People Here Look At The World A Bit Differently

He has stood out, though, for his ability to communicate comfortably with the man on the street as easily as with the upper crust, his workaholic ways that have often left his staff breathless and his sensitivity to Indian culture and concerns. He spoke to David Devadas on a range of political and strategic issues. Excerpts.

Q: Since the leak in the Washington Times (on Indias placement of Prithvi missiles) took place on the eve of India-Pakistan talks, there has been a feeling in India that at least a section of the US establishment, of policy makers do not want Indo-Pakistan detente. How large is this section? Is there a section at all?

 

A: There is no section like that. None at all. There may be a section that feels that one side or the other is not doing enough about nuclear non-proliferation but Indo-Pak detente is the right kind of intermediate objective, not full-scale agreement. Get detente, you can move down the road but I genuinely believe, I know for a fact, there is no one who would depart from the view.

Now, for many years, my Indian inquirers, mainly in the press, voiced extreme sensitivity of the notion of the United States expressing views, having policies, being active. I have even noticed those people say, why does the American ambassador go to Kashmir. Im not going to deal with that. I think its a rather trivial observation. When you will begin to be observant of any foreign activism, including American, is when there is a vacuum. Fill a vacuum with good policies, you take over the stage. And thats what youre seeing now.

The secretary of state has been very clear. She has welcomed the Indo-Pak dialogue, she is delighted these two foreign secretaries are meeting, she is pleased at the direction these two governments are taking, she is delighted with Mr Gujrals quote, doctrine. And thats American policy and not a leak.

Q: Do you think that Kashmir is solvable in the near future, in these talks?

A: I dont think that I should answer that. I think you will discover how solvable an issue like Kashmir is by getting into a dialogue. And our hope is India and Pakistan will address all issues. There is no back-burner, no front-burner. All the gas points on the stove are sort of on parallel. All the dishes will cook. Some dishes may get cooked more quickly than others but all dishes are moving in parallel. I wouldnt set time limits.

Q: So would it be correct to say, that over the past few years, the US is gradually taking a more hands-off attitude towards Kashmir and towards Indias political problems in general?

A: I disagree completely, in the sense that the United States had a hands-on in the kind of busy, malignant manner. Our policy has been straight-forward throughout. This is for India and Pakistan to do and, while youre doing it, keep an eye on the people who live in that territory and take their point of view into account and dont just proceed on willy-nilly. I never thought that was a malignant point of view, I think it is the right American policy. I dont think we ever deviated from it one iota.

Q: If Mr Gujrals initiatives do work out and Saarc becomes a much more integrated economic and political actor, do you see South Asia as becoming a more integrated counter-point to China?

A: Well, my view is one does not go around creating counter-points. First and foremost, to develop Saarc is to address problems in this region, to make this region more progressive, a part of world where problems are being solved, so that the great nations, with the wisdom they have in this part of the world, can get on and help solve some other problems that are more global in nature. Now Saarc can do things for its people, it can set its member states to be world actors.

Inasmuch as the region is calm and working out its problems, it strengthens the position of any one of its members, India included to deal with any other aspect of national interest or foreign policy. As India looks at Asia, you are looking at a number of great nations that are going to make a difference in maintaining balance, in maintaining that very subtle balance that keeps the peace. Youre looking at the United States in the western Pacific, youre looking at Japan in North Asia, youre looking at China, a great continental landmass, another continental landmass of power is Russia, youre looking at India, youre looking at that cluster called Asean. Maybe one day therell be another powerful force out there, maybe, Korea. If everyone is respectful of the other, then peace will be maintained. Thats the way I would describe it, not checkmate, point-counterpoint. It implies an aggressive instinct that I think is inappropriate and will cause negative reactions.

Q: Does the US see Afghanistan as a potential problem area that could lead to problems for this entire region?

A: Absolutely. The failure of Afghanistan to find peace is spawning all sorts of dreadful difficulties. The sense of instability in the states in Afghanistans periphery, terrorism, drugs, hundreds of thousands of people stuck in refugee status. There is not a constructive export coming out of Afghanistan today, only destructive ones.

Q: There is a perception that the US has allowed the Taliban, has allowed Pakistan to take control, in order to check Iran. Is this a correct perception?

A: A highly regimented theocracy in which women are relegated to subordinate ways of life is hardly an American choice. If that regime then allows terrorism to be fostered and extended beyond its border, thats a further problem. So, the notion that there is an identity of views between the United States and Taliban is grossly overdrawn. I also would question that the United Nation can sort of say that we allow a nation to do something with another nation, the world doesnt work that way.

Afghanistans still out there to be resolved. Our view is that no one has shown the real instinct to be able to make serious peace in Afghanistan all by himself or herself, by that movements own capabilities, not Taliban, not any others. You need a greater degree of national consensus. And thats what weve been working for, arguing for, not for Taliban.

We have our own policies towards Iran. We will conduct those policies. But our Afghanistan policy has got its hands filled trying to get peace, trying to deal with drugs, terrorism, refugees and the rest.

Q: Is CTBT now the major issue for the nuclear powers as far as India is concerned? And now that FMCT (fissile materials control treaty) is coming to the drawing board, do you see a resolution of Indias concerns? Do you appreciate the Indian concerns?

A: If your definition of Indias concerns are that India wishes to see an end of the nuclear age, then I would say that that point of view is shared rather broadly. Its certainly the case in my country. We believe that the only way you can get there is to do it step by step. Thats how we think you get to a point where the world is comfortable with the fact that the nuclear genie has been contained before it can be eliminated.

Can we find common ground with India? I think we can, but I think its going to take some more talking, some more thinking together. Were in effect saying lets all just go for stability before we go for the end game. And I think thats a very important signal the United States has sent.

Q: Entry into force of CTBT is Indias immediate concern.

A: A couple of years after the treaty was signed, parties are going to have to come together, review, see how far the world has come. I hope India will keep her options open, look at her choices, look at it with a fresh eye.

Q: Do you think that, if India, Pakistan and Israel were to be considered nuclear powers, it would be easier to sort out things?

A: The policy of the United States at the moment is one that flows out of the logic of the NPT if were trying to bring the nuclear age to an end, we should try to limit the number of nuclear powers. I understand that argument and I appreciate it but at the moment I think it would be fair to reflect American policy as not wanting the nuclear club to expand.

Q: Even if it de facto is accepted by most countries to have expanded?

A: Well, whats de facto is de facto, but you are asking for a step beyond that.

Q: As you wind up after four years in India, what strikes you as the major change?

A: I think the major change is attitudes. People look at the world a bit differently, Theyre certainly looking at the Indo-Pak dialogue with less anxiety. Theyre looking at the role of the United States with less anxiety.

Im particularly impressed by how much progress weve made in the economic sphere. Weve created some basic new departure in political relations and defence ties. And we and India have identified the need to work on major issues of global significance. By that I mean the environment, population, as a fact of diplomatic importance, as part of the bilateral agenda between the United States and India.I think you will discover how solvable an issue like Kashmir is by getting into a dialogue. And our hope is India and Pakistan will address all issues. There is no back-burner, no front-burner. All the gas points on the stove are sort of on parallel.