Press Conference by External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh
Washington, D.C.
April 15, 2005
Moderator: Well,
ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this press conference by the honorable
external affairs minister. All of you have the opening statement that
he has already made at the joint press availability with Secretary
Condoleezza Rice. I think we can go straight away to question and
answers. So if you could please, when you ask questions, please
identify yourself and the organization that you represent. Let’s go
straight to question and answers please.
Question: (Inaudible) – of India. Can you sum up the
result of the visit? What was the main purpose of your visit?
And what have you achieved as a result of your visit?
External Affairs
Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: Well I think it’s been a very constructive
and positive interaction at the highest levels with the United States
government. When Dr. Condoleezza Rice was in India some weeks ago, she
had invited me to come to Washington. And since parliament is not
meeting during this period, it was possible for me to be away from Delhi.
Parliament will be reassembling on the 18th. I think this has taken
our existing very friendly ties, our deep relationship, a step or two
further in all areas and in some new areas. I also greatly appreciated
President Bush giving me the time that he did, and he expressed the hope
that the Prime Minister would be here sometime in the middle of the year.
And he, himself, looks forward to visiting India.
Question: (Off mike) – It comes in between very important one
by the Chinese leader, and you’re going back to receive Mr. Musharraf.
Was there any mention made of the two back-to-back visits during your
interactions?
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: No, we – I informed them
of the discussions we had with the distinguished Prime Minister of China
about the 12 agreements signed, including the one on the border question.
I think we have already distributed the text of various agreements that have
been signed. Both India and China attached the highest importance to
this visit, I am reminded of the fact that in 1960 April when Chou En-lai
came to Delhi, I was the Liaison officer to him. And 45 years later
here I was in the capacity. The earlier visit had not been a success.
This has been a resounding success, and our Chinese friends want to
cooperate with us in almost every area. It is significant that his
visit began not in Delhi, but it began in Bangalore because they’re very
keen to study how we’ve been doing so well in the software. And we
were very glad to know that they were going to share their hardware
technology with us. Now our trade is – in 1990, the trade was $1
billion. Last year the trade between China and India was $13.6
billion. It will be $15 (billion) by 2008, and $30 (billion) by 2010.
At the same time, our discussions between the two special representatives
will continue on the boundary question. The political parameters have
been agreed upon and signed.
Question:
(Off mike.)
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: Only the timing is
linked. Otherwise they have nothing to do with each other. I was
in Islamabad some weeks ago, and we had extremely useful discussions –
result-oriented discussions with the Pakistan leadership including the
president. And I have no hesitation in saying that the opening of the
bus route from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad wouldn’t have taken place without
the president’s complete approval and support. And we flagged off
the bus on the 7th of April. The Prime Minister, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi,
Chief Minister Mufti M. Syed myself, were there it was a big event.
And the chief minister of Jammu Kashmir said it is a historic step.
And there are other things on the diplomatic plate. We are hoping to
open the railway line between Sindh and Rajasthan, which has been closed
since 1965, also to have a bus service from – Amritsar-Nankana Sahib, a
bus service from Amritsar to Lahore. There is a train now from Delhi
to Lahore, but the symbolism of a train from Amritsar to Lahore is quite
different. President Musharraf had initially expressed a desire to
come for a day to watch the final one-day match between Pakistan and India.
He has now decided to come on the 16th and leave on the 18th. So
he’d be spending two nights and two days. There is no fixed agenda,
and we also do not want to convert a basically sporting event into a
full-fledged state visit because it is not. And we do not hesitate to
discuss anything. Whatever we want to discuss, we discuss.
Question: – (inaudible) – will the U.S. become a
factor in moderating our relationship with Iran, and what are our
initiatives in the field of energy being taken now? It will have
gestation period running into decades perhaps if they are able to overcome
the technical as well as legal problems in the field of civilian nuclear
cooperation. In the context of the energy security, how do we go ahead
since there is a slight difference in the perception of India and the US
External Affairs
Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: Well, as you might recall, when the Secretary
of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, was in Delhi, the question was asked about
this matter not in the precise language that you have asked today. But
it meant the same thing. We know their views on Iran, and they know
our view. We have good relations with Iran. We have no
difficulty, and discussions are continuing about the pipeline from Iran,
Pakistan, India and from India, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
eventually going up to China. The United States appreciates our energy
demands, which are going to increase exponentially in the years to come.
And the same is the case with China. Please.
Question: You obviously met with President Bush this morning
and Dr. Rice as well. What were some of the issues that were discussed
and specifically the F16 issue. Was that brought up? And has
India made any decision how many and when India plans to buy the F16s?
External Affairs
Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: Well, the F16s did not come up. Our
views have been made known to the president by the Prime Minister some weeks
ago, and we have expressed our disappointment. I had also – when Dr.
Condoleezza Rice rang me up I was in Myanmar, and I also expressed similar
sentiments. They know our views about it, and with the President we
had a very, very wide range of subjects discussed in a very friendly manner.
And it was very good of him to give the time that he did give to us.
Question: What about the offer of F-16’s or F-18’s to
India?
External Affairs Minister K.NATWAR SINGH: The defense minister will
be here by the end of June, and I think he’s the right person to be asked
this question.
Question: Were you a little disappointed by Secretary Rice’s
response to the question of India’s membership to the U.N. Security
Council? They’re not quite willing to come out and say anything
right now so what do you –
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: No, I’m not
disappointed. I expected precisely what she said. This is what
they’ve been saying. They have not made their views known in
specific terms about the report prepared by the high-level panel, which is
headed by the secretary general. And the secretary general has sent
his comments on the report to member states, which we have studied.
