07 January 2003
Bush Administration "Determined" To Strengthen Ties With India
(Haass cites areas of bilateral cooperation) (6260)
The Bush administration is determined to strengthen U.S.-India ties
and develop a relationship that is based on "trust" and "mutual
values," said the State Department's Director of Policy Planning
Staff, Richard Haass.
Speaking to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) January 7 in
Hyderabad, India, Haass discussed the Bush Administration's views on
the U.S. and India's bilateral political, military and economic
relations.
"The Administration sees India's potential to become one of the great
democratic powers of the 21st century and has worked hard to transform
our relationship. We will continue these efforts. And we invite India
to match them, in the process remaking our relationship for the
benefit of this region and the world," said Haass.
According to Haass, the U.S. and India have made progress in a number
of areas, including security cooperation, to bring about regional
stability. India, he said, "has been a stalwart member of the
coalition waging the global war against terrorism." Counterterrorism
efforts, explained Haass, include continued consultation between the
two countries on terrorist financing, and shared intelligence on the
activities of terrorist groups. He said that these efforts have become
institutionalized by the opening of an FBI office in New Delhi, and
through the joint U.S.-Indian naval escorts for ships moving through
the Straits of Malacca.
U.S.-Indian cooperation, said Haass, has also extended to Afghanistan,
where India worked closely with other governments to ensure the
success of the Bonn Conference, which laid the groundwork for a
broad-based, democratic government in Afghanistan. India, he said, has
provided the Karzai government in Kabul with various kinds of
assistance that included training, buses, commercial aircraft, food
and medical care.
Haass welcomed India's decision to adopt the International Atomic
Energy Agency's November 29 resolution demanding that North Korea end
its nuclear weapons program and meet its obligations by opening its
facilities to IAEA inspections, and asked that India cooperate with
the United States in regards to Iraq.
"We will seek to expand our cooperation with India and other members
of the international community as the situation in Iraq warrants. If
force proves necessary, we would hope that the United States could
turn to the Indian government for assistance in meeting not only
immediate needs, but also in addressing the humanitarian, political
and economic challenges that will follow," he explained.
Haass also welcomed India's decision to engage in extensive
military-to-military cooperation, and praised the recently concluded
joint agreement not to extradite one another's nationals if
international tribunals seek them. According to Haass, both the United
States and India challenge the role of such tribunals as the
International Criminal Court.
Haass said that further progress in the area of security cooperation
is necessary in order to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. He called on the United States and India to "strive to
regularize and deepen consultations across the board" and "confer with
one another on all matters of regional and global importance" in order
to curb the threats of terrorism and proliferation, and secure energy
supplies. Deepened cooperation in the areas of scientific, technical
and other global issues, such as the newly launched U.S.-India Biotech
Alliance, he said, "will be a fruitful forum for sharing information,
facilitating trade, and promoting joint research."
Haass said that "U.S.-India economic links continue to be
under-developed," and therefore, progress need to be made in this area
as well. According to Haass, two-way trade between India and the
United States and American investment in India remain "paltry."
Recounting successful examples of U.S. investment in India, Haass
called on both countries to "do much better." He listed India's
"bureaucracy, outdated regulations, sticky legal wickets, parochial
political prejudices, and a worsening fiscal deficit," as reasons that
keep India "on the sidelines of global competition." He urged India to
take the necessary steps to become a more attractive market for
investment.
Commenting on Indo-Pakistani relations, Haass said "India will not
realize its immense potential on the global stage until its
relationship with Pakistan is normalized," adding that the "conflict
with Pakistan distracts India from its larger ambitions, helps create
the environment that scares off capital, and absorbs valuable
resources." He urged both India and Pakistan to "reap the benefits of
the 21st century" by taking the time, energy, and resources devoted to
the conflict and refocus them on "tackling respective domestic
challenges."
Through normalcy, Haass said, India and Pakistan can build a resilient
relationship that would allow them to solve their differences without
being confronted with the risk of violent conflict and a nuclear
crisis. Normalcy, explained Haass, requires full diplomatic links,
people-to-people interaction, trade relations, and addressing the
Kashmir issue in a peaceful manner.
Haass urged India to remove the condition to not have dialogue with
Pakistan until terrorism coming from Pakistani territory ends. "I am
concerned that such a position does not provide the basis for a sound,
long-term policy for India to deal with its neighbor," he explained.
