During a recent visit to the United States, Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal again urged America to exert maximum pressure on Pakistan to fulfil its pledge to permanently end cross-border terrorism from its territory into India.
Sibal, deputy chief of mission in Washington from 1993-1995, believes there is a marked change in the atmospherics and body language of Indo-US relations since the time he served at the Indian embassy.
A former ambassador to Ankara, Cairo and Paris, he succeeded Chokila Iyer as foreign secretary last July. In a detailed interview to Senior Editor Sheela Bhatt, he spoke about India's concerns about Pakistan and India's improved relations with the US.
What is your short and long term vision for India-Pakistan relations?
Unfortunately, between the short term and long term vision, I don't see any distinction. Because the past, present and future of our relationship is, unfortunately, in the same general framework.
Pakistan was hostile to India in the past, continues to be hostile today, and can be expected to continue to be hostile tomorrow.
However, as it happens in life, maybe a miracle will happen. We don't wish ill to Pakistan at all. In fact, if we had normal relations with Pakistan it would help us a great deal. It can help Pakistan and the region a great deal. We can derive force and strength from each other.
On a recent visit to India, State Department Director of Policy Planning Richard Haass suggested that India should have a dialogue with Pakistan. US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill too has emphasised the importance of talks many times.
Countries are free to take whatever view they want. We cannot stop others from expressing their opinion. I think the question that should be asked is if Pakistan were engaged in terrorist violence against this country would they have, on our plea, talked to Pakistan? There is hardly any point in telling us to talk to Pakistan if Pakistan continues to support terrorism against India.
Frankly while being friends, we hear what these countries have to say and don't object to their making their views known to us. But we too have our views and we do express them. That's part of international diplomacy. But to suggest that we have to take a decision on dialogue because certain countries have a certain view is showing great disrespect to how Indian foreign policy is being made. Our foreign policy is made on the basis of our perceptions, how we see our national interest and we fit our diplomatic initiatives into the context of what our real interests are.
Talks with Pakistan also assume importance because there is a view that to become an Asian tiger India needs to solve its problems with Pakistan.
We will become the Asian tiger irrespective of this. It has nothing to do with our talks with Pakistan. We hope to have a growth rate of 8 per cent. It's in our hands. In fact after 1991 when India opted for liberalisation and integrated itself with the global economy, that was when Pakistan-sponsored terrorism was at the peak in Kashmir. When the Kashmir problem was at its worst, we saw the highest rate of growth. Where is the connection between the two?
India is too large. Our assets are huge. Notwithstanding any action Pakistan may or may not take, India's future is guaranteed and secure. It is in our hands. The countries which are making these kind of linkages, and people inside India who are linking the two, should re-analyse the situation.
But we can't forget the fact that India is bleeding, Pakistan is still successful in its aim in spite of your diplomacy.
No, I don't think so. How is Pakistan successful? Pakistan is in a complete mess. Look at the situation within Pakistan. It's a bankrupt country. Bankrupt politics. Military coup. A sort of democratic election has taken place that has not convinced anybody. Fundamentalist forces have been reinstated, Al Qaeda and Taliban elements are strewn all over the country.
Pakistan's name today is being associated with international terrorism even by the countries which otherwise appreciate Pakistan's role in the global fight against terrorism. Pakistan has lost all the assets it built in Afghanistan. It had to reverse its foreign policy by 180 degrees. Foreign countries and foreign forces are present on Pakistani soil today. Their rate of growth is poor. They have been kept afloat internationally through all the aid they are receiving. So how do you say that Pakistan is successful? In what way are they successful?
I am saying that in spite of the heavy deployment on the border they were able to infiltrate and attack Indian temples in Akshardham and Jammu.
It's true that India is being wounded. This is the big problem with international terrorism. After all, America has been bled. The Pentagon was attacked. Today, the US is constantly living in fear of international terrorism. Now, in fact, their fears are even greater.
They are visualising the scenario where terrorists may have access to crude weapons of mass destruction. The most developed country in the world is living in fear of terrorism. The fact that India is bleeding is the price peace loving democratic countries, which don't claim anybody's territory, pay. We simply want to be allowed to live, but the fundamental forces are wishing us ill.
The US is making inroads into Nepal and Sri Lanka much more than before as a part of its fight against terrorism. Will it undermine India's influence in the long run?
