best interests. It
seems to me that there are a great many countries in this world who
recognize that conflict between those two countries is not in their
best interest and certainly not in the best interests of the world.
We have, 55 or 57 years since nuclear weapons have been fired in anger
and that's an impressive accomplishment on the part of humanity I
would say. I don't know of any other time in history where there has
been a significant weapon that has not been used for that long a
period and these are not just larger weapons they are distinctively
different weapons and war being what it can be it can be
unpredictable. And therefore I think that it's important that we all
recognize that they recognize and may very well be looking for ways to
tamp things down rather than see things escalate.
Q: Both of you gentlemen to follow up on that point about possibly
tamping down, what is the assessment that you both have of the
statements from Mr. Vajpayee today or in the last 24 hours about India
possibly accepting joint patrols looking for some verification along
the line of control. Do you think things are now tamping down or do
you think that this is a heavily conditioned proposal that isn't
terribly realistic? For both gentlemen please.
Rumsfeld: I haven't had the chance to read it.
Hoon: I have only seen newspaper accounts of it but it's certainly
encouraging. It's a sign that the Indians are looking for if you like
the first step back from the brink, which is certainly something we
will encourage. We want to look in more detail at precisely at what
are the conditions and whether they can be sensibly satisfied.
Q: Russian Information Agency, I would like to ask you both about
their assessment on the results of Almaty meeting with President Putin
and the leaders of Pakistan and India. Thank you.
Rumsfeld: Myself, I think it was a useful thing that the meetings took
place and a useful thing that President Putin met with the two leaders
even those meetings may have been separate, I think that all of that
contributes to a better understanding of the interest of the world
community in what's taking place in South Asia.
Hoon: We very much welcome what has taken place and we want to see as
much international pressure as possible from every quarter brought to
bear on India and Pakistan to recognize that they must step back from
the brink.
Q: Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian. Can I ask Secretary Rumsfeld
if he thinks that the Kashmir crisis and how dangerous it is for
distracting from distraction from the war against terrorism,
particularly in Afghanistan? And can I ask a second question, whether
to both of you did you discuss Iraq at all this morning?
Rumsfeld: With respect to the first question, there's no question that
the Pakistan has been enormously helpful in the war on terrorism being
a neighbor of Afghanistan and our being able to cooperate so fully
with the Pakistani government. They have had forces and do today along
the Afghan border. We have been able to use their airfields, it has
been a significant advantage for the success that has been achieved
thus far in Afghanistan.
There's no question but that to the extent the tension on the Indian
Afghan border continues to go up that at some point those troops that
along the Afghan border are going to be moved. Fortunately thus far
only very small elements have been moved, so it has not had a notably
harmful affect thus far to the extent that it goes on much longer it
could, and that would be most unfortunate.
Hoon: As far as Iraq is concerned we've certainly had discussions
about Iraq we both have forces patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq,
risking their lives to protect people on the ground there. There is no
doubt that the threat to those forces has been increasing in recent
times and we have to ensure that we can take appropriate action to
deal with that threat and certainly we both believe that Iraq will be
a much better place, not only for the region and for its own people if
Saddam Hussein was no longer in power in Baghdad.
Q: I would like to ask Secretary Rumsfeld whether you agree with that
statement that the threat from Iraq is in fact increasing recently.
What evidence is there of an increased threat?
Rumsfeld: We know that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq has had a
sizeable appetite for weapons of mass destruction. We know the borders
into that country are quite porous and we know dual use capabilities
have been flowing in as well as illicit materials that are helpful in
their programs for weapons of mass destruction. There is not a doubt
in the world but that every month that goes by their programs mature
by a month and that is not something that is a happy prospect for that
region. This is an individual that has used chemical weapons on his
own people, so there is not any great debate as to what he and his
regime would be willing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Q: Associated Press of Pakistan. I would just like to know now that
General Musharraf has accepted Mr. Putin's invitation to visit Moscow,
would you like or expect Indian Leader to go to Moscow for a reduction
of tension?
