[sacw] [ACT] sacw dispatch #1 (28 March 00)

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:15:46 +0200


South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #1
28 March 2000
__________________________
#1. India's obsession about qualifying Pakistan as a terrorist state
#2. US 'tilt' towards India - imagined or real
#3. Pakistan eases stance on Kashmir
__________________________

#1.

Asia Times
=46ebruary 5, 2000
India/Pakistan
COMMENTARY:

QUALIFYING AS A TERRORIST STATE
By Ninan Koshy*

In asking the United
States to declare Pakistan a terrorist state, India has implicitly
accepted the following terms: The United States is the competent authority
to make such a declaration. In the absence of any international law or
inter-governmental procedure to designate a state as a sponsor of
terrorism, US law regarding such a designation has international
jurisdiction. Recognizing that it is not just technical or legal evidence
that leads to such classification, the political assumptions behind it
also are justifiable and correct. The seven states designated by the State
Department-Cuba, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and North Korea-are all
terrorist states and should be treated as such and the US sanctions
against them should be continued.

''The government would work systematically to ensure that major nations of
the world declared Pakistan a terrorist state. India expected the USA to
take the initiative in this direction, '' stated Prime Minister Vajpayee
in the first press conference after the resolution of the hijack. The
prime minister added that all the information now available within the
government about the hijack and subsequent developments made it clear that
it was an integral part of a Pakistani-backed campaign of terrorism. For
some time now India has been trying to convince the United States that the
continuing terrorist threat to both the USA and India emanates from the
same or closely related sources. The prime minister's statement is part of
a political effort to focus the attention of the US administration on the
source of international terrorism inside Pakistan itself. India cannot be
unaware that the US does not need any additional evidence against Pakistan
and that it is political considerations that prevent the USA from
declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. Reiteration of the demand will not
change the political assumptions that lie behind the USA's relationship
with Pakistan.

If one does not accept the US designation of states sponsoring terrorism,
then one can play a fascinating game of name calling.

''India should be declared a terrorist state,'' said the Hon Edolphus
Towns in the US Congress on October 6, 1998. Quoting the News India Times,
Towns told the Congress that Kuldip Nayar, a veteran journalist, a former
Indian ambassador to the UK who is now a member of the upper house of
India's parliament, had admitted that India is a terrorist state. Towns
asked ''How long will it take for America to admit it?'' Nayar was
reported to have said that Pakistan's attack on the village of Doda was an
act of retaliation for the Indian massacre in the Pakistani state of
Sindh. A demand to declare Pakistan a terrorist state was made to the US
Congress several times by some Indian organizations supported occasionally
by Congressman Frank Pallone and others.

You will find that some of the closest allies of the US and the US itself
may qualify to be states sponsoring terrorism more than those in the list
made by the US.

On August 20, 1997, four Israeli warplanes raided Lebanon and fired
rockets in the area of Jenata in the Bekka valley near Baalbek. Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri sharply criticized the Israeli attacks saying
that ''this is a terrorist act from Israel. Israel is proving that it is a
terrorist state killing civilians, attacking civilians.'' Hariri was not
the first or the last to call Israel a terrorist state. Israel has
sponsored terrorism and perpetrated terrorist attacks abroad. It
definitely qualifies more than some of its neighboring Arab states for
designation as a terrorist state. But for obvious reasons the USA's special
criteria exclude Israel from the list.

In fact the question that has been posed by many is, whether the United
States itself does not qualify as a terrorist state. President Clinton's
bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan has been widely condemned as a terrorist
act. By launching missiles to combat terrorists and killing innocent
civilians, the United States reduced itself to the level of terrorists. A
most reckless aspect of the missile attack was the targeting of the
Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, alleging that it was a chemical weapons
plant. The pharmaceutical factory produced half the medicines for the
entire country, press reports indicated.

