• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Title:  "US, Pakistan in 'Broad Agreement' on Non-Proliferation." Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's Islamabad press conference following meetings with Pakistani officials. (940411)

Date:  19940411

Text:
*NEA103

04/11/94

U.S., PAKISTAN IN "BROAD AGREEMENT" ON NON-PROLIFERATION (Transcript: Talbott 4/9/94 press conference in Islamabad) (4100) Islamabad -- There is "broad agreement" between the United States and Pakistan on the goal of "first capping, then reducing, and eventually eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles from South Asia," Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said April 9 after meeting with Pakistani officials here.

"Our hope is that we have laid the basis...to make progress on this issue during the period ahead and I will leave here tomorrow with quite a high degree of optimism that we will indeed succeed," Talbott said during a press conference April 9 at the American Center.

Stressing that the U.S.-Pakistan relationship "is a multi-dimensional relationship," Talbott said he held wide-ranging discussions in Islamabad on developments in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, as well as peacekeeping efforts around the world. The United States and Pakistan also discussed "ways to broaden our trade and commercial ties," he said.

The following is the official transcript of the news conference: (BEGIN TRANSCRIPT) SPOKESMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen: This is, of course, an on-the-record press conference with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. The Deputy Secretary's schedule is very tight and we are not going to be able to extend this press conference beyond the time allotted for it on our schedule, and so in the interest of fairness to everyone, I want to ask the journalists who are recognized to make their questions as brief as possible, and not to ask serial questions. I also would like to ask the photographers to get their pictures within the first three or four minutes of the press conference and then either take your seats or, if you prefer, leave the auditorium. It is my very great pleasure now to introduce Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott. Mr. Secretary.

DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Thanks very much. And thanks to all of you for coming out this afternoon. I have just completed a very good day of talks here in Islamabad with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and other senior officials of the Pakistani government, as well as with several members of the opposition.

Let me say just a word or two about the overall purpose of my mission. It's a broad mission. It's a forward-looking mission. President Clinton and Secretary Christopher asked me to come to Islamabad on my first diplomatic trip as Deputy Secretary of State to underscore that America's commitment to our longstanding friendship with Pakistan remains strong and that we are determined to strengthen it and broaden it further. We have always had a very special relationship with this country, but as all of you who live in this part of the world know, better than most, history is sometimes a complicating factor in the lives of nations, and that, I think, is also the case with U.S.-Pakistani relations.

The end of the cold war has unquestionably put some strain on our relationship these past few years. We recognize that. But it also presents great opportunities. Together, the United States and Pakistan finally have a chance to realize the huge human and economic potential of our partnership. And that was the essence of my message to the Pakistani government today, and it also served as the background for everything that we discussed.

Now let me say a word or two about the agenda. I suspect that quite a few of you are interested in the issue of F-16s and the American proposal to cap the Pakistani nuclear program. There was obviously a lot of discussion of those closely interrelated subjects in several of the conversations that I had today. But our talks were far more wide ranging than just on that subject. In fact, the wide range of our discussions is significant in itself.

It's a testament to the number of issues on which our governments and our peoples are committed to work together. Ours is a multi-dimensional relationship, and mine was a multi-dimensional agenda here today.

The leaders of this government and I exchanged views on developments in the Middle East, in Central and South Asia. We discussed the various peacekeeping efforts around the world to which we both contribute, and we reviewed ways to broaden our trade and commercial ties. And, of course, we discussed U.S. bilateral and multilateral nuclear non-proliferation in South Asia. Much on that subject remains to be done. But I feel, and I intend to report to Secretary of State Christopher tonight, that much was accomplished today. I would say that we had a more productive dialogue on this cluster of very difficult and important subjects than our two governments have had in years. This dialogue will continue as we search for ways to make more substantial bilateral progress and also to advance our goals for the region as a whole. When all is said and done, our nations have much in common. The United States owes Pakistan a debt of gratitude for all that united us in the past. And we believe that the same spirit of shared endeavor can take us toward a more peaceful and stable future for this region and for the entire world. I would be glad to try to answer any questions that you might have.

Q: The main thrust of your visit to this country was to convince the Pakistani leadership to cap the nuclear program and then get it verified. What is the progress on that particular issue? Will you please brief us?