Haass said that the "United States welcomes the new state government
in Jammu and Kashmir and commends its bold initiatives to reduce
tensions and bring about a climate of reconciliation." He also said
that the U.S. government is "pleased by the commitment of the central
government to hold a serious dialogue with the J&K state government
and others in Kashmir." Such efforts and not violence, said Haass,
will bring Kashmir closer to a peaceful solution that will be honored
by all sides and will allow the people of Kashmir to live in peace.
Haass told the audience that the United States will continue to urge
the government of Pakistan to do everything in its power to improve
bilateral relations with India and "to permanently end infiltration
into Kashmir," which he said, is killing Pakistan's hopes for a
settlement in the disputed area.
Following is the text of Haass' remarks to the Confederation of Indian
Industry:
(begin text)
The United States and India: A Transformed Relationship
Richard N. Haass, Director, Policy Planning Staff
Remarks to Confederation of Indian Industry
Hyderabad, India
January 7, 2003
I am pleased to be here today in Hyderabad, a city world-renowned for
its contributions to information technology. I am particularly happy
to be speaking to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), an
organization that has done so much to advance the interests of India
around the world and so much to promote relations between India and
the United States. Tarun Das and all those associated with CII deserve
our collective thanks.
I have come a long way to be with you today, so it only seems
appropriate that I spend some time discussing a few of the major
issues that concern us all. I would like to give you a sense of how we
in America view the world; I would also like to give you a sense of
how the Bush Administration views the U.S.-Indian relationship and
India s role in the region and beyond. And as you might expect, I will
have a few things to say about economic matters given that so many of
you earn your living doing business -- as opposed to those of us whose
business it is to do diplomacy.
In all honesty I cannot report that any of the major challenges that
have required so much time and resources of late can be placed in the
done category. There is, however, no question that a great deal has
been achieved.
Let me begin with terrorism. A broad and deep international coalition
is waging war against terrorists and the states that support them. UN
Security Council Resolution 1373 established clear norms, placing
binding obligations on countries to combat terrorist financing,
recruitment, transit, safe haven, and other forms of support to
terrorists. Such collective efforts are paying off. Over 160 countries
have joined in freezing assets; more than 2000 suspected terrorists
have been arrested in some 90 countries.
Afghans and the international community can take great pride in the
real progress made in Afghanistan. A year after its liberation, it is
no longer a terrorist safe-haven. An Afghan transitional government,
one committed to helping its people, is up and running. Some two
million refugees have voted with their feet and returned home;
economic reconstruction is under way, as is the building of a national
police and army. None of this is to say that there is still not a
great deal of work to be done before Afghanistan is a stable,
prosperous country. But the achievements of the last year are nothing
short of dramatic.
In the Middle East, President Bush has articulated the goal of
establishing a viable, democratic Palestinian state living side by
side with Israel in peace and security by mid-2005. Our focus today is
on helping Israelis and Palestinians realize this vision. The United
States, together with the EU, the UN, Russia, and several Arab
governments, is working to prepare the Palestinians for the
responsibilities of statehood and developing a specific roadmap to
assist Israelis and Palestinians transition from where they are now to
where they need to be.
In a very different realm of international relations, new WTO
negotiations were launched in Doha in November 2001. This round has
the potential to bolster the economies of the developing world as well
as the developed one. The passage of Trade Promotion Authority by the
U.S. Congress greatly strengthens the President s hand in rallying
American support for more open trade.
Any stock-taking also must acknowledge the tremendous strides America
has made in solidifying its relationships with other major powers and
important regional actors. The United States has modernized its ties
with Europe and Japan, two longstanding allies. Increasingly, these
relationships will focus on promoting conditions of stability in other
parts of the world, not just in areas close to home. We have also
fundamentally altered our relationship with some former adversaries,
Russia being the most obvious and consequential case in point. There
are few better manifestations of our new relationship with Russia than
the historic Treaty of Moscow, which dramatically reduces the nuclear
inventories of both countries. Significant change also characterizes
U.S. relations with China, a country that has become a partner in the
war on terrorism and to whom we now turn for assistance in dealing
with the threats posed by both Iraq and North Korea.