Ambassador Michael A Sheehan, Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the US
government, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's Subcommttee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, on
November 2, 1999, stated that ''The center of anti-American terrorism has
moved from the Middle East to South Asia.'' He added, ''As direct
involvement in terrorism by most Middle Eastern state sponsors and groups
has declined, our attention has increasingly focussed on Usama bin Laden
and the alliance of groups operating out of Afghanistan with the
acquiescence of the country's de facto rulers, the Taleban.'' After
pointing out that Afghanistan has become a new safe haven for terrorist
groups, including Kashmiri separatists, this is what the ambassador said
about Pakistan in his testimony, ''Within the territory of Pakistan there
are numerous Kashmiri groups and sectarian groups involved in terrorism
which use Pakistan as a base. Pakistan has frequently acknowledged what it
calls 'moral and diplomatic support' for militants in Kashmir who employ
violence and terrorism against Indian interests.''

What is most interesting about this testimony is its admission that, with
the exception of Iran, none of the other countries designated as state
sponsors of terrorism by the US any longer directly sponsors terrorist
acts. Yet they are all retained in the list while Pakistan, about which
new evidence of increased support to terrorism abroad formed an important
part of the testimony, was not considered for such a designation.

The demand made by the government of India to the United States to declare
Pakistan a terrorist state, or rather to go by the terminology of US law,
a state sponsoring terrorism, raises fundamental questions about our
foreign and security policies as well as our diplomacy. The government has
to do a lot of explaining in this matter. For example, will the government
tell the people whether it accepts the US designation of Cuba as a
terrorist state and whether it is asking the US to equate Cuba and
Pakistan.

*Ninan Koshy formerly served as the Director of the Commission of the
Churches on International Affairs, World Council of Churches. A version of
this article was published by the Indian Express on January 27, 2000.

_____

#2.

March 28, 2000
India/Pakistan

US 'tilt' towards India
- imagined or real
By Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI-Relations
between India and the United States have long been described as a story of
missed opportunities, misunderstandings and miscalculations. The way it has
gone so far, President Bill Clinton's visit to South Asia might warrant
another addition: belied expectations.

Consider this: When Clinton announced his visit, he aroused two different
sets of expectations. US public opinion thought he would at least defuse
the nuclear danger in South Asia, which he has repeatedly described as the
most dangerous place on earth. Clinton was expected to play peacemaker,
but above all, as The New York Times urged, his greatest interest is to
see India and Pakistan reduce the danger of a nuclear confrontation.

Secondly, policy-makers in India expected Clinton to show an
India-favorable tilt in continuation with his role as a facilitator in
last year's bloody conflict in Kargil. Worried at cross-border terrorism,
Clinton, they thought, would endorse the Indian position that a bilateral
dialogue with Islamabad cannot be resumed unless the violence is ended.

In the event, both expectations appear to have been belied. The first for
want of trying; the second despite New Delhi's serious, sometimes
strained, efforts.

Clinton has not broached in earnest the subject of nuclear restraint in
South Asia. And Indian leaders have failed to secure US endorsement for
their refusal to engage the Pakistan regime.

The principal outcome of Clinton's visit would seem to be some long-term
reshuffling of the US-India-Pakistan relationship with India's upgradation
in the US scheme of things, and significant intensification of bilateral
economic ties. Both highlight India's decisive break with non-alignment
and autonomy in economic policy-making.

A second, less certain, outcome may be a resumption of the India-Pakistan
dialogue. Whether this is done in good faith, and succeeds even in the
short run, remains to be seen.

Clinton missed the chance to seriously engage India on the nuclear issue.
The Clinton-Vajpayee Vision Statement only had a bland nuclear component:
India and the US share a commitment to reducing and ultimately eliminating
nuclear weapons. The two governments affirmed their commitment to forgo
further nuclear tests-and work-for an early commencement of talks on a
fissile materials treaty, besides export controls. This part of the
statement represents a shrinking of India's perspective, from an emphasis
on nuclear disarmament (of which there is no mention) to mere
non-proliferation. It also narrows the scope of a fissile treaty to
halting further production, not eliminating existing fissile stocks.