A: Well, let me first say that I obviously, not least of all because of former professional interest, followed the way in which the Pakistani press and indeed the press elsewhere previewed my visit. To read the advance stories, one would have thought that first of all the issue was going to be the only issue that I talked about. And, second, that I might as well not have come. That was at least the suggestion of some of the stories. That was emphatically not the case. I don't mean to quibble with words, but I wouldn't say that we came here so much to convince or persuade, as we came to discuss an extremely complicated subject.

Specifically, we discussed our objective of first capping, then reducing, and eventually eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles from South Asia, and I would say that there was broad agreement on this goal. But there needs to be a lot more discussion, a lot more work, preferably in quiet, diplomatic channels, in order to agree completely on how best to achieve that goal. Now it was in this connection that we discussed the American initiative. There was absolutely no thought in my mind or that of any of my colleagues that we were going to resolve this issue today. Our hope is that we have laid the basis, the conceptual basis as it were, to make progress on this issue during the period ahead and I will leave here tomorrow with quite a high degree of optimism that we will indeed succeed.

Q: Mr. Talbott, what is your assessment after your meetings with the leaders here in Pakistan and New Delhi? Will it be possible in your view that Pakistan will be able to achieve whatever the United States of America wants at the moment about its nuclear program in the presence of this Kashmir issue?

A: The short answer is yes. At the same time, we recognize that the Kashmir issue is immensely complicated. There is probably no better example of what I said in my opening remarks about how history is a complicating factor, and that our view, that is that of the United States -- and it's a view that I conveyed to my interlocutors in New Delhi as well as here -- is that we should not look backwards. We should look forward. We are counting on the governments of Pakistan and India to resolve this issue over time, and to do so in accord with the Simla Agreement. We, the United States, stand ready to assist in any way that we can, if we are asked to do so by the two parties.

We also feel, returning to the issue of non-proliferation, that the goals that we have put forward in our conversations today, and indeed the goals that we discussed when we were in New Delhi, are very much in the interest of both of these countries. If you would permit me a slight digression -- but I don't think it's really a digression -- I guess it does take us back into the past -- your country and India have, of course, throughout so much of the last half century, been caught up in a zero-sum game, and that has influenced the United States in a way that we want very much to break out of. That is, we want to try to develop relationships with both countries, India and Pakistan, so that when American officials come here in the future, they will be able to discuss an improvement in relations with Pakistan without people in India fearing that it's to the detriment of India's vital national interests and vice versa. And that's very much in the context -- or that's very much part of the context of our approach to all the issues that we discussed today, non-proliferation and regional issues.

Q: Will Pakistan be receiving any or all of the F-16s and was there any resolution on the F-16s issue in terms of more payment from Pakistan or the return of the money that Pakistan has already paid?

A: The status of the F-16s is part and parcel of the initiative that we have put before the Pakistani government. The Pakistani government I feel, now, that is after a day of talks with me and my colleagues, understands a bit more of what we have in mind, what we're proposing, and how it would work. But further discussions are necessary and those further discussions will take place.

Q: In terms of the continuing payments until it's resolved? A: It's all part, it's all tied up in the same cluster of issues. The status of the F-16s and our proposal on how to cap the Pakistani nuclear program are obviously, explicitly, in stories that all of you have carried, tied up together and they will be considered together.

Q: Sir, you stated earlier that you had discussions with Pakistani opposition leaders as well. Briefly tell us what kind of details -- some details of opposition leaders you're meeting.

A: Let me first just say with whom I met. I met with Senator Aziz; Mr. Ayub Khan, the deputy leader of the opposition; and with Mr. Rehman, the director of the Human Rights Commission; and Mr. Shujaullah from the Center for Democratic Development and also a human rights activist. I think that it would probably be appropriate only to characterize that conversation in fairly broad terms. As you can tell from the composition of the group, we obviously talked a lot about human rights. For me it was an immensely educational experience. I've been to this country four or five times over the years in a previous incarnation, but I learned as much during the hour meeting with these gentlemen as I have in any other hour that I can think of. We talked a lot about the internal situation. I learned a lot about the inter-relationship among the different branches of the government here, and I will carry away a more subtle and sophisticated understanding of the complexity and the promise of Pakistani democracy.

Q: Sir, could you tell us what is the reaction in New Delhi and Islamabad to your idea about delaying the deployment of ballistic missiles, and secondly on the idea of a regional conference?