Efforts to fundamentally alter so many of our relationships are in
large part rooted in necessity and reflect the changing world around
us. Increasingly, we live in a world shaped by the forces of
globalization. Globalization has changed our lives in so many ways for
the better. It has dramatically diminished the distances between
people and has made traditional boundaries less relevant as goods,
people, services, and ideas flow more rapidly around the world. In so
doing, globalization has bolstered trade and investment, which are
sources of better jobs, greater choice for consumers, and lower
prices.
But as we saw in the tragic events of September 11, globalization also
has a dark side: terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
crime, trafficking in men, women and children, the flow of drugs, the
ravages of HIV/ AIDS and other infectious diseases. The contours of
our rapidly globalizing world have implications for all people and
countries, not least of all the United States. It is a simple reality
that U.S. power is unrivaled and will remain so for the foreseeable
future. Yet, this power does not give the United States control over
global affairs. The threats and challenges facing us and our allies
are varied and numerous. To deal with them in the best possible
manner, we will require the help of capable, like-minded countries.
Our need for partners is particularly urgent in addressing
transnational issues, the very issues that are most emblematic of this
era.
U.S.-India Relations
The U.S.-India relationship should be, and can be, a cornerstone of
this global network of partnerships. The transformation of our
bilateral relationship over the past few years is a dramatic success
story. It is a story that this administration takes seriously. And it
is a story in which this administration has invested a great deal.
President Bush took office determined to move the U.S.-India
relationship beyond the new patterns of cooperation that were
initiated at the end of the Clinton Administration. When he welcomed
Prime Minister Vajpayee to the White House in November 2001, President
Bush said, My administration is committed to developing a
fundamentally different relationship with India, one based upon trust,
one based upon mutual values. The President saw that our relations
were still weighted down by Cold War baggage, still defined largely by
disagreements, still limited by infrequent interaction. Neither side
gave the relationship the high priority it deserved; efforts to
improve it lacked the urgency that was needed to bring U.S.-India
relations to new heights. President Bush saw India as a country that
was poised to become one of the leading nations of the 21st century. A
nation of over one billion people, the largest democracy on earth,
multi-ethnic, multi-religious, a critical presence in Asia. In short,
he saw a nation of enormous achievement and even greater promise.
The horrible events of September 11th further galvanized the efforts
that were already underway to transform the U.S.-India relationship.
India s reaction to September 11 was prompt and wholehearted. India
was one of the first countries to offer assistance to the United
States. Its people and government expressed genuine sympathy for our
loss, even as they mourned the loss of their own in the towers of the
World Trade Center. September 11 did not alter the trajectory of
U.S.-Indian relations. But it quickened the pace of change by
underscoring the commonalities between our democracies and cementing
our mutual commitment to work more closely together.
Today, we can point to a U.S.-India relationship that is greatly
changed. We have come a long way, to a point where cooperation -- not
carping -- is the dominant characteristic of our relationship. This
transformation is not limited to the interaction between President
Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee; nor is it marked simply by better
relations between senior members of our two governments. What we have
witnessed is nothing short of a basic restructuring of how our two
great nations interact.
Prime Minister Vajpayee has spoken of India and the United States as
"natural allies." He is right. The United States and India have begun
to realize the benefits of a partnership rooted in freedom, prosperity
and security. Today, we can point to progress on a range of issues:
We see India and America collaborating on security and stability in
Asia and beyond. India was an early supporter of President Bush s
strategic framework and his call for an enhanced role for missile
defense. India has been a stalwart member of the coalition waging the
global war against terrorism. We have consulted with one another on
terrorist financing and shared intelligence on terrorist groups. We
institutionalized this cooperation with the opening of a FBI office in
New Delhi. India s support for U.S. counterterrorism efforts involved
the provision of naval escorts to ships moving through the Straits of
Malacca. This act was significant, in part because it was the first
time that the American and Indian navies undertook a joint mission
outside of India s territorial waters. But it also serves as an
example of Indian efforts to counter the effects of terrorism on our
global trading system.
The United States and India, in the words of Secretary of State Powell
this past July, have opened [a] new strategic dialogue to transform
our relationship. These discussions, buttressed by multiple trips made
by high level visitors in each direction, have addressed issues
ranging from how best to help Nepal meet the challenges posed by its
Maoist insurgency to preventing onward proliferation of chemical,
biological, and nuclear materials and technologies.