In his address to the Indian parliament, Clinton made an appeal to
consider whether India has really gained in security after the nuclear
tests, and whether its interests will be served if a nuclear race breaks
out. But there was no attempt to confront the issue either generically or
in the specific South Asian context-with its history of war, strategic
miscalculation, reckless threat-mongering, ramshackle infrastructure, and
disaster-proneness.

The reason for this seems to be US reluctance to face the issue of the
(tenuous) link between nuclear weapons and security in the post-Cold War
world, and make a commitment to nuclear abolition.

Clinton stressed the four Rs: restraint, respect for the Line of Control
(LoC), resumption of dialogue, and rejection of military solutions to the
Kashmir issue. Indian diplomats, and journalists briefed by them, put
their own spin on this. In particular, they saw a significant shift in the
statement that there can be no dialogue unless Pakistan first stops
cross-border terrorism, etc. This was quickly repudiated by US Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright. ''I would not interpret it that way. I think
our policy is what it was when we came here.''

Indian officials were bitterly disappointed because they reckoned that the
massacre of 36 Sikhs in Kashmir on the day preceding Clinton's talks with
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee would highlight the terrorist nature
of the violence. As an editorial gleefully said: ''The massacre is the
message!''

There may have been no short-term tilt in India's favor, but some
long-term changes have indeed occurred in India-US relations. India has
moved towards strategic cooperation and partnership with the United States.

At one level, the Clinton visit represents an overdue change in the US's
Cold War priorities. In the East-West confrontation, America treated
Pakistan as a friend. It became a frontline state after the Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan. This meant further US estrangement from
India. Though this changed more than 10 years ago with the Soviet pullout
from Afghanistan and the Cold War's end, US policy lagged behind ground
reality.

In India, inspiration for closer relations with the US comes from a
rightward shift in society and economy in the 1990s. The most important
part of the shift was the rise of the right-wing Hindu-chauvinist
Bharatiya Janata Party of Vajpayee.

A second component was India's turn to market-friendly (but
people-unfriendly) economics in 1991, and rapid expansion of an
aggressive, consumerist elite with its eyes firmly set Westwards. This
elite, less than a tenth of the population, sees the Indian people as a
drag on itself, and is deeply suspicious of the Nehruvian paradigm of
democracy, secularism, non-alignment and mixed economy. It roots for
closer relations with the US.

Mediating the two dynamics has been the 1.5 million-strong Indian
community in the United States-the single richest ethnic group, mostly
composed of highly trained professionals. Indian Americans' profile has
sharply risen in recent years with business success stories and their
disproportionate role in information technology. Indians account for nearly
two-fifths of recent IT start-up in the US.

All this makes for closer integration between India and the United States
at the elite level- elite because less than two percent of Indians own
computers or telephones. To US business, India looks increasingly
attractive as a source of low-wage, labour-intensive, production.

There is, besides, a growing middle class market of 50 million people. The
$13 billion India-US trade is not huge, but it is growing, especially as
the Vajpayee government dismantles trade restrictions-a controversial move
which threatens peasant-farmers' livelihoods.

At the economic level, Clinton's visit is likely to lead to greater, if
skewed, interaction between the US and India. At the strategic level, the
results will probably be more disappointing-because the US is tilting
towards India and away from Pakistan which seems a crisis-ridden state
with a failing economy, and which has few of India's technology and
business attractions.

India-Pakistan relations have further deteriorated since the nuclear tests
of May 1998. The tests exacerbated mutual suspicions, and accelerated
nuclear arms and missiles races.

In today's triangular US-India-Pakistan relationship, any tilt on the part
of the apex partner, America toward one state can only irritate the other,
leading to tension. India-Pakistan relations are already at the lowest in
peacetime-itself an inaccurate description given armed skirmishes and
shelling across the border. (In the past month, more than 50 soldiers have
died.)

As Clinton completes the Indian leg of his visit, it is hard to see
whether or how this situation can be altered. There are few signs of
sobriety and restraint, but many of growing conflict.

(Inter Press Service)
_____

#3.

