| |
| Transcript for Monday, June 3, 2002
|
|
|
ALAN KEYS - MAKING SENSE
Interview with India's Ambassador
Mansingh |
|
|
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
KEYES: But India says it won‘t talk until Pakistan fulfills promises to stop extremists crossing the border for violence.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will head to the region later this week to try and diffuse the situation. Can these two nuclear-armed countries reach an agreement?
But first, joining me now, India‘s ambassador to the U.S., Lalit Mansingh. Mr. Ambassador, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
LALIT MANSINGH, INDIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Obviously, we have a situation of tremendous concern to people around the world, at least in part because of the possibility that we might see a exchange that breaches the nuclear threshold. How likely do you think it is, that a conflict could emerge between your country and Pakistan, that would result in that kind of a nuclear exchange?
MANSINGH: Well, let me speak for India. We don‘t want war. We don‘t want Pakistani territory. We don‘t want to hurt Pakistanis. We want their terrorism to stop. That‘s what we want. Nobody wants war.
KEYES: Why do you think that this situation has come to such an intense point of conflict right now?
MANSINGH: I‘ll tell you why. We‘ve been seeing terrorism come up in Jammu and Kashmir for the last 15 years or so. Well, why has it intensified now? I think for two reasons.
One, the al Qaeda having escaped from Afghanistan, came to Pakistan and is now trickling into Pakistan or by Kashmir. They are grouped there in terrorist camps waiting to come inside. There is an intensification of the terrorist activities that we see on our side.
Second, because we have declared elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. And, you know, one thing that terrorizes the terrorists is the prospects of elections. We have seen this happen every time we declare an election, the terrorist are there intimidating the people, shooting the candidates. They have already assassinated one of the top leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, who was asking the terrorists to stop their violence.
KEYES: Now, the election you speak of is an election for leadership within Jammu-Kashmir.
MANSINGH: That‘s right.
KEYES: Obviously, one of the sources of problems here is the insistence on Pakistan‘s side is that a pletacite (ph) has never been held to achieve self-determination for this region. What is India‘s response to that?
MANSINGH: That‘s a bit ironical. When Pakistan itself doesn‘t hold elections, how can it speak about pletacite in Jammu and Kashmir? Jammu and Kashmir has had elections for the last 50 years. That‘s more than what you can see — say for the people of Pakistan.
So, it‘s not a question of whether you want to hold pletacite or not, the question is; are people enjoying democratic rights? They do in India. I can‘t say that for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
KEYES: Well, in terms of the kinds of discussions that are taking place right now, obviously one concern has to be to try to reduce the level of conflict and tension. India has insisted that the cross-border raids have to stop by extremists that they say are supported by the Pakistan government.
What constitutes satisfactory evidence that Pakistan has in fact moved to satisfy this demand?
MANSINGH: That‘s very simple. We are monitoring infiltration across the line of control. Now, the infiltration came down in January, we thought maybe President Musharraf after his speech had ordered the export of terrorism to stop. March, April, May, the incidence went up dramatically. You know, on the average, there are about 150 incursions into our territory per month, compared to an average of about 100 last year. So, we see an increase in infiltration, which has taken place despite the promises made by President Musharraf in January.
KEYES: Now, do you think that the visit by Secretary Rumsfeld could contribute to possibly reducing tensions in the region? Obviously, we have an interest in this area. We‘re trying to deal with the base that has been provided for these terrorists in Afghanistan, and Pakistan and that region. And this is, I think, clearly interfering with the effort to try to bring these terrorists to book.
What do you think is the relation between what is happening in Kashmir larger issue of the war on terror?
MANSINGH: Well, they‘re interrelated. As I mentioned to you, the al Qaeda having escaped from Afghanistan are now moving towards India. India is their next place of jihad. Remember that the al Qaeda had declared three enemies: the United States, Israel and India. This is what we are seeing now. But we are fighting the same war. They are fighting the same group of terrorists, the al Qaeda and the related family of terrorists.
