11 December 1998
TRANSCRIPT: ASST. SECRETARY INDERFURTH DISCUSSES PAKISTANI POLICY
(Economic crisis, F-16s, sanctions, Brownback Amendment, Kashmir) (7080) Washington -- Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth addressed Pakistani journalists December 11 via WorldNet television, responding to their questions on Pakistan's economic difficulties, the F-16 fighter problem, US sanctions and the Brownback Amendment, the International Monetary Fund, Kashmir, and non-proliferation issues. The United States recognizes that Pakistan's economic crisis needs immediate attention, Inderfurth said. "What we do want to do is see the kind of economic relationship that our two countries should have and have not had for a variety of reasons. Steps can be taken by the government of Pakistan on further economic reform, further liberalizing the economy, further measures to ensure investor confidence -- these are steps that Pakistan can take," he commented. "We have made it very clear," he continued, commenting on past sanctions that the United States has imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear weapons programs, "that what we want to do is move as quickly as possible to a sanction-free relationship with Pakistan. We want to have the full relationship with Pakistan." One of the issues tied up with sanctions is a number of F-16 fighter aircraft which Pakistan has paid for but the United States would not release. Inderfurth said on the matter: "I am very pleased to say that President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif reached agreement on a process for resolving this long-standing dispute between our two countries ... We believe a resolution of this issue will be announced shortly. President Clinton is very gratified that this issue, which has complicated our relationship for several years, is now on its way to being resolved in a manner that is fair to Pakistan." Asked how the Brownback Amendment relates to various U.S. sanctions programs, Inderfurth said that it "applies to all existing sanctions -- meaning the Glenn Amendment, the Pressler Amendment, as well as Symington. However, it is only for economic activities, and it actually has a provision which allowed us to restore the important military education and training program (IMET)." However, he added, the Brownback Amendment "is a partial authority, and it's limited to one year ... That's why we have got some important work to do, both of us, in the months ahead." Inderfurth refuted the suggestion that the United States may have shifted its position on Kashmir, saying: "We have not changed our position on Kashmir ... We do believe that Kashmir is of fundamental importance that must be addressed by the countries. We will do what we can. And certainly if requested by both parties ... we will do all we can." Following is the transcript of Inderfurth's WorldNet remarks: (Begin transcript) WORLDNET "DIALOGUE" UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C. GUEST: Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State TOPIC: Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif's Visit to the U.S. POSTS: Islamabad, Lahore HOST: Rick Foucheux DATE: December 11, 1998 TIME: 08:00 - 09:00 EST MR. FOUCHEUX: Hello, and welcome to Worldnet's "Dialogue," I'm your host Rick Foucheux. Today on "Dialogue" we have a special program focusing on the U.S. visit of the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Joining us to give our audiences an overview of the prime minister's visit and discussions here in Washington, I am pleased to welcome Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Karl Inderfurth. Assistant Secretary Inderfurth, welcome to "Dialogue." MR. INDERFURTH: Thank you. MR. FOUCHEUX: It's a pleasure to have you with us today. Before we invite our participants in Pakistan to join in our discussion, I understand you have a few opening remarks. MR. INDERFURTH: Yes, thank you very much, Rick. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the prime minister's recent visit to Washington, his meeting with President Clinton, and the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. President Clinton invited the prime minister to Washington because the issues before us require discussion and elaboration at the highest levels. Pakistan's economic crisis and how best to resolve it, non-proliferation and security, Afghanistan and terrorism were all important topics of discussion. The President and Prime Minister had a very warm and positive meeting. They discussed these issues as well as others. Pakistani and U.S. officials, including myself, also had extensive meetings during the prime minister's stay in Washington. Pakistan is a long-time friend and its security and economic well-being are very important to us. For that reason the two leaders spent a great deal of time discussing Pakistan's efforts with the IMF to overcome its economic crisis. On security, tensions in the region need to be reduced. Movement toward resolution of the Kashmir dispute is an important part of that process. Since Pakistan's nuclear tests in May, we have held a series of high-level discussions about how to accommodate Pakistan's security concerns with the global non-proliferation regime. Direct contact between the President and Prime Minister Sharif has been a vital part of that effort. This latest meeting was a continuation of that process. I believe as a result of this visit the two sides understand each other's positions and views much better. The Prime Minister's visit has in our view helped set the stage for further progress in the months ahead. We will continue our dialogue on security and non-proliferation. I hope that Deputy Secretary Talbott will visit Pakistan for another round of talks early in the new year. And finally, on the issue of the F-16s, this is an issue that I am very pleased to say that President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif reached agreement on a process for resolving this long-standing dispute between our two countries. A detailed view of the accounts related to these aircraft is now underway by officials of our government. As Prime Minister Sharif said upon his arrival in Islamabad, we believe a resolution of this issue will be announced shortly. President Clinton is very gratified that this issue, which has complicated our relationship for several years, is now on its way to being resolved in a manner that is fair to Pakistan. Thank you. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Inderfurth. And again we are very pleased that you could join us for this important discussion. At this time I would like to invite our participants in Islamabad and Lahore to join our discussion, as well as welcome our audience in Karachi. We begin in Islamabad. Go ahead please with your first question or comment. Q: Mr. Inderfurth, you have mentioned the purpose of the visit of why the Prime Minister was invited. And it was also mentioned the achievements of the visit. But during the briefing soon after the meeting you remarked that we can't help him unless he helps himself. I mean, that was taken here as very tough talking -- I mean, tough language. What exactly did you mean by this remark? MR. INDERFURTH: Well, what I meant by that remark is very simple, that the steps that must be taken to move forward in our relationship are ones that both countries need to take. Let me think about or address the economic issues. Right now the United States and President Clinton has signaled support for the IMF package that is under consideration where there has been agreement and we hope will be implemented very soon, because we recognize that that economic situation in Pakistan needs immediately attention. At the same time there are steps Pakistan must take. The international community, the United States and others are coming to the assistance of Pakistan at this very important time, but there are steps that Pakistan must take. The economic situation there is one that will require strong leadership by the Prime Minister. A number of issues, including those associated with the independent power producers, the IPPs, those must be addressed by Pakistan. So when I said that one must help oneself, what I am referring there to is the steps that Pakistan and Pakistan's leaders must take to also be directly engaged in addressing those kinds of issues. So it is a process that we want to see as mutually reinforcing, the steps that Pakistan takes and that we take to be part of this process. MR. FOUCHEUX: And now I believe we have another question from Islamabad. Q: Mr. Inderfurth, there is a feeling in Pakistan that the U.S. is moving from one type of caution to another type of caution in dealing with Pakistan. First, for example, there were the legal parameters of the three sanction sisters -- i.e., Pressler, Glenn and Symington Amendments -- within which the bilateral relations of Pakistan and the U.S. languished. And now they are the diplomatic parameters of the five commandments that the U.S. has set for Pakistan to abide by. The bottom line in these two approaches -- we think this is -- are different -- but they don't seem different to us, sitting here in Islamabad. It seems to be that Pakistan should do this, this, this, or else -- question mark. Is that a very friendly way to deal with a country, is it? MR. INDERFURTH: Well, I -- I must in a friendly way dispute the notion that we are trying to coerce or put pressure or to issue the five commandments, as you put it. President Clinton made it very clear when the Prime Minister was here that he is -- and I will actually quote from him -- he said, "I worked very hard to put our relationship back on a normal -- a more normal path." The President said that as part of our dialogue on non-proliferation we have actually lifted a large number of the sanctions that were applied against Pakistan, in part to try to get the economic activity they are going against. He said that's part of what he has bene discussing with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was very forceful in expressing Pakistan's view on those sanctions that remain. And we have made it very clear in return that what we want to do is move as quickly as possible to a sanction-free relationship with Pakistan. We want to have the full relationship with Pakistan. We understand the strong views of the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people with respect to these sanctions. And we hope that again working together, concrete steps by both parties, that we can move toward, as I said, (to) a sanction-free relationship. That's the way that the President wants to head our relations, and that's the way we are going to work to achieve. MR. FOUCHEUX: And once again in Islamabad please go ahead with another question or comment. Q: (Inaudible.) There is a feeling in this country that the U.S. is playing a cat-and-mouse game with this country since about July. Without waiting for any initiative from Pakistan, the U.S. lifted -- rather produced its objection to a board meeting of the IMF. They meet very soon -- that is, probably in July itself. And since then we have been negotiating with the IMF, and it is now here we are in the middle of December. So far we have not been able to -- I mean, get approval from the bank -- or from the IMF -- and there has been no movement even in the Paris Club discussions, (while there is feeling ?). And we -- I mean, as of today apparently probably we are -- (inaudible) -- meet a number of debt obligations, but there seems to be no movement on the IMF package. MR. INDERFURTH: I -- in the same fashion as my earlier response I will respond in a friendly but very candid way. We are not playing a cat-and-mouse game with Pakistan. That is simply not the case at