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

The Rediff Interview/Richard N Haass

'Given Indo-Pak interests in Kashmir, there is no military solution'

Richard N Haass, is director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute, a Washington-based think-tank. He has also worked on a paper, After the Tests: US Policy Towards India and Pakistan. In New Delhi to discuss his paper, the former Bush administration national security official took time off to speak to Senior Assistant Editor Amberish K Diwanji.

Let us start with Indo-Pak relations. Kashmir seems to be a stumbling block to normalisation of relations between the two countries, and both have widely divergent views on the subject. So what is the way out?

A compromise is the way out: there has to be progress on both fronts simultaneously. You have to talk on Kashmir and continue with confidence building measures. However, it must be pointed out that it is impossible to improve Indo-Pak relations in the absence of progress on Kashmir. And progress over Kashmir might pave the way to improve the overall relations, and vice versa, at least to a certain degree.

Given the emotions attached to Kashmir, do you see much progress?

Kashmir is like Jerusalem in the Middle East, extremely controversial, and that should tell us to move extremely slowly on the issue. It is a very difficult topic, but I do see India and Pakistan moving towards some agreement. I am encouraged by the decision of India and Pakistan to discuss the matter when the two prime ministers met in New York.

There is considerable speculation that India might sign the CTBT. When do you see that happening?

I expect that India will sign the CTBT in a year's time. There appears to be considerable domestic support for it now that India has conducted its nuclear tests. But it is unlikely that India will sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Does the West believe that the nuclear tests occurred only because of the new government?

Well, the change in government did matter, but one has to see it in the entire context. First, it was the Congress party that started the nuclear programme decades ago, and conducted the first tests. Moreover, every government over the years, regardless of ideology, has supported the nuclear weapons programme. And we now know that some of the others were on the verge of testing. Then there is the security concerns -- China and Pakistan -- which were not properly addressed by the West. So it was a mixture of politics and security that finally led to the tests.

Now that you mention it, for many Indians, one good thing about the tests was that it got the US to notice India and her security requirements. We strongly feel that the US ignores our country.

I agree, but the tests made India important in a very negative way. If today India still does not matter as much as some other countries, it is because economically it is not so important to US interests. If India opens up its economy more, increases trade and allows investments, and is more willing to work along with the US, then it will matter much more.

It is for India to really decide how it wants to become important: whether it wants to be a partner of the US or whether it wants to keep a distance. The choice is for the Indians to make. But India has the potential to become a partner only if it opens up its economy and works together on various issues. India is then likely to get more of a hearing in Washington, otherwise it will be very difficult.

Indo-US relations are never developed. We hardly meet, hardly talk, and Indian concerns did not register in the US because it was not clear that heeding Indian concerns would benefit the US. However, I now expect that to change.

Indians still feel that US is insensitive to India. For instance, the US bombs terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, but insists that India cannot do the same across its borders with Pakistan. Why this hypocrisy?

Every situation is different, even for the US. If we have used Cruise missile in one instance, it does not mean that we will do the same in another. Similarly, it is not the right answer for every nation. The US also uses methods of diplomacy, economic sanctions to resolve its disputes. Every government must decide for itself what is the best method, and again, what might work for the US will not work for India. For instance, the US is very careful how it deals with Mexico.

In the Indo-Pak case concerning Kashmir and terrorism, one has to see what is the best approach, and we feel that the military is not the best one. I am not suggesting that we turn a blind eye to Pakistan, but given the Indo-Pak interests in Kashmir, there is no military solution. I suggest that given India's frustrations with Pakistan, you have to consider the full range of options in dealing with the situation.

Is this because Kashmir remains a flashpoint for an Indo-Pak war?

Yes.

Given Pakistan's precarious economic situation, is there a real risk of Islamabad selling off its nuclear weapons or technology?

It does not yet seem a possibility. Pakistan is not yet bankrupt, and there is little possibility of it transferring technology right away. But it is still one reason why I am arguing against economic sanctions. As of yet, it has not yet happened.

Pakistan acquired nuclear arms because of its dispute with India. But is there not a risk that tomorrow Iran will want nuclear arms if its relations with Pakistan due to the Afghanistan crisis deteriorate?

Each country arms for a different set of reasons for going nuclear. Iran does not face any immediate threat from Pakistan despite the problems with Afghanistan. In fact, I would say that Iran remains more worried about Iraq and Israel, and their reactions if it were to go nuclear.

Yet, with such fears of proliferation, is this not a reason for complete disarmament?

Well, there have been major steps towards disarmament. The United States and Russia are abiding by START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), though the Russian Duma still has to ratify it. But I believe soon there will be START 3 and 4. I am not naively suggesting a completely disarmed world yet, but it is a world with far less arms. What is more, the arms will lessen as the present crop of nuclear weapons grow obsolete and there seems to be little money to buy more.

So over the next generation or two, we may end up not with a completely non-nuclear world, but with a much less nuclear world.

The Rediff Interviews