Hoon: I think it would be helpful if there were discussions continuing
for as long as they possibly can continue to avoid steps being taking
to war and therefore we would like to see conversations taking place
wherever and whenever they can.
Q: Kim Sengupta of The Independent. In light of what you just said Mr.
Rumsfeld about every month that goes by the situation getting
potentially and intrinsically more dangerous, can we then expect
possible military action to prevent this sooner rather than later?
Rumsfeld: That is a matter for the heads of governments not for
ministers of defense. And as the Minster has said I think that there
is a very widely held recognition that the world would be a better
place if that regime were not in power and in fact it has been the
policy of our country, our Congress that the regime change, that
regime change would be in the best interests of the world. There are a
variety of ways for that to be achieved and certainly it's not for me
to make any announcements.
Q: National Public Radio. Sir, are you inclined at the moment -- Mr.
Rumsfeld, are you inclined at the moment to back off of action in Iraq
right now because of what's happening in India and Pakistan and
although you say that you would prefer to deal directly with the heads
of state rather than to telegraph things to the President, I wonder
more broadly if you could help us understand how you plan to impress
upon India and Pakistan, what's in their own interests given the fact
that in this kind of fog people may forget what's in their own best
interests? And for example, would you be bringing estimates that the
Defense department has given on the kinds of destruction and
devastation and death tolls that could take place if there were an
exchange?
Rumsfeld: Well, with respect to the first part, your question says are
you backing off because of the India Pakistan situation with respect
to Iraq and the answer is to back off you have to have been some
place, and I would think that that would not be a correct
characterization. The second thing with respect to India and Pakistan,
the United States has important relationships with each of those
countries we have political and economic and military relationships
that have been growing and developing in the past period. They are
important to us and clearly we have a stake in those two countries not
setting themselves back whatever number of years one wants to pick.
The world has an interest in those two countries and I must say that I
think that each of those two countries have an interest in not in
allowing the situation there to escalate into a conflict. The
circumstances of the people in each country given the possibility of a
conflict would clearly be dramatically adversely affected. And, if the
leaders of those countries are sophisticated and knowledgeable people,
they know that they are aware of their circumstance and I think they
are aware of the circumstance that they would be in in the event that
things deteriorated.
Q: George Pascoe Watson from The Sun. Secretary, can I ask you have
you been impressed or how impressed have you been by Britain's Royal
Marines operating in Afghanistan and second of all can I ask you how
worried are you by other European nations reluctance or seeming
reluctance to increase their defense budgets?
Rumsfeld: The answer to the first question with the respect to the
Royal Marines and the contributions of the United Kingdom, they have
done a superb job. There is just no question but that the relationship
between our two countries not only politically and economically but
militarily is an unusual one, a distinctive relationship, and a very
valued one. I am sure if General Franks were here he would go into
great detail as to how valuable the contribution of the Royal Marines
has been.
What was the second question? Oh the defense budgets. I hate to, you
know, fuss at folks, well I really don't. We live in a dangerous and
untidy world, this is not an easy time for the world. We have a series
of threats that exist. They are, to use the fancy word, so called
asymmetric threats. They are less threats against armies, navies and
air forces than they are threats of terrorism, cyber attacks, cruise
missiles, ballistic missiles. They are a series of things that
advantage the attacker and disadvantage the defender and the
militaries of the NATO nations clearly have to recognize that that
calls for several things.
It calls in some cases for a number of countries to increase their
defense budgets and to see that they are putting the resources in that
will enable NATO and our countries individually and collectively to be
able to contribute to peace and stability in the period ahead. Second,
it's going to call for some transformation in our capabilities and how
we spend our money and how we are organized and trained and equipped
to do the job, because it is not that the old tasks have all gone
away, but it is that some new tasks have arrived that require
investment, that require different organizations, that require a
greater precision and certainly now better inoperability among the
NATO countries and, I would add, an improved tooth to tail ratio. I
think we need to lean down some of our headquarters and beef up some
of our front line swiftly deployable capabilities. Thank you.
(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
|
|
|