=46inanacial Times
28 Mar 2000
07:39GMT

Pakistan eases stance on Kashmir
By Peter Montagnon and Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad -

Pakistan was prepared to try to persuade
militant forces to reduce tension in Kashmir in order to pave the way for
talks with India over the disputed territory, Pervez Musharraf,
Pakistan's military ruler, said in an interview.

However, he stressed Islamabad would only do so if India took action to
enforce respect for human rights in the territory.

The general's statement is his first offer to exercise Pakistani
government influence in this way to break the deadlock over talks.
Hitherto, Islamabad has responded to Indian calls for an end to
Pakistan-backed terrorism in Kashmir as a condition for talks by bluntly
denying responsibility for violence.

"There has to be reciprocity in all actions," Gen Musharraf said. "They
want something from our side. We will try to address this issue, try to
persuade the freedom fighters to reduce tension. But there has to be
reciprocity. They should never expect us to take unilateral action."

How far India will be able to respond remains uncertain. The government of
Atal Behari Vajpayee is still deeply suspicious of Gen Musharraf, who is
blamed in New Delhi for last year's incursion into Indian territory in the
Kargil heights. The general's offer of reciprocal action was also hedged
with fresh vitriol over what he called India's "state terrorism" in
Kashmir.

India had been "butchering civilians" and rendered thousands of people
homeless, he said. "I would say stop all human rights violations, stop
atrocities against civilians, release all the innocent Kashmiri leaders
who are behind bars."

Still, the modification in tone may mark a small chink of light in the
gloom after US President Bill Clinton's visit to the region apparently
failed to bring the two sides any closer on Kashmir. Gen Musharraf said he
now accepted that Mr Clinton would not mediate between the two countries,
but he still called on the US president to play a role in facilitating
dialogue.

"I'm trying to tell the Indian community. .. we must face facts boldly,"
he said.

=46inancial Times-Interview

A demure dictator General Musharraf tells Peter Montagnon and Farhan
Bokhari he will allow the return of democracy. He will not say when-27 Mar
2000 18:43GMT

General Pervez Musharraf winces visibly when asked if he minds being
thought of as a dictator. The very idea seems to shock this unassuming,
middle class army officer who took power in last October's coup in
Pakistan.

He prefers to see himself as being engaged in a rescue mission, designed
to save his country from corrupt politicians who had undermined its
institutions, plundered its people and led it to the brink of collapse.
That requires radical reform of governance and a determined effort to
revive the economy, he says.

But he insists he has no desire to cling to power. Once his reforms are
irreversible, democracy will be restored and he will quit, he says. He
even suggests he will leave before the transformation is complete. "By no
means do I think I can bring about these changes and see them through to
completion before I leave," he says.

The assertion will be greeted with some scepticism both at home and
abroad. The general is not setting a timetable for his departure, and
military governments in Pakistan have a tendency to last. He is under
pressure from bodies including the European Union and the Commonwealth to
restore democracy. In Islamabad this weekend, Bill Clinton, the US
president, warned that Pakistan could face isolation if it did not produce
a road map for a return to civilian rule.

Yet Gen Musharraf is adamant that his is different from past military
governments. Dressed for the interview in a blazer and slacks, he seems
anxious to play down the military aspect of his office. The atmosphere in
his official residence is relaxed and informal. He has half an eye on the
272-run innings Pakistan is notching up against India in the Sharjah
cricket cup.

He chose to call himself chief executive because he did not want to push
the military to the front of the new regime, he says. "The military has
realised that martial law and military governments are not the answer to
progress. So what happened on October 12 [the day of the coup] has really
been forced on the military, unfortunately."

Analysts agree that Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister ousted in the coup,
was embarked on a dangerous course. Although democratically elected, he
came to office with the support of only a small fraction of an apathetic
electorate. His government, like that of his predecessor Benazir Bhutto,
was widely regarded as corrupt. It failed to make much headway with reform
of the economy and instead set about removing checks on its power-from the
presidency, the judiciary and, finally, the military.