KEYES: Well, what do you think then ought to be the American response to this situation? Obviously we have been working with Pakistan, trying to deal with the situation in Afghanistan and the escape of the al Qaeda terrorists across the border into Pakistan. What do you think is the role that the U.S. can play in terms of dealing with this problem in Kashmir?
MANSINGH: Well, the U.S. has played a very constructive role. The U.S. has been sending strong messages to President Musharraf to stop cross-border terrorism. On Friday, I think President Bush made — used perhaps the most blunt language in conveying this message. He said, “I‘m asking President Musharraf to stop cross-border terrorism.
He said he would do so. I hope he will do so. We want him to keep his word. Now, I think what Mr. Rumsfeld say and Mr. Armitage are going to do, they are going to carry this message personally to President Musharraf. We have great regard for both these top officials of the United States. I hope that Mr. Armitage will deliver a muscular message in his own individual way, and so also, Mr. Rumsfeld.
KEYES: Well, one of the problems, I guess, that I see in the situation actually has to do with the influence in a way, on both sides of some elements on both countries that would have to be characterized as more nationalistic and fundamentalist in their thinking. Obviously, Musharraf operates under certain constraints because of that. And I think he has come under criticism for his cooperation with the United States. I myself think that perhaps he has been trying to promote himself as more militant on Kashmir in order to try to compensate for that in the eyes of the more militant elements in Pakistan‘s population.
In light of that constraint, isn‘t there the possibility that if he tries to accommodate in some way American demands, he could be overthrown by those more extremist elements?
MANSINGH: Well, let‘s be clear. There is a Bush doctrine, and the doctrine says, “It‘s not only terrorists, but countries which encourage terrorism, harbor terrorism, sponsor terrorism, fund terrorism, they also be treated as terrorists.” Now, we want the Bush doctrine to be applied to the — in the case of Pakistan. Here is a country, which is supposed to be an ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism but is actually sending terrorists across the border to create havoc in India.
So, there is quite clear that the Bush doctrine should be applied to Pakistan. The logic is quite convincing.
KEYES: But, don‘t we also have, though, on India‘s side, and I‘m not implying here in any sense terroristic elements. But clearly also there have been some extremist, nationalist elements in India that have lead to things like the violence in Gujurath (ph) and places like this.
Does that operate as an influence that might be pushing India in the direction of war, and what does your government do about it?
MANSINGH: No, no. I don‘t there is a sentiment for war. But there‘s certainly anger that terrorists have been bolder and bolder. Let me give you the simple facts: After September 11, more than 1,000 people have been victims of terrorist violence in India. We had four major incidence of terrorism. In October, the assembly building in Sena (ph) was attacked. In December, the parliament building was attacked. In January, the cultural center in — American cultural center in Calcutta was attacked. Four policeman were killed.
And then recently on the 14th of May, it‘s not policemen who were killed, women and children were butchered in an army camp. So, the people are angry that we are showing restraint and the terrorists are getting bolder and bolder and this has to stop.
KEYES: Well, in the light of that anger though, and in the light of the pressures that build up on both sides, the continuing shelling, the casualties that we saw today, I mean, there have been in the past these continuing and ongoing tensions in this area.
But, have we reached a point now, where in spite of what might be the desires on both sides to avoid a larger war that one becomes inevitable? A lot of countries are pulling their people out of countries on both sides. There seems to be a great sense of anxiety. Do you think that your governments are still in control of this situation?
MANSINGH: Yes, of course. But there is a very simple solution. All that Pakistan has to do is to stop cross-border terrorism. We don‘t need the armies to be there. But our armies will have to be there because the terrorists are coming across the border into our country.
KEYES: But if the problem is the cross-border terror, because I think one of the problems that‘s occurring now is that as a result of this cycle, we now have large forces that have lined up across the Line of Control, and shelling and other things that are now going beyond cross-border operations. Wouldn‘t it make sense to try to get both sides to stop those activities so one can get a clear sense of whether Musharraf has, in fact, exerted control over these extremist terror elements?