all. You don't play cat-and-mouse games with friends, and we are not doing that with Pakistan. The IMF is responsible for its negotiations with countries. It is not the United States that directs or dictates the IMF negotiations. We did, as you point out, in July send a signal to the IMF that we thought because of the economic situation in Pakistan that negotiations should resume. That was an important step taken. And quite frankly it was one that had been requested by the Pakistani government to say: we need the backing of the United States for this to go forward, despite the sanctions that were put into place after the nuclear test in May. We have that signal because we understand the very serious nature of the situation. Then as a result of what we think have been some important steps taken by the Pakistan government we were able to go further, and that is to support and to throw our full support behind an IMF package, which would include lending from the IFIs the World Bank as well as the Asian Development Bank. And we have encouraged the IMF to seek as rapid a conclusion to that package as possible given the economic situation in Pakistan. Now, we understand that the Paris Club is meeting. We understand that the IMF board will be meeting in early January. And we are supporting an early resolution of this. And when we were discussing these matters with the prime minister and the finance minister and the foreign minister here in Washington we let it be known that we want to see that package go as quickly as possible. There were discussions with Secretary Rubin, Deputy Secretary Summers of the Treasury Department. We were very pleased to hear assurances by all the Pakistani officials that we spoke to that the power producer -- the independent power producer issue -- is on its way to being resolved, because that's very important for future investor confidence in Pakistan for that issue to be resolved. So we are not playing a cat-and-mouse game; we are playing a game that is in support of getting that package done was quickly as possible. MR. FOUCHEUX: More questions for Assistant Secretary Inderfurth. Let's return once again to Islamabad. Please go ahead. Q: One understanding of the issues, as well as of many others who are sitting here, the Brownback Amendment, is it only meant to lift the Glenn Amendment sanctions, or does it only cover the Pressler and the Symington Amendment sanctions as well? And with that I ask you my second question as well. The U.N. Security Council resolution which is being used by the U.S. as a benchmark to lay down the rules that Pakistan has to abide by to get these sanctions fully lifted wants to see Pakistan as a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- that is the NPT. And since no country other than the five -- (inaudible) -- can become a member of the NPT as a nuclear weapon state, and it is also unlikely that the NPT will also be reopened for negotiations, do you think that the U.S. is actually asking Pakistan sometime in the future to roll back its nuclear program and become a member of the NPT? MR. INDERFURTH: Well, on the Brownback Amendment first, the Brownback Amendment applies to all existing sanctions -- meaning the Glenn Amendment, the Pressler Amendment, as well as Symington. However, it is only for economic activities, and it actually has a provision which allowed us to restore the important military education and training program, the so-called IMET program, with Pakistan, and we are looking forward to doing that. But it is largely focused on the economic elements of the relationship, not on the military or conventional military relationship that is there, and still under sanctions. So it is a partial authority, and it's limited to one year. So we will hope that in this period of time that we now have that we will be able to make further progress. And again our goal here is to move not just to further use of Brownback authority, which again is limited, but to move toward a sanction-free relationship. But that's why we have got some important work to do, both of us, in the months ahead. Now, on the issue of the NPT, yes it is our view that the NPT remains the, if you will, preeminent non-proliferation treaty in the international community today, and yes, we would like to see Pakistan a part of that. But it would be as a non-nuclear weapon state. That is clearly not the position of Pakistan. And so we see this as a long-term goal, a goal that we would like to keep open. But our immediate issue here -- because we understand the security concerns -- and I will tell you that in the discussions that Prime Minister Sharif has had with President Clinton, and that we have had with Pakistani officials, I think that we have a much better understanding and appreciation for the security calculations of Pakistan today. You know, the president had five conversations with the Prime Minister in May after India tested nuclear weapons. And then Pakistan followed. But there were five discussions, and there was a very full exploration with the President of Pakistan's security needs. So although we were disappointed that Pakistan felt it necessary to go ahead with nuclear tests in May, the discussion that we have had both in that context as well as with Deputy Secretary Talbott, and discussions that he has had with Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed (sp) and others -- all of that has given us I think an appreciation and a better understanding of the security needs of Pakistan today. So what we are looking at at this point are steps in the near term that we believe could enhance Pakistan's security, including on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The fact is that Pakistan has announced a unilateral moratorium on any further nuclear testing. So has India. We believe that should be made more formal, and the CTBT is a way to do that. But again it is -- in our view it is in Pakistan's security interests to see no more nuclear testing by any state, whether it be India, China, the United States, Russia -- any of the states that have tested nuclear weapons. So we do see NPT as a long-term goal, but we are also being realistic in terms of taking into account Pakistan's security requirements and hoping that Pakistan can take some near-term steps that would address our concerns and the international community's concerns. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Islamabad. We move on now to Lahore. Lahore, please go ahead with your first question or comment. Q: Good evening, Mr. Inderfurth. Because of some technical problems in Lahore we couldn't hear your opening statement, and therefore we have missed that. So if I repeat something you have said, please overlook that. My introduction is that I teach political science at the Department of Political Science at -- (inaudible) -- University. My question is that could you identify for us one issue which U.S. and Pakistan governments have most differences and one issue on which there is a unanimity of views in the recently concluded talks between the leaders of the two governments? MR. INDERFURTH: Well, the issues on which I think we have similar views quite frankly I think outweigh those where we have differences. And those similarities relate to our view and Pakistan's view. We are looking for a stable, prosperous, democratic Pakistan, and I think that is our overriding objective. I know that is the desire of the government of Pakistan and the prime minister, as well as the chief minister of Punjab, Chief Minister Sharif. These are issues where there is a common direction that we are going, and I think all of our actions are designed to move us in that direction. Stability, prosperity, democracy are things where we have a common ground. We also I think have a common view of the direction that we want to take on issues such as narcotics control, something that is an issue that is increasingly important in the international community and that Pakistan is facing because of the narcotics situation there and the spillover if you will from Afghanistan and the rest. We are working closely on that issue. We have I think many common areas of interest with respect to security and non-proliferation. I think that Pakistan does not want to see an arms race in the region. Pakistan does not want to see a nuclear or missile race in the region, and those are things that are very important to us as well and very much a part of our non-proliferation agenda worldwide. So I don't want to go into the areas where we have disagreements, because I think quite frankly in the fight against international terrorism, narcotics, non-proliferation concerns I think that we have more similarities and we are working through many difficult issues. But you know there was an interesting editorial -- because I have been reading the newspaper accounts and the editorials in the Pakistani press following Prime Minister Sharif's visit. I have been reading those with great interest. There have been several editorials in the American press about that visit. And I'm reading one from the Christian Science Monitor where it says, "The United States and Pakistan have plenty to talk about. Hence, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit to Washington had value, even if some tough agenda items remain unresolved." Well, we strongly concur with that. The visit had great value in our view, even if some tough agenda items remain unresolved. So we are going to continue working on those tough agenda items. But again I think that we have far many more common interests than we have differences between us. MR. FOUCHEUX: And we remain in Lahore for another question. Please go ahead once again in Lahore. Q: (Off mike) -- Cold War, and we don't want to have an armament race in South Asia. The reality and the facts are that the Cold War continues after 1990 where globally it has ended, and the arms race is also on. India has gone ahead with developing its missile technology. And if you have read yesterday's statement, India also takes a position that it will sell its missile technology. We haven't heard any response from Washington on that count. MR. INDERFURTH: Well, I have seen some of the reports that you have mentioned. It is very important that the technologies relating t nuclear or missile technologies, that there be controls on those in both countries. I think that you are aware that recently there was a U.S. technical team that was in Islamabad to discuss export controls with the government of Pakistan and the experts that are dealing with this. The team had also traveled to New Delhi. We have received very happy firm assurance from the government of Pakistan and from the prime minister and all officials that Pakistan will work with us to see a more comprehensive, indeed stringent export control regime established, and we are having very good discussions in that respect. This is a matter of concern not only to the United States but an international concern, and we are very pleased that Pakistan is working on this issue. Prime Minister Sharif mentioned this in his comments at the General Assembly in September, and this is an important step forward. We know the strong view of Pakistan on this issue, and we want to work with Pakistan on it. India has provided the same assurances on the question of export controls. They already have national legislation relating to this, and our technical team is going to be providing additional information to New Delhi on that subject, as well as having further discussions in both capitals. The reports that I think you are referring to about missile technology -- we will be raising those with the Indian government. I think that the references were to short-range missiles. Some of these missiles -- it gets