A: Well, let me concentrate on what I discovered here. As I indicated earlier, my interlocutors and I discussed the proposal -- or discussed rather the prospect -- of what it would be like if ballistic missiles were to be deployed in South Asia, and I would say once again that there was broad agreement here that that prospect is unwelcome and that the deployment of ballistic missiles in South Asia would be destabilizing. I will leave it to my Indian interlocutors to characterize the view from there, but I would say that there is a general appreciation in this region of the dangers of arms races of all kinds, whether it's an arms race in nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, ballistic missiles and otherwise, and, indeed, conventional weapons. One point that was made to me very poignantly by an official of the Indian government who does not deal directly with security and foreign policy issues is that every rupee spent on defense, whether it's on high-performance aircraft or whatever, is a rupee that cannot be spent on desperately needed social programs; and I'm sure, had I met with the counterpart of that gentleman here in Pakistan, he would have made the same point.

Q: Has Pakistan specifically linked the Kashmir issue and the nuclear non-proliferation issue in South Asia and, if so, what has been your response?

A: I would not put it that way. Obviously, the issue of Kashmir comes up in conversations here. I carry away an even more acute understanding of the Pakistani perspective on it, but as far as we're concerned -- and I think this is appreciated elsewhere, here and in other capitals -- the issue of non-proliferation is so important and so complex itself, that it needs to be addressed very much in its own terms. But we understand the inter-relationship of politics, of geopolitics, of security issues, of technology, and so forth.

Q: After your trip here this time and after Ms. Raphel's previously publicized trips to this part of the world, what would be the future of American diplomatic efforts? Are there any sort of new things that you're looking at? For instance, you've talked about "quiet diplomacy." Is that one of the things you would now try to encourage, in fact? Is that one of the problems as opposed to "public diplomacy?"

A: That's well put. I would never say to an audience of former colleagues that free press and public diplomacy are part of the problem. I will say this: I think that several of the issues that we've discussed here have had quite a thorough airing in the public press, and that particularly the issue of our non-proliferation initiative needs some quiet, private diplomacy, and I come away confident that it is going to get precisely that kind of attention.

Q: So, you have come to India and Pakistan bringing an overall proposal to the non-proliferation of nuclear things here in South Asia, and reports say that the Indian side has mostly rejected your proposal. How would you evaluate the Pakistan side? How much have they accepted and what is there still in-between as the problem?

A: I would, with respect, quarrel with the premise of your question in a couple of respects. First of all, your question as posed suggests a direct linkage, as it were, between the initiative that we have put before the Pakistani government, which is, in fact, a bilateral initiative; it's something we're posed to do in cooperation and consultation with the Pakistani government; it's not formally, or linked in quite the way your question suggests with the discussions that we had in India.

Nor would I accept the premise that we encountered rejection of our ideas in India. In fact, quite the contrary. I found that we got a very careful hearing, a very open-minded hearing, and we have some degree of confidence that we're going to be able to pursue quiet diplomacy with the Indian side on a range of issues, including a couple we've talked about here. I realize that -- with apologies -- I neglected to answer the second half of an earlier question. I don't think that qualified as a serial question, so I can't dodge on that basis. I was asked about the prospects of a multilateral forum. This is something that we feel would very much serve the interests of non-proliferation, of disarmament, of arms control, and of security issues in general. And I was pleased to find here in Islamabad today once again broad agreement on the desirability of such a forum and more consultations are going to be required with all parties.

Q: What are the possibilities of treating India and Pakistan at par vis-a-vis the nuclear issue?

A: This is a phrase I have heard repeatedly and it's one that I don't think really serves the purpose of the discussion very well. In fact, in a way it resonates -- and I realize it's not your phrase -- it resonates with part of the problem in the past, which was an attempt, or at least a consequence of so much of the politics and diplomacy of the region, including what the United States was involved in, to in some way play off India and Pakistan against each other, to equate them, to try to establish either linkages or tilts or whatever.

Our purpose, as I tried to make clear at the outset, is to treat each of these countries in its own terms. And obviously the Pakistani government is not going to accept any initiative put forward by the United States unless the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people -- because you are a democracy -- are convinced that that initiative serves the security interests of Pakistan per se. We feel strongly that our initiative does that. Now, obviously, the initiative that we put forward has come in for some controversy and skepticism in India as well, and it will not surprise you to hear that one of my messages to the Indian government is that part of what we are trying to advance in this region is a ratcheting down of the arms race, or a capping of the arms race, which we feel is good for all parties, notably including for India and Pakistan.