The army reacted by staging a coup. But Gen Musharraf says military
involvement in government has already been scaled down. Previous such
governments superimposed themselves on the civilian structures, leaving
the latter in disarray when they stepped down. But under Gen Musharraf
there are no military administrators and no military courts. "I am running
the government with a totally civilian machinery, and that is because I
want to improve the civilian machinery," he says. He believes that this
must be strengthened before democracy can return. "We are involved in
nation-building. The nation's governance, the nation's economy is in total
disarray," he says.

The general is unwilling to give any time frame for the return to
democracy. He says it would be counter-productive and-in a phrase he uses
repeatedly-is "not in the realm of possibility". However, he claims to
have begun the process of restoring democracy through last week's measures
establishing direct elections for new local councils.

Parties will not be allowed to nominate candidates in these elections,
because the general believes that would reinforce old ways. Once the
reform is implemented next year, he says it will be time to look at
spreading democracy to provincial or national levels. This will only be on
certain conditions. "We want to make sure that: number one, there is no
return to sham democracy; number two, whatever improvements we are
bringing about in the economy and in governance should not be reversed. So
we want to improve the political structure."

The general acknowledges that parties will have to be allowed to play a
role in national elections, when these are restored. But he says there
must be a safeguard in the form of a strong, independent election
commission-something that has sustained Indian democracy over the years.
The commission must be "capable of ensuring that the right kind of people
come up for election and the wrong kind of people do get disqualified".

He does not expect politicians who held power before to get another
chance. He comes from a family that migrated from India after partition,
and does not belong to the feudal landlord class that has dominated
Pakistan's party politics. These figures could be disqualified in large
numbers, he says. "Any one of them who has been unscrupulous and who has
been a party to this mess of governance and politics that has occurred
here, who has been corrupt, will certainly have to suffer."

But it is not just political reform that preoccupies him. Economic revival
is also important to putting Pakistan's social and political development
back on track. The focus will be on developing agriculture, small and
medium-sized industry, information technology and energy. The first step
is to reduce the government's debt burden. It intends to raise money
through an active privatisation programme.

Also, it must reduce the budget deficit through cuts in spending and
improved revenue collection. The general is proud that Pakistan has held
its defence budget steady-unlike India, which increased defence spending
by almost 30 per cent in its recent budget. He has even managed to find
Rs7bn (=A384.7m) from the defence budget to alleviate poverty. As for taxes
the aim is to reduce their number and scale and broaden the base through
better documentation. "I will even use the army to ensure proper
documentation, accurate documentation," he says. He adds that there must
be a drive on exports to reduce the trade deficit. "We are going to have
an increase of 20 per cent in this year's exports over last year. So we
are meeting success."

It is an ambitious programme, but the general also wants to reform areas
such as education. In each case, his planned changes are meticulous and
detailed. One fear among his critics is that he has bitten off more than
he can chew. He is already facing accusations of being too slow to deliver
tangible reform, failing to act aggressively enough against tax dodgers,
and failing to take a tough enough stand on terrorism.

If his regime becomes too obsessed with detail, it could lose the support
of a public impatient for change. It needs a consensus on sensitive issues
such as the Kashmir conflict and nuclear testing. It is not simply a
matter of pleasing the domestic audience. Any heightening of international
disapproval would hamper progress in obtaining development aid and
reaching a modus vivendi with India.

Gen Musharraf admits he has taken on a big task. It takes a long time to
work out plans in every area, and a long time to implement ideas, he says.
New personnel have to be found and files are very slow to circulate in
Pakistan's bloated democracy. "Nation-building is not a simple job.
Strategically we are moving very fast, but at the level of implementation,
the response is slow. Tactical responses frustrate me sometimes, and I
want to tell everyone that we need to be very fast in our action."

Yet he says he is not worried about maintaining the support of both the
public and the army. He says the latter is fully behind its chief despite
"a campaign of disinformation" to the contrary. "We discuss and debate
everything and we know the problems," he says. "Once we arrive at a
conclusion every individual is with that conclusion. I am totally in charge
here."

_________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH (SACW) is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996. Dispatch archive from 1998
can be accessed by joining the ACT list run by SACW.
To subscribe send a message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D