ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

None of us wants to mediate in Kashmir, says US

The Clinton administration has made it clear that there is no desire on the part of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council or the US government to mediate in the 50-year-old Kashmir dispute, thus setting at rest doubts raised on this count in India.

Talking to reporters in Washington yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs Karl F Inderfurth, however, said, ''We cannot wish Kashmir away. What we do wish is for India and Pakistan to address it (the Kashmir problem) directly and resolve it. The international community stands ready to assist in that effort.''

''We are absolutely convinced that the time is now for India and Pakistan to meet, to discuss, to resume the dialogue and to address the fundamental issue that had divided the two countries for 50 years,'' he added.

Inderfurth made those observations while explaining the resolution adopted at the P-5 meeting in Geneva on June 4, which, inter alia, said the foreign ministers, who participated in the deliberations, would ''actively encourage India and Pakistan to find mutually acceptable solutions, through direct dialogue, that address the root causes of the tension, including Kashmir, and to try to build confidence rather than seek confrontation.''

Though the P-5 formulation, emphasising direct talks on Kashmir, is in keeping with India's known policy, according to observers, the attempt at raising the issue at every available international forum does mount a kind of pressure on New Delhi. Kashmir has so far figured at the summit of the Group of Eight industrial nations, meeting of the P-5 in Geneva and the full Security Council meeting in New York last week.

Inderfurth disagreed with an Indian journalist who spoke of an apparent ''pro-Pakistan tilt'' in the Clinton administration after India's nuclear tests on May 11 and 13.

He also denied the allegation that the US had adopted the language of the Nawaz Sharief government on Kashmir.

He said, ''We are not adopting Pakistan's language. We are simply recognising an international fact of life. It has been recognised for a very long time that Kashmir is a fundamental dispute between the two countries and it is absolutely essential, now that nuclear weapons had been added to this very volatile mix, that the two countries direct themselves to resolve this dispute as quickly as they can,'' he added.

''That is all we are saying," he said, adding, ''We are not adopting any one country's position or language. And, there was no tilt here.''

Inderfurth said President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other officials wanted to see both countries move in a more responsible direction away from their reliance on nuclear weapons for security and addressing the fundamental problems of society that concern economic well-being.

Besides encouraging India and Pakistan to take steps to resolve the Kashmir issue, the other long term objectives that the US had envisaged included signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, joining the negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, accepting International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards for all their nuclear facilities, agreeing not to deploy or test missile systems and maintaining existing restraint on sharing missile technology.

He applauded the restraint that the two countries had shown in terms of sharing and exporting these various dangerous technologies. ''We would like to see these restraints formalised in an appropriate fashion,'' he added.

Inderfurth also said the Clinton administration wanted a very high-level of engagement with India and Pakistan. ''We seek to persuade and convince India of what the international community wants them to do and they should do in consistent with their legitimate security needs.''

He said, ''We are fully cognisant and aware that their decision (to test nuclear devices) had been driven by their own analyses of their national security requirements. We respectfully disagree with the outcome of that decision-making process that testing was the way to enhance the security of either country. We think it was just the opposite. It is a diversion of resources and abilities from more productive areas.''

He said Congress would require ''very firm and concrete'' steps by India and Pakistan before considering lifting of sanctions. ''I think we have a long-term challenge confronting us,'' he added.

Inderfurth said the US had an interest in keeping its lines open to India and Pakistan even after their nuclear tests.

He recalled Albright having said that the US did not wish to isolate India and Pakistan. ''We do expect to have meetings with high-level Indians and Pakistanis,'' he said.

Asked to confirm the proposed meeting between Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Jaswant Singh and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott in Washington on Friday, he said he did not have its details at this time.

When asked about the importance that the Clinton administration had of late been giving to China, he said the US was not giving China a role in the subcontinent. ''However, we do believe that China will be key to addressing the security concerns of the subcontinent.''

''Leaving aside some exaggerated, unhelpful comments by some Indian officials, we are fully aware that India's security interest must be addressed. We believe that there had been a growing improvement in Sino-Indian relations going back to President Jiang Zemin's visit, the visit of the Chinese chief of staff,'' he added.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report