India and America have also stood side by side in Afghanistan. India
and the United States worked together with other governments to ensure
that the Bonn Conference was a success, laying the groundwork for a
broad-based, democratic government. Since that time, India has
supported the Karzai government, sharing with the United States the
goal of a moderate, peaceful Afghanistan. This commitment is evident
in India s actions, including its provision of various kinds of
training, buses, commercial aircraft, and food to Afghans. India s
Indira Gandhi Hospital has been a continuing source of healing in
Kabul as well as a prominent symbol of the historic ties between
Indians and Afghans.
Our two countries have engaged in extensive military-to-military
cooperation, marked by multiple port visits, joint exercises, and
high-level exchanges. Our Defense Policy Group has been revived and is
more active than ever. And we take it as a mark of friendship and
trust that India and the United States have recently concluded a joint
agreement not to extradite one another s nationals if they are sought
by international tribunals, such as the ICC, whose authority and role
we both challenge.
We also see India and America, the world's two largest democracies,
working together to combat one of the greatest transnational threats
of our times: HIV/ AIDS. India has recognized the challenge that HIV
and AIDS presents to its people and their pursuit of prosperous lives.
The United States, which has grappled with its own HIV/AIDS problems,
is assisting India in its efforts to combat this disease. The U.S.
Agency for International Development, Harvard s Center for
International Development, and our National Institutes of Health all
have programs in India to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS through better
communication, education, and provision of health services.
Despite this impressive list of areas of joint cooperation, there is
more we can work on together. Security cooperation tops the list. A
key component of our growing security collaboration must be geared
toward stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The United
States and India share a common interest in bringing about a world
where materials and technologies for the production of chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons are difficult to acquire. India has
shown its willingness to identify proliferators; we do, however, look
for even more aggressive Indian action on this front, and are prepared
to work together and share experiences to help India achieve our
common goal of stopping onward proliferation.
The extent to which India and the United States can be partners on
important problems in other regions will also determine whether our
security cooperation realizes its potential. On North Korea, we are
off to a good start. We welcome India s role in the adoption of the
International Atomic Energy Agency's November 29th resolution that
insists that North Korea end its nuclear weapons program and open its
facilities to IAEA inspections. We appreciate that India is part of
the international consensus demanding that North Korea do away with
its new uranium enrichment facility and meet its international
obligations under the IAEA. But the challenge posed by North Korea s
nuclear policies is far from over, and India s efforts will remain
important alongside those of Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan.
The United States also anticipates significant cooperation with India
on Iraq. We are pleased that India has called for Iraq s full
compliance with UN resolutions, including UN Security Council
Resolution 1441. We will seek to expand our cooperation with India and
other members of the international community as the situation in Iraq
warrants. If force proves necessary, we would hope that the United
States could turn to the Indian government for assistance in meeting
not only immediate needs, but also in addressing the humanitarian,
political and economic challenges that will follow.
We can also deepen our cooperation on important scientific, technical,
and global issues. I am confident that the new U.S.-India Biotech
Alliance launched between the CII and the U.S.-India Business Council
during Undersecretary of State Alan Larson s November visit will be a
fruitful forum for sharing information, facilitating trade, and
promoting joint research. Both India and the United States can benefit
from the smart use of biotechnology. We also look forward to
revitalizing our energy dialogue through talks about reducing
greenhouse gases, curbing pollution, enhancing energy security, and
achieving a more efficient distribution of power. And the United
States and India have begun a promising dialogue on combating
trafficking in men, women, and children. The United States is
heartened by India s recent work with the SAARC aimed at reducing the
numbers of those who are brought to India through trafficking, and its
recognition of the need to prosecute those engaged in this activity.
Yet, beyond making progress on particular issues in the political,
military, and security realms, India and the United States should
strive to regularize and deepen consultations across the board. I look
forward to a time when India and the United States confer with one
another on all matters of regional and global importance. Such
coordination is not aimed at any third country, but instead is a
natural reflection of the fact that India and the United States share
an interest in bringing about a world in which terror is rare,
proliferation is curbed, and energy supplies are secure. As two
like-minded countries, we will both benefit from sharing our analyses
of problems, our formulations of solutions, and, in many cases, the
coordination of our actions.