very technical because the MTCR regime, the Missile Technology Control Regime, has various categories of missiles and technology that are controlled, and some are not controlled. The so-called category one missiles are controlled, others are not. So we need to just explore with the Indian government. But this is being done in a very public and transparent way, and I think that we will be able to resolve those issues. MR. FOUCHEUX: Once more in Lahore please go ahead once again with questions for Assistant Secretary Inderfurth. Q: Mr. Inderfurth, this is -- (inaudible) -- I am the news editor with the -- (inaudible). My question is basically a continuation of the previous question. Before that I'll give a preamble to it, quoting from your own statement, which was a briefing on December 3 wherein regarding the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC and TDA authorities you said, and I quote, "That we need to be able to make further progress to provide further assistance. That will require additional steps by Pakistan to address non-proliferation and security issues," unquote. Now, I think as far as the Missile Technology Control Regime is concerned on that perhaps there is not much difference between the U.S. and the Pakistani perception. And perhaps this really relates to the question of fissile material cut-off treaty, wherein the U.S. wants Pakistan to immediately stop the fissile production, and secondly, as far as the development or deployment of nuclear missiles are concerned. And both these things, as far as Pakistan is concerned, relate to how India looks at the issue. Would you agree with me on this, coming to a discussion with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif? MR. INDERFURTH: I would agree with you. The fact is that as I have said -- in the statement that you read, and as we reiterated during the prime minister's visit -- we would like to see further steps taken by Pakistan on the security and non-proliferation agenda. But we recognize that many of these steps -- many of these steps will also be tied to those steps that India will be taking. And I think the two that fall most directly into that category relate to what we call the strategic restraint regime, which goes into the question of development -- further development and deployment of nuclear weapons, which is something that clearly Pakistan must have some understanding of what India intends to do in this regard. And the second is on fissile material production. Yes, we would like to see a moratorium on the further production of fissile material while the negotiations take place in Geneva, but we are not asking for a unilateral moratorium -- that is not what we are asking. We are asking that in combination with all of those states -- all of those states that have tested nuclear weapons, including India, that Pakistan consider the possibility of joining a multilateral moratorium on the production of further fissile material. That's what we are looking at. Now, again Pakistan must take into account its security requirements, it must take into account what it believes that India will be doing. So we are pressing India very hard to consider this as well. The fact is that Pakistan does not need -- and we have been assured that Pakistan does not want to engage in a nuclear or a missile arms race in South Asia. So what we are trying to do and what we are trying to suggest is that there are steps that can be taken, like no more nuclear testing, like no more production of fissile material, like not deploying these missiles, nuclear weapons -- stopping at that threshold -- without crossing that threshold. But again these are steps that would have to be taken with India as well. So we hope that in the next round of discussions that take place on peace and security issues with the Indians in New Delhi in February, which will also include Kashmir, which we consider very important for that dialogue, we hope that in that connection the two countries will begin to move toward a mutual restraint regime, and we will be very supporting of that. MR. FOUCHEUX: Once more in Lahore; let's have another question or comment for Assistant Secretary Inderfurth. Please go ahead again in Lahore. Q: Mr. Inderfurth, this is -- (inaudible) -- again. The point is it appears that the U.S. is putting more pressure on Pakistan, because if you say that Pakistan -- that this is one -- (inaudible) -- security needs of Pakistan to keep an eye on what India is doing -- then given the fact that Pakistan economically is weak, and you already have lifted some of the sanctions, but nothing concrete is coming out of it. So it seems that you want Pakistan to take a unilateral measure to stop the production of fissile material, even if India does not -- (inaudible). MR. INDERFURTH: Again, we are not asking Pakistan to take a unilateral decision. I wish we could just take that word off the table, because we recognize that what Pakistan does in these two very critical areas of fissile material production, as well as the further development and deployment of missile and nuclear capabilities, that these would have to be done with an understanding of the steps that India will be taking. And that's why we are encouraging that dialogue to go forward. But in terms of concrete steps that the United States has taken, our support for the IMF package is I think as important as any that we can take at this step, at this stage. We are also looking, because of the lifting of the economic restrictions governing Ex-Im financing, OPIC, TDA -- we are looking to see what can be done to begin to get our economic relationship back on track. And as the Pakistani economy starts to move forward, as investor confidence begins to return -- again, resolution of the IPP issue I think will help investor confidence -- then we can start moving forward in getting our economic relations going in