Washington defends 'soft' approach towards Pak.

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

NEW YORK, MAY 2. The Clinton Administration has clearly said that while Pakistan definitely needed to improve efforts on the issue of terrorism, it did not merit being designated as a ``state sponsor'' of terrorism.

``I don't believe Pakistan merits being designated as a `state sponsor'. Pakistan is a friendly country. They cooperate with us on numerous terrorist issues...They have raised some issues that have been discussed at the highest levels by the President himself when he was in Islamabad, by the Secretary (of State) and others. We continue to work with them. But they definitely need to improve their efforts on this issue,'' said Mr. Michael Sheehan, top official for Counter-Terrorism at the State Department.

He was commenting on the Terrorism Report of 1999, which was formally released today. The report said the Government in Islamabad had tolerated terrorists living and moving freely in the country. Further, the Government ``has supported groups that engage in violence in Kashmir and it has provided indirect support for terrorists in Afghanistan''.

In her formal statement on the report, the Secretary of State, Ms. Madeleine Albright, did not even refer to Pakistan or its role in international terrorism. Talking about the shift in the patterns of terrorism - structure, sponsorship and geography - Ms. Albright only said, ``and we are seeing an eastward shift in terrorism's centre of gravity, from West Asia to South Asia, particularly Afghanistan.''

Mr. Sheehan, answering questions on Pakistan at every opportunity defended why it was not included in the list of nations sponsoring terrorism. For instance, he was asked what the administration meant when it said Pakistan continues sending mixed messages. ``They have a mixed record on it. On the one hand they'll cooperate with extradition. They provide good security for our embassies. We have a good relationship on a broad range of security issues. But on the other hand they have relationships both with Kashmiri groups and with the Taliban in Afghanistan that are troubling...they need to improve the record on that score,'' he said.

On why Pakistan was not included in the list when there was a link with foreign terrorist organisations, he noted, ``when we look at the designation of a state sponsor, we look at the entirety of the country's record on counter-terrorism. And in the case of Pakistan, although we have some problems and issues with them, they were not designated a state sponsor. They do have problems...and we're pressing them to move forward on that.''

Pakistan, in Mr. Sheehan's view, had two problems - one to the East, in Kashmir, and the other to the West, the relationship with the Taliban and activities in Afghanistan.

Asked to comment on the incursions of Pakistan into Kashmir, the implications for peace in the region and Washington's role in this, Mr. Sheehan said the incursions across the Line of Control was for the South Asia Bureau. ``What I am concerned about in Pakistan is the links of the government of Pakistan to some of those Kashmiri groups and their involvement in terrorism, such as the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.''

Asked about the call for a ``jehad'' to free Kashmir by religious leaders in Pakistan and the implications of the emergence of fundamentalist groups, Mr. Sheehan said this was not an issue of terrorism. ``... we concern ourselves with terrorist acts, criminal acts.''

On whether attacks on Indian soldiers by groups of the so-called freedom fighters as they have been defined in Pakistan would amount to terrorism, he said, ``our definition of terrorism, by the legislation, is very explicit. But in general terms, in a war,if military forces are attacking each other, it's not terrorism. But if an armed terrorist organisation attacks civilian targets, that's terrorism.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : ICC turns down Bindra's plea
Next     : HC notices to JMM leaders