Let me now turn to the economic realm. The United States and India can
and should do much better. With all the positives in our relationship,
the weakness of our economic links is glaring. Ten years ago, I would
not have predicted that our military and political relations would be
as vigorous as they are. I am happy to be proven wrong about that.
Yet, at the same time, I would have never imagined that our economic
relations would still be as limited as they are today. I am anything
but happy to have been proven wrong about this.
As you in this room know better than most, U.S.-India economic links
continue to be under-developed -- or, as Ambassador Blackwill has put
it, as flat as a chapatti. This is so despite the enormous potential
for commerce between our two large and dynamic economies. U.S. trade
to India remains paltry. Although some fifteen percent of India s
total trade is with the United States, less than one percent of U.S.
trade involves India. Two-way trade between India and the United
States is less than that between America and Ireland, a country with
fewer than 4 million people! American investment, too, is at extremely
low levels. Prime Minister Vajpayee has recognized the importance of
U.S. investment in India. During his September 2000 visit to
Washington, he called for $10 billion of investment annually from the
United States. Unfortunately, levels remain closer to one-tenth of
that sum.
Given India s vast resources and the creativity of its people, India
should be a magnet for investment. And, on occasion, it is. In
Karnataka, Heinz grows and processes its own tomatoes and markets
ketchup throughout India; Ford and GM manufacture cars in Indian
plants; right here in Hyderabad, Microsoft is but one of many American
firms in the realm of information technology that has established a
significant foothold.
But too often India loses out to China, other parts of Asia, Europe,
Latin America, and Africa for U.S. investment. India enjoys
extraordinary advantages -- a common language, common values, common
democratic ideals; it claims a huge educated workforce and possesses
an even larger market with an outstanding IT sector; and India has the
benefit of an administration in Washington that is fully committed to
the transformation of the U.S.-India relationship. But despite these
significant leads over other countries and regions, U.S.-Indian
economic links are simply coming up short.
Why? Here I would point to an entrenched Indian bureaucracy, outdated
regulations, sticky legal wickets, parochial political prejudices, and
a worsening fiscal deficit that crowds out spending for a decaying
infrastructure, for education, and for health. Together, they work to
keep India as a whole on the sidelines of global competition that
could vastly benefit the Indian consumer, release Indian
entrepreneurial creativity, and let India play the international
economic role its one billion people have a right to expect.
Both the United States and India share the responsibility of bringing
the new bilateral, U.S.-India relationship to even greater heights.
But in the economic realm, and to be as frank as only friends can be,
the burden of action rests largely on Indian shoulders. India will
need to take steps to remove the concerns that drive capital away to
other less burdensome investment climates. Secretary of State Colin
Powell frequently says that capital is a coward -- it flows to where
it gets the best return and steers clear of places where the
environment is not hospitable to profit. Capital seeks out
opportunity, stability and transparency.
The elimination or reduction of tariff barriers, streamlining taxation
and licensing requirements, and the resolution of intellectual
property disputes by India would go far in removing the obstacles to
trade and investment. India stands to gain a great deal from the Doha
round of WTO talks and should work to meet the tight deadlines needed
to move the negotiations forward. Our five-track economic dialogue
with India can help spur the needed reforms and prepare the ground for
a much more robust commercial relationship. But India must take the
lead and do its part to transform this critical part of our
relationship.
Indo-Pakistani relations
Let me now talk about another area that continues to color the U.S.
partnership with India: that of Indo-Pakistani relations. Neither the
United States nor India want our bilateral relationship to be
conducted through the prism of India s relationship with Pakistan. The
United States -- as much as India -- wants to devote the time we spend
talking about the threat of conflict in South Asia to other, more
positive issues. America -- as much as India -- is eager to see a
thriving, peaceful and democratic India take its place in the world.
But it is simply a fact of life that India will not realize its
immense potential on the global stage until its relationship with
Pakistan is normalized. If India were to have a better relationship
with Pakistan, it would be free to emerge as the major world actor
that it ought to be. The festering conflict with Pakistan distracts
India from its larger ambitions, helps create the environment that
scares off capital, and absorbs valuable resources.
