|
October
19, 2001
|
|
Enduring
interests in the war against terrorism
|
The
self-reliance mantra
PRIME
MINISTER Atal Bihari Vajpayee recently admitted that there is some
disappointment in India that the US is not as sensitive to Indian
concerns on terrorism as we had expected. I was told by senior members
of the US establishment over the last three weeks that the US is
also disappointed about India not appreciating the extent to which
the US campaign against terrorism is safeguarding Indian security
concerns. It is in this context of mutual disappointments that US
Secretary of State Colin Powell held discussions in New Delhi on
October 16 and 17.
|
|
To
expect the US to designate Pakistan
as a terrorism-sponsoring state when it is a participant in
their campaign against
terrorism is impractical
|
|
It
rankles public opinion in India that the US chose Pakistan over
India as an active partner in its campaign against international
terrorism, despite India offering unconditional support to the US.
Indeed, the US has supported Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir against
Indian interests. It seems the US is not interested in acting against
terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. It is only concerned with terrorism
directed against itself and its allies in Western Europe and Japan.
Also, that the restoration of economic and military assistance in
return for its support will strengthen Pakistan’s position. This
is bound to adversely affect Indian security interests resulting
in an arms race in the subcontinent.
Powell’s
statement that Kashmir is ‘‘a central issue’’ in Indo-Pak relations
has been objected to by India. India asserted that it is cross-border
terrorism and not Kashmir which is the central issue. These disappointments
were conveyed to Powell during his discussions with our political
leaders. Powell’s responses were based on the following assumptions:
First,
there is a genuine appreciation of the sympathy and support extended
by India to the US. Second, Pakistan has been made a partner in
the coalition due to substantive geo-strategic and operational reasons.
Third, the cooperation between Pakistan and the US is not going
to erode Indo-US relations in any manner. Fourth, although unstated,
the US co-opted Pakistan into its anti-terrorist coalition (specially
in operational terms) under some pre-conditions. These have resulted
in Musharraf dissociating his government from the extremist Taliban
factions in Afghanistan and from Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda
movement.
Musharraf
has also been persuaded to arrest fundamentalist leaders like Fazlur
Rehman and take restrictive action against extremist parties and
political groups in Pakistan. Musharraf has transferred or removed
seven out of 11 senior army commanders, who opposed his support
to the US. Of them, General Aziz and the ISI chief, General Mehmood
Ahmad, were active in fomenting terrorism in Kashmir.
Powell,
while stating that Kashmir is central to normalising Indo-Pakistan
relations in Islamabad, had also mentioned that the terrorist bombing
of the J&K Assembly was wrong and unacceptable. He also emphasised
that a solution to the Kashmir issue has to be achieved by bilateral
negotiations between India and Pakistan.
In
earlier official statements, the US government had stressed that
while these negotiations take place, the existing Line of Control
and boundaries should be respected by all concerned.
The
US has frozen the assets of not just the Al-Qaeda movement and other
foreign organisations linked with it in Europe and elsewhere, but
also those of the extremist Islamic groups located in Pakistan.
The
US has repeatedly emphasised that the campaign against terrorism
will be long drawn out and will target all categories of international
terrorism.
The
US military campaign in Afghanistan leading to the elimination of
terrorist training camps and arms stockpiles there may significantly
reduce the capacities of terrorists originating in Afghanistan and
Pakistan to operate against India.
The
US and India have signed an agreement during Powell’s visit to counter
international terrorist activities, with legal and juridical provisions
which consolidates the existing institutional consultative arrangements
to counter terrorism.
The
US government is not intending to tilt towards Pakistan to the detriment
of Indo-US relations.
Musharraf’s
government could be persuaded to adopt a more rational and practical
approach towards India in the momentum of Pakistani policies supporting
the US against terrorism, even if this phenomenon emerges under
pressure and with reservations. This may be conducive to the beginning
of a gradual exercise of resuming substantive Indo-Pakistan dialogue.
The
US government feels that the Indian media and public opinion are
not taking sufficient cognisance of these positive trends which
is the best that the US can do for India at this stage within the
framework of its own national interests. To expect the US to designate
Pakistan as a terrorism-sponsoring state when Pakistan is an active
participant in their campaign against terrorism is impractical.
A
government under the leadership of the Northern Alliance cannot
be stable in Afghanistan because it consists mainly of Uzbeks, Tajhiks
and some Hazaras. All the three are minority communities in Afghanistan,
compared to the combined demographic size of the Pathans or the
Pushtoons. Any new government in Afghanistan would have to have
large-scale representation of various segments of the Pushtoon tribes.
Given
the recent confrontation between the Pushtoons and non-Pushtoons
in Afghanistan, creating a coalition of representatives of all the
constituent ethnic groups would be a delicate exercise. The Musharraf
government may also resort to diverting extremist Islamic resentment
towards India from their present focus against the Pakistan government,
a situation pregnant with negative security implications for India.
During
Powell’s visit to Islamabad, Pakistan demanded the full restoration
of multi-faceted relations between the US and Pakistan and withdrawal
of sanctions against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and missile capacities.
Also, that the US should not include the violence occurring in Kashmir
within the ambit of its anti-terrorist campaign and should put pressure
on India to compromise on the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. Powell’s
reported response was positive on the first, second and fourth demands
with some riders which respect Indian concerns and sensitivities.
The
central message for India in these developments is two-fold: First,
that we should not predicate our policies taking the US or Pakistani
policies for granted. These would be focussed on their respective
national interests. Second, that India would have to be primarily
self-reliant in resolving its problems related to terrorism and
in managing its security environment.
|