I don't think we should unnecessarily be paranoid about these things. After all, we ourselves are improving our relations with the US a great deal. There is a sea change in the atmosphere and the content of our relationship.
We have gone on record to say that we favour US intervention in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban. So India now takes US presence in the region rather differently than in the Cold War era.
To talk about Nepal and Sri Lanka specifically, I see a big problem on the ground. In Sri Lanka the peace process is on between the government and the LTTE. It is true the US is engaged in Sri Lanka and Nepal a little more than before. I don't see the level and degree of US engagement being of such a nature as your question points at.
The fact of the matter is that the US and India have agreed to have a dialogue on regional developments. We had our first round when Christina Rocca had come here a couple of months ago. When I am in Washington in February [The foreign secretary has just returned after talks in the US], I'll talk with the under secretary of state about our region. As a part of our engagement with the US we are talking to each other about virtually all parts of the world, including our neighbourhood.
Most observers believe India has put all its eggs in the US basket in the fight against global terrorism. What has India earned out of it?
That's a wrong way of looking at it. We were fighting terrorism long before terrorism reached US shores. It would be wrong on our part to believe that the priorities of any country with respect to its fight against terrorism would be the same as everybody else.
After the Bali incident, what would you expect Indonesia to give priority to? They will give priority to the manifestation of terrorism in their country. They are not going to give priority to Pakistan.
Similarly, the US will give priority to protecting its own self. Our biggest problem is Pakistan, so, we would like the entire world to focus on Pakistan. The entire world may agree that Pakistan is a problem, but that doesn't mean they have to agree with our priorities.
We will have to deal with the problem of terrorism ourselves. We appreciate the fact that other countries are openly admitting the fact that Pakistan is coordinating international terrorism. They have been exhorting Pakistan, telling them to give up recourse to terrorism. The US leadership has publicly spoken about the commitment Pakistan gave to them to completely stop infiltration. The US is asking Pakistan to honour its commitment. Under international pressure Pakistani leaders themselves have accepted making such commitments. We appreciate this. Beyond that whatever has to be done has to be done by India.
Could you comment about the reported US objections to our purchase of the Arrow missile system from Israel?
One should go by the record. I haven't seen any official statements by the US saying this. An unnamed official of the State Department might have said it. I'll be willing to respond to your question if some leader had publicly said this. To the best of my knowledge no US official spokesman has made such a statement.
Now India is talking to the US on the trinity of issues -- nuclear, high-tech, space technology. In a letter to Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, Democrat Congressman Edward Markey has questioned the possible transfer of such technologies.
On these issues we have just begun talking. A change of policy on the part of the US is required. I am not surprised to hear that some Congressman may have said something of this nature. This would require a change of approach in the US system. And the fact is that in the US policies are not simply made by the administration, they are also made by Congress.
So there is tension within the US system. We are not members of the NPT and we are not subscribers of MTCR. Yet if there is to be a nuclear and space cooperation how does America cooperate with a country like India, even if they see merit in it? Since we are not party to the instruments that exists to deal with non-proliferation or missile technology, there is this conundrum. Our answer is we are what we are.
The National Security Advisory Board has recommended that the government should rethink its no-first-use policy.
I think this is a totally uncalled for debate. But I am not surprised that this debate is taking place. It's a healthy sign. But the fact that a debate takes place doesn't mean that policy has to be changed. I think there is no need to change because it's a sensible policy and meets our requirements. We have always looked upon these weapons not as weapons that might be required to be used. These weapons are weapons of deterrence. We don't have an offensive approach with regard to nuclear weapons. We have a defensive approach. I think it's necessary to have a defensive approach.
How do you look at North Korea's situation from India's national security point of view?
As time passes, what we have been saying about Pakistan's role with regard to weapons of mass destruction is proving to be true.
We have been pointing out Pakistan's clandestine acquisition of technologies, both nuclear and missile, and the involvement of other countries in this. In the past this has not been taken seriously, now it has come out in the open. North Korea and Pakistan exchanged uranium enrichment technology with missile technology.
Besides posing a direct security challenge to us, my concern is that if Pakistan could transfer uranium technology to North Korea what else could they have done to transfer such technologies to the Islamic network? Somebody should ask this question, because the pulls and pressures that get developed on the Islamic network are intensely ideological in nature, much more than whatever may have lain behind the transaction with North Korea. Has Pakistan transferred certain technologies to these elements?