The ability of both Pakistanis and Indians to reap the benefits of the
21st century will depend to a large degree on their willingness to
build a more normal relationship with one another. The current
situation is distinctly abnormal -- even by the standards of
adversaries. Today, the Indo-Pakistani relationship is less developed
than that between the United States and the Soviet Union at the height
of the Cold War. Even in the worst of times, trade flowed between the
two countries, Washington and Moscow hosted ambassadors from the other
country, and cultural exchanges went ahead. Throughout the Cold War,
the United States and the Soviet Union -- who were not neighbors like
India and Pakistan, but two countries on opposite sides of the globe
-- recognized that maintaining considerable interaction was in their
mutual interest.
In the absence of the most basic contacts and the most minimal lines
of communication, tension between India and Pakistan constantly risks
sparking a broader conflict with potentially cataclysmic consequences
-- for India, for Pakistan, for the region, and, if I might say, for
the United States. But, even if such a conflict never materializes,
the omni-present specter of it has huge tangible costs. It limits the
ability of both India and Pakistan to seize opportunities to better
the lives of their peoples. The time, energy, and resources New Delhi
and Islamabad now devote to countering one another could instead be
focused on tackling respective domestic challenges as well as the
problems of Asian stability writ large.
Given the wide repercussions of Indo-Pakistani tensions, it is no
wonder that the international community has repeatedly called on the
Indian and Pakistani governments to normalize their relationship. It
is a responsibility they have to their own peoples, to their
neighbors, and all of humanity.
The world is not asking India and Pakistan to do anything that other
states have not done. Numerous countries have moved beyond their own
contentious histories in order to secure a better future. Look at
Germany and France, Japan and Korea, Brazil and Argentina. And now the
United States and Russia.
A more normal relationship between India and Pakistan is not
impossible to envision. Normalcy does not mean an absence of
disagreement. Rather, normalcy means a resilient relationship that
would allow India and Pakistan to weather inevitable shocks and
setbacks without the risk of violent conflict or a nuclear crisis.
Normalcy means that differences are resolved through diplomacy, not
force. In this time of heightened tension, we are in an unusual
situation where neither country has a High Commissioner in the capital
of the other. But even in less tense times, diplomatic presence and
exchange was minimal. An expansion of diplomatic links could
facilitate people-to-people contacts and lay the groundwork for
greater bilateral cooperation on a range of common interests.
Normalcy also means a relationship wherein Indians and Pakistanis from
all walks of life can easily travel to the other country for family
visits, tourism, sports or business. It should not take more time to
fly from New Delhi to Islamabad than it does to fly from Delhi to
London.
Normalcy means that the cricket matches between India and Pakistan
that once captivated millions in South Asia and around the world would
be only one of many kinds of people-to-people interaction.
Normalcy means market-driven commerce. Today, legal trade and
investment between the two countries is virtually non-existent.
Developing natural commercial links could bring greater prosperity to
both countries and, in the process, build constituencies for
normalization and increase the stake that each country has in the
peaceful resolution of disputes. In this regard, it is time to take
practical steps to bring about a South Asian Free Trade Area.
Most of all, normalcy means that Kashmir would be addressed
peacefully. In fact, much has already changed in Kashmir, even since
my last visit to South Asia this past autumn. The United States
welcomes the new state government in Jammu and Kashmir and commends
its bold initiatives to reduce tensions and bring about a climate of
reconciliation in a region that has too long been mired in strife. And
we are pleased by the commitment of the central government to hold a
serious dialogue with the J&K state government and others in Kashmir.
These discussions are essential if the quest to improve the lives and
livelihoods of the Kashmiri people is to succeed.
Now is clearly a moment of opportunity in Kashmir -- one that New
Delhi, the Mufti government, and the people of the region can
collectively translate into tangible political and economic benefits.
Such efforts will not in themselves solve the complex issues of
Indo-Pakistani differences, terrorist violence, human rights, and
governance that converge in Kashmir. But they are important steps in
the right direction. They will bring Kashmir closer to a solution that
will be peaceful and honorable for all sides, one that will allow
Kashmiris to live their daily lives in safety, with dignity and
opportunity.