the direction that we had long hoped that they would. So there are concrete steps that we want to take. Again, this is what I call a mutually reinforcing process, that working together we can establish the kind of long-term relationship that I think both the leaders want, as expressed in the joint statement that came out of the Washington meeting. MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you, Lahore. We return now to Islamabad. Islamabad, please go ahead once again. Q: There is this feeling in this country, Mr. Karl Inderfurth, that it was not legitimate on the part of the U.S. to ask the prime minister of Pakistan to help in arresting Osama bin Laden, who has taken sanctuary in a sovereign country, neighboring country. Would you like to comment on that? MR. INDERFURTH: I certainly would like to comment on that. The question of what we asked the prime minister to do I think has gotten a little confused in the reporting. President Clinton made it very clear that international terrorism is one of the highest parts of our concerns around the world, and Americans very regrettably are targets around the world for international terrorists. Right now the priority that we have is to see Mr. Osama bin Laden brought to justice. He has been indicted in the United States. We believe that he is responsible for the killing of American citizens and others in those bombings in East Africa. He is now in Afghanistan, and he is being provided safe haven by the Taliban. We are trying very hard to persuade and encourage the Taliban to see bin Laden expelled and brought to justice. Now, it is in that connection that the president expressed his views to the prime minister, and he simply requested for any assistance the prime minister can offer in seeing that be done. There was no pressure brought to bear. There was a discussion of terrorism -- its effects on us and others -- and all countries around the world are potentially at risk from these activities. And so therefore he raised this concern with the prime minister, and asked the prime minister to use whatever influence he could to see this man brought to justice. So it is in that connection that the issue was raised, and the prime minister made it very clear that he is opposed to all forms of terrorism around the world, and he took that message back home. MR. FOUCHEUX: We remain in Islamabad. Please go ahead with another question. I beg your pardon -- Lahore -- we are in Lahore now. Please go ahead in Lahore once again. Q: Mr. Inderfurth, this is -- (inaudible) -- again. You said that American policy towards Pakistan is that you wish to see Pakistan as a stable, prosperous and democratic Pakistan. But we also know it for a fact that we are passing through a very critical economic phase in our history. And if that is the American perspective on Pakistan, what concrete steps do you think the American government would undertake to help Pakistan come out of this economic crisis. And if I may also supplement this by saying that what is the American vision of Central Asia and how Pakistan fits into that. Thank you. MR. INDERFURTH: Well, the steps -- I think the immediate steps in terms of a stable, prosperous Pakistan, I think very much relate to the current economic situation, and I think there we have discussed the IMF package as being the immediate requirement, and one that we are strongly support, including lending from the MDBs, the multinational lending organizations, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. As you know that has not been well received because of the sanctions issue. From India they have seen a policy of differentiation. We have said that we do not agree that this is a policy of differentiation, because this is aimed at a particular economic emergency, and there was never an intention or desire on the part of the United States or any of the governments to see Pakistan and its economy collapse as a result of these measures. So that is the first step. But that is only getting us through this difficult immediate period. What we do want to do is see the kind of economic relationship that our two countries should have and have not had for a variety of reasons. Steps can be taken by the government of Pakistan on further economic reform, further liberalizing the economy, further measures to ensure investor confidence -- these are steps that Pakistan can take. And we discussed that with the Finance Minister, Mr. Dar, as well as others. Those steps will allow us and our business community to become more involved over time. And again the lifting of the sanctions on Ex-Im and OPIC and TDA are measures that will facilitate that growing economic relationship. So these are steps -- and I also believe that an important part of this is not only as you pointed out in terms of the future -- that Pakistan's critical location in the world -- both in terms of South Asia as well as Central Asia -- we think opens up great opportunities for Pakistan's economic development and prosperity over time. We would like to see for instance the conflict in Afghanistan resolved. We'd like to see a broad-based multi-ethnic government established so that Afghanistan can begin -- will be an important economic reconstruction and there. And if Afghanistan is able to do that and begin to have the benefits of stability, peace and a government that is broad based, then you would start to see pipelines coming through Afghanistan into Pakistan, further economic benefits coming from that, to allow Pakistan to be at the crossroads again of trade and commerce in the region, both for South Asia and Central Asia. So we do see an important future for Pakistan in that regard. But again the immediate issue is to overcome this current economic situation where we will do what we can to be of assistance in that regard. MR. FOUCHEUX: And now we return to Islamabad. Please go ahead once again