And the American position is well known. They will, I presume, nearer
the date make their views known. But what Condoleezza Rice said today
was in keeping with what they’ve been saying not only to us, to just about
everybody. Our views, as I placed them today before you are known to
them.
Question: In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper
Editors, Mr. Bush mentioned that the U.S. relationship with Pakistan came up
in your discussion. What was your reaction to Mr. Bush’s description
of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan and especially did Kashmir come up
and what role the U.S. could have in Kashmir discussions?
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: The Jammu Kashmir issue is
a bilateral matter. We’ve always discouraged third-party
intervention, but if our friends in Pakistan are in consultation with
President Bush, they’re welcome to do so. But we have made it quite
clear that this is a bilateral issue to be settled bilaterally. We
appreciate the interest that people take and want this to be resolved, but
there is no facilitator or intermediary.
Question: (Off mike.)
External Affairs
Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: No, I think they are not – (inaudible) –
matters. Nations don’t get disappointed. You look at it in a
realistic way. You see your national – (inaudible) – interests,
and they see theirs. And the objective should be that we don’t tear
down their doors and they don’t tear down our doors. All I can say
is that relations between the United States and India have never been
better. It doesn’t mean they’re aren’t any differences, but as I
said, we have an occasion that our relationship has reached a stage where we
can express our views on matters on which we don’t agree without our
fundamental friendship being adversely affected.
Question: In your assessment, Mr. Singh, what is the U.S. –
what is the reason for U.S. equivocation on India’s membership of the UNSC?
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: I think they are looking
at it in a very comprehensive manner because if you read the report, the
reform of the United Nations is just one of the items in that voluminous
report. And the most important one is the reform of the Security
Council. Now, if you will go back to the history of the foundation of the
United Nations in 1945, one of the conditions for the United Sates joining
the U.N. – as you know, they didn’t join the league of Nations - was
that the five powers will have vetoes. And the then-Secretary of State
for the United States, Mr. Cordell Hull, who was Roosevelt’s Secretary of
state for 12 years from 1932 to early 1945, noted that if there was to be no
veto then the United States would not join the United Nations. So the
veto remains. (Unintelligible) – It has been made clear by the Prime
Minister in Parliament and by me that we would not accept any discrimination
between the old P-5 and new P-5 or P-6. Otherwise you’re adding
another category of members – P-5 with veto, P-5 without veto, and the
others. The objective is to make the United Nations Security Council
relevant to the 21st century, which at the moment it is not, because the
structure, written in 1945, has not been dismantled and doesn’t reflect
present-day reality.
Question: (Unintelligible.) We hear Dr. Condoleezza
Rice’s interpretation of India being a global power. I was wondering
what your interpretation would be
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: Well, I think there has been
an enormous change in the terminology. It was earlier said that the
Americans would help India to become a global power. I think the
message got through that this could have been better phrased, and she
phrased it very well today.
Question: Since you have noted this phrase that the U.S. will
help India, this brings me to a very basic question since they are launching
on a very revolutionary path as far as India-U.S. relations are concerned.
My very basic question will be about the inheritance of our tradition in
foreign policy and their tradition in foreign policy. When they were a
bit immature democracy they also believed in nonalignment, neutrality, and
we have still that tradition in our system. So how do you intend to
bridge this gap?
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: The president already said
five days ago that he is a great idealist; looks at the world in that manner
and hopes that the world will be a better place.
Nonalignment is not a dogma or a doctrine; nonalignment is a state of mind.
Nonalignment gives you the room to pursue your national interests and
protect them in an independent manner, making decisions on its merits and
what it’ll do for India. Of course, the agenda of the first decade
of the 21st century is quite different than the agenda that the nonaligned
countries had in the ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s, ’80s and ‘90s. The
world has run out of colonies, mercifully, and the Non-Aligned Movement
played a very important role; India particularly did. Apartheid is
history. The agenda today is terrorism, drugs, HIV/AIDS, environment,
ecology, financial reform, disease, the fate of small countries.
We must make – we should see the difference between the Non-Aligned
movement and nonalignment. I believe that is why – I tell you and
I’ve said publicly, the Non-Aligned movement needs a diplomatic blood
transfusion. Nonalignment doesn’t. Nonalignment is, as I said,
how you look at the world and how you access it. And the Nonaligned
Movement, and some nonaligned countries have to put their house in order.
There is no doubt about it, because unless you’re able to meet the
requirements of the 21st century, which are science and technology and
economics and trade and commerce, we’ll be left behind. And
fortunately we woke up to this much earlier and therefore we’re among the
nonaligned countries that in the front rank.
Moderator: I think we’ll take one last question from Seema. The
minister has a long flight to catch, so one last question.
Question: Mr. Minister, the March 25th announcement by the Bush
administration we are told was somewhat aimed at containing the rise of
China. By bolstering India they want to create a counterweight to
China. How do you see this whole triangle emerging, and does India
want to play this game in the manner that the Americans are envisioning?
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: First of all, the
Americans have given no indication that they want us to play any game, and I
don’t think they will, knowing where we stand and what our views are, what
our – how we think about these matters. The inheritance of the
freedom movement, that, you know, every Indian foreign minister’s
principal duty is to India’s vital interests in this matter; that’s the
paramount interest. And this thing is talked off and on about this
country trying to group with another country. We are not in this game.
We have very, very good relations with America, greatly value them. We
want to widen them, deepen them, broaden them – same with China.
So this idea that there is going to be any kind of gang-up anywhere, neither
has been mentioned nor will it. I don’t think anybody would make
such a suggestion. I heard about it but I think it’s rather a
simplistic view of things.
Moderator: Thank you very much, Sir, for sparing the time.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen
External Affairs Minister K. NATWAR SINGH: Okay, thank you.