Q: Prior to your arrival, the Prime Minister and the Army Chief of Staff, and I believe the Ambassador to the United States, all seemed to indicate that -- I think they were rejecting pretty much -- the F-16 swap for the nuclear capping. And I'm wondering whether or not they've reconsidered that or whether that is still their stand?

A: You obviously have even better sources than me available not far from here on the views of those officials of the Pakistani government. And General Waheed will be returning here soon. He is more than capable of speaking for himself, as I discovered when I had a very useful conversation with him in Washington a week or so ago. It seems like longer than that, but I think it was only last week.

I must tell you that I saw the press stories about what Prime Minister Bhutto said to a group of journalists, and your characterization of her view and her government's view does correspond with some of the press accounts. Therefore, I did something I'm sure you would do, and that is I asked to see a transcript, since she met with members of the press. I just happen to have it here. I found it a statement that conforms with everything that I have said in this press conference, in my attempt to characterize fairly and accurately the Pakistani government's position. She was quite emphatic in that meeting with the press at the Parliament, in saying that there would be no rollback of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program as part of this initiative. We are not asking for a rollback. We are suggesting a verifiable cap on the program. She made clear that Pakistan has no intention of being pushed into a corner.

It is precisely in order to get the U.S. and Pakistan together, out of a corner, that we have put forward the initiative. She has asked for an even-handed approach. I feel that our proposal certainly qualifies as being even-handed. She's asked for a regional approach, as I think I have made clear, of various initiatives and ideas and policies that we're pursuing that have a regional and indeed a trans-regional and global quality to them. So I was somewhat relieved and encouraged when I saw the text of what she had actually said.

Q: Did you discuss the role Pakistan is playing, or could play, in the Middle East and Central Asia? And, also did you discuss the issue of the recognition of Israel?

A: That last subject did not come up explicitly. Pakistan's analysis of events in the region generally, its policies in the region generally, and ways in which the United States and Pakistan can work together to advance our shared strategic goals was very much on the agenda, not only at the meeting with the Prime Minister, but also the meeting with the President, the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Q: Sir, there was a press conference by Mr. Robert Einhorn in this hall and at that press conference he said that Pakistan has de facto capped the nuclear program -- that Pakistan has capped the nuclear program de facto, but the U.S. would like to see it de jure. How do you think Pakistan can go from de facto to de jure capping of the nuclear program?

A: That's such a good question that I'm not going to answer it. And I don't mean for that to be quite as glib as it sounds. Bob Einhorn is right over there. If you're drastically mischaracterizing his position, he's invited to the microphone to correct you. But precisely the question that you put is one of several related questions that is now, I think, appropriately the subject for diplomacy as opposed to press conferences or, for that matter, not that one can control them, even too much press speculation.

Q: You have had discussions both in India and Pakistan and now do you feel that you need to change your strategy a little about nuclear non-proliferation, or to broaden it a little bit? Do you feel that there is a change required for the future?

A: I feel quite encouraged about the strategy on which we are embarked precisely because it is a broad strategy, and I think one of the things that we accomplished today is that there is perhaps even more understanding on the Pakistani side of precisely that aspect of our strategy, namely its breadth. Let me make a general point about that. We have an expression all of you know, I'm sure, which is not to make the best the enemy of the good. I had mentioned earlier that what we ultimately hope to see, and this is a goal that I think is shared widely in the region, is not just the capping and not just the reduction, but the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles from this region. But we are realistic enough to know that we cannot achieve that overnight, and we are also, I think, realistic enough to know that we if make that objective the be-all and end-all, and we allow it to paralyze progress in more modest respects, then the chances go down to about zero that we will ever achieve the ultimate goal. Therefore, what we need to do is to find together realistic, pragmatic steps in the right direction. And we feel that our initiative meets that criterion.

Q: You suggested a verifiable cap to Pakistan's nuclear program. Did you suggest the same to the Indians and what was their response?

A: As I have already said on several occasions, we hope to see not only a capping but a reduction and eventually elimination of programs for weapons of mass destruction throughout the region. I wouldn't want to go any further than I already have on the Indian response except to say that I feel we had a very fair hearing there and once again it's an opportunity for good work on the part of diplomats, including even Mr. Einhorn.

Thanks to all of you. (END TRANSCRIPT) NNNN