Sadly, this opportunity continues to be narrowed by terrible acts of
violence in Kashmir. I am saddened by the recent assassination of
Abdul Aziz Mir, one of the governing coalition s Assembly members. I
am also deeply disturbed by the horrific murders of three young
Kashmiri women on 19 December and by the deaths of others in
subsequent weeks. Let me be clear: violence serves the interests of no
one. As Mehbooba Mufti, vice-president of the People s Democratic
Party, said in a recent party statement. It is a historic fact that
the gun yields nothing, but adds miseries to the people and users.
I cannot predict what a solution to the Kashmir problem might look
like or when it will come. But there are a few things about which I am
certain. First, the status of the Line of Control will not be changed
unilaterally. Second, the LOC will also not be changed by violence. To
the contrary, in the absence of a jointly agreed Indo-Pakistani
alternative, everyone should act to ensure the continued sanctity of
the Line of Control.
For its part, the United States will continue to urge President
Musharraf to do everything in his power to permanently end
infiltration into Kashmir. Pakistanis must realize that this
infiltration is killing their hopes for a settlement to Kashmir.
I have been to Pakistan many times, most recently this past October. I
believe I have an appreciation for the depth of feeling Pakistanis
have for Kashmir. Nevertheless, I would discourage Pakistanis from
allowing their focus on resolving the Kashmir dispute to block
progress on other issues that involve India and that hold out the
promise of an improved bilateral relationship. I have worked on
regional conflicts for almost three decades -- be it Cyprus, Northern
Ireland, or the Middle East. And if there is one lesson I have
learned, it is that the inability to resolve big issues should not
stop progress on the little ones. The path to large breakthroughs is
often paved with agreements on small issues.
The United States stands shoulder to shoulder with India in its battle
against terrorists, be they those who struck at New York and
Washington in September 2001 or those who targeted the Indian
Parliament a few months later. Indeed, given all that India has
suffered at the hands of terrorists, I can understand Indian
government statements that India will not have a dialogue with
Pakistan until terrorism emanating from Pakistani territory ends.
However, I am concerned that such a position does not provide the
basis for a sound, long-term policy for India to deal with its
neighbor. Indeed, I would argue that India, like Pakistan, has an
interest in removing conditions to dialogue. India is too great a
country, too important a regional and potentially global player, to
allow a relationship with a neighbor to keep it from realizing its
potential on the world stage. Resuming a range of contacts with
Pakistan at this time would not mean rewarding terrorism. Indians
should not view efforts to improve relations with Pakistan as a favor
to its neighbor. Rather, New Delhi should seek to diminish tensions
with Islamabad as a way of securing a better future for itself.
India should also recognize that there are important developments
unfolding in Pakistan that can contribute to a more stable, secure
region. I would hope that New Delhi would respond to these changes by
taking small steps -- beyond the welcome reduction in military
deployments on the international border. India could acknowledge
encouraging events where they exist, including Pakistan s assistance
in the war against Al Qaida and the Taliban, President Musharraf s
vision of a reformed Pakistan, and the emergence of civilian leaders.
India should look for opportunities to reach out to and reinforce the
new civilian government in Islamabad. Supporting positive developments
in Pakistan does not mean condoning or overlooking the many serious
matters that Pakistan still must address. But it does mean saying and
doing things that help encourage favorable trends within Pakistan and
make possible more normal ties with it.
The Strategic Future
I have always been an optimist when it comes to the U.S.-Indian
relationship and am more so now than at any other time. The United
States and India are countries cut from similar cloth, cast from
comparable molds. Nearly two million Americans can trace their roots
to India. We are natural partners. After decades of mutual alienation,
we are embracing what we have in common and transforming how we
interact. The results so far have been satisfying, underscoring the
tremendous potential of our bilateral relationship.
Yet we must be careful not to confuse potential with inevitability.
Realizing the benefits of a transformed relationship will take hard
work. As far as we have come, as much progress as we have made over
the past few years, we have even further to go. In order for the
United States and India to attain the strategic partnership that is in
our grasp, we will need to deepen our economic relationship; we will
need to develop new habits of consultation and collaboration in our
diplomatic relationship; and we will need to make our military
relationship more robust. As the President s National Security
Strategy stated. The Administration sees India s potential to become
one of the great democratic powers of the twenty first century and has
worked hard to transform our relationship. We will continue these
efforts. And we invite India to match them, in the process remaking
our relationship for the benefit of this region and the world.
(end text)
(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
|
|
|