MANSINGH: No, there is no question, we are convinced that President Musharraf has the authority, has the control. And in any case, there are three layers of security on the Pakistani side. You have got the Pakistani forces on the border. You‘ve got the paramilitary forces and the police forces. Our home minister was asked on television in Janbodee (ph), and he said, you know, there is such heavy security on the Pakistan side that even a stray dog can‘t go across. So, it‘s not as if President Musharraf is not capable of handling it. In any case, he‘s given a commitment now that he will stop it.
KEYES: Well, see, but what I‘m saying, Mr. Ambassador, is that given where we stand right now, if a war is to be avoided, if Musharraf is, in fact, responding to the Indian demand, isn‘t there a requirement which could perhaps be worked out when Mr. Rumsfeld goes into the region for both sides now to cease and desist shooting at one another and increasing that military confrontation so that one can assess whether or not Musharraf is keeping his word?
MANSINGH: Well, I think Secretary Powell has given a very sensible formulation. He said we‘ve sent messages to Pakistan. We expect Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism, not temporarily, not switching off the tap and switching it on later on, but permanently. And it has to be visible to India. If that is so, then we will request India to respond and take steps to de-escalate the situation. I think that makes a lot of sense.
KEYES: But don‘t you think that the situation, if it continues to intensify as it has now, takes on a logic of its own apart from these demands or can one continue this kind of desultory shelling and casualties and mobilization without the kind of risk that you‘re going to let slip the dogs of war?
MANSINGH: There is no risk. The moment that the cross-border terrorism comes to an end and we find that it is permanent, we verify it, we are prepared to take steps to diffuse the situation, have discussions — now President Musharraf said, I just heard, that you can‘t clap with one hand. That‘s quite right. You can‘t clap with one hand if you‘re holding the gun in the other. We want the gun to be set aside. We want the gun to be set aside.
KEYES: But, Mr. Ambassador, the final question I would ask, given that there is still in the background the prospect that a miscalculation could lead to a larger war, including nuclear weapons, wouldn‘t it be advisable from the point of view of both governments to come to an understanding that in order to see whether cooperation is forthcoming, puts the gun aside or at least silences them for the time being?
Because I think the great danger the world is looking at right now is that the two sides today as we speak are shooting at one another. And doesn‘t that shooting have to stop in order for you to know that Mr. Musharraf is, in fact, trying to keep his word?
MANSINGH: No. If you‘re talking about shelling which has gone on, it has gone on for a long time. That is not the danger signal. But what we have to stop is terrorism. And I think the whole world is agreed the message which not only President Bush has given, President Putin and all these visitors who have been to the region, Jack Straw and Chris Patton, the message sent by the secretary-general of the U.N. They‘re all saying the same thing. They‘re reading from the same script: For heaven sakes, stop this terrorism and diffuse the situation.
KEYES: I think that that‘s very true. One final point, because I think that one of the problems often arises in these situations is that you can‘t be sure you‘ve gotten yes for an answer. And I think that one of the concerns that clearly exists on the American side is that in face of increasing tensions and mobilization, it might not be possible to hear a positive response.
Would the Indian government be open to the possibility of trying to create that silence that is necessary to make sure that you‘re possibly getting what you‘ve asked for?
MANSINGH: Well, our lines of communications are open. The telephone lines are operating. The director-general of military operation on our side and his counterpart have a hotline. It is not as if it‘s not functioning. And let me give you some big news. While this talk of war was going on, last week the officials of India and Pakistan met to discuss the Indus Waters Treaty, the sharing of the rivers, which we have in common. It‘s not as if we‘ve snapped all communication.
KEYES: Well, Mr. Ambassador, we have to run. I want to thank you for coming on, helping the American people to understand a little better India‘s position in this. I‘m sure we all wish both countries well in terms of a peaceful resolution of this conflict. Thanks.
Transcription Copyright 2002 FDCH-eMedia (Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. -eMediaMillWorks, Inc.) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation. |
|