in Islamabad. Q: Secretary Inderfurth, I am making a great sacrifice by postponing my question for a question that has come from the audience, because we are pressed for time here. This is regarding the Kashmir. The question the gentleman has asked is that there is a feeling in Pakistan that the U.S. has moved away from its established position on the Kashmir issue, because initially the U.S. officials at least used to condemn the Indian atrocities in occupied Kashmir. But this time round there was not a single word expressed on that. Would you like to comment on that? MR. INDERFURTH: Well, we have not changed our position on Kashmir, number one. Number two, of course we condemn any atrocities that take place with respect to Kashmir and cross-border activities. These must stop. The murders of innocent people cannot go ahead, and it is a great tragedy that these things do continue. I would like to refer to what President Clinton said on Kashmir during the visit of the prime minister. He was asked whether or not the United States could offer its assistance in a fashion as a mediator's role. He said -- and I'm going to quote -- he says, I've enjoyed my opportunities to work with the parties in places like the Middle East and in Northern Ireland. But he said it only works when both parties wish the United States to be involved. Otherwise we can't be effective about it. We do know the views of the Pakistani government on this. We understand those views. And of course the Indian government has made its views very known that it will not accept any mediator, third-party mediation, in this effort. We will continue to do what we can to encourage the process that is under way between India and Pakistan now to discuss Kashmir. We believe this is an issue of fundamental importance. As the president said -- and I want to quote him again on this -- he said, "If the dispute over Kashmir were resolved between India and Pakistan, and they were able to focus on a positive future," he said, "I think the potential for increased activity among ordinary citizens and increased global influence they'd both have is virtually unlimited." He said, "There is no place on earth with a greater potential for development in the next 30 years than South Asia." He said no place. We do believe that Kashmir is of fundamental importance that must be addressed by the two countries. We will do what we can. And certainly if requested by both parties, as President Clinton and the United States have been by others in areas of conflict, we will do all we can. So there has been no change in our policy. The president and the prime minister discussed this matter at length. The prime minister made his views clearly known, and I think that they are recorded in the joint statement. The prime minister discussed this, as I said, at great length with the president. I think that the president better understands the views of Pakistan on this issue. We want to be helpful, and we will be as supportive as we can, and we do hope that this issue is moving toward some resolution for the future. MR. FOUCHEUX: Our time is quickly running down, so we'll go back to Lahore for one final question. I'll ask the questioner and the assistant secretary to please be brief. Please go ahead once again in Lahore. Q: Mr. Inderfurth, this is -- (inaudible) -- again. Is there any proposal so far since the United States has been engaging India and Pakistan separately and bilaterally on the nuclear issue? Would it be possible for the U.S. to have some kind of tripartite arrangement so that fears in Pakistan could be put to rest that perhaps India could extract a better quid pro quo from the United States, or perhaps the United States will bring more pressure to bear on Pakistan to do certain things unilaterally before India does them? MR. INDERFURTH: Well, you know, once again I hear the expression about more pressure to bear, and I've heard about the five commandments, and I've heard about coercion. I really do hope that at some point in one of these broadcasts and in the questioning that we have that the focus is not on the pressure being brought to bear by the United States. We really are working I think very constructively with the government of Pakistan. We are friends. We've had a long-standing relationship. It is not our desire to dictate, to pressure, to lecture. It is our desire to work together with Pakistan to resolve these very important issues. We think that the approach that we are taking to have the discussions with the government of Pakistan, as well as the government of India, is the best one, the most productive one at this stage. We also believe the continuing high level contact between the leaders of our two countries is important, which is precisely why the President wanted to continue his consultations with Prime Minister Sharif. I think we are going to continue on that path, and we do hope that, most importantly, that Pakistan and India will continue their discussions which will resume in February, and we hope that those will be positive and we will be on the -- we will be watching this very closely and applauding any and all effort to bring these countries into a more normal relationship, one that will unlock the potential for both countries and for the region. MR. FOUCHEUX: I'm afraid that's all the time we have for today's program. But I'd like to thank our guest, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Karl Inderfurth. Thank you very much. MR. INDERFURTH: Thank you very much. MR. FOUCHEUX: We hope to have you back again sometime soon. MR. INDERFURTH: I look forward to it. MR. FOUCHEUX: I'd also like to thank our participants in Islamabad and Lahore, as well as our audience in Karachi, for their part in this most important discussion. For Worldnet's "Dialogue," I'm Rick Foucheux. Good day. (End transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
