The Hindu : India should give the anti-terror campaign more time: Rice

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, May 03, 2002

Front Page

Front Page

India should give the anti-terror campaign more time: Rice

"PAKISTAN MUST ADDRESS INDIA'S CONCERN"

By Malini Parthasarathy

The U.S. National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, at the interview. — Photo: Paul Morse, the White House

WASHINGTON, May 2. The Bush administration is very clear that it sees its campaign against terror and terrorists everywhere as the most crucial international priority right now and hence believes that both India and Pakistan must not allow a conflict to erupt between themselves at this juncture. While the United States has told Pakistan that it must address the "legitimate concern of India over cross-border terrorism", it has also urged the Indian Government "to give diplomacy the primacy" in its actions, to give the anti-terror campaign "time to dismantle the terrorist networks", and to take some steps in respect of Pakistan including the resumption of a dialogue, the U.S. National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said here.

In an exclusive interview at her office in the White House Tuesday evening, Dr. Rice argued that the United States "is engaged in the anti-terrorism agenda on behalf of everyone including on behalf of India and Pakistan" and was "committed to that anti-terrorism agenda" world over. The war on terror was not just for the benefit of the United States, she maintained, "it's about terrorism in any place, terrorism that angered India for instance in the December 13 incident in Parliament..."

Therefore what the world did not need now, she said, was a conflict between India and Pakistan. "It would serve no one for India and Pakistan to come to military blows." During the course of the conversation with this newspaper, Dr. Rice, who is one of the key architects of the post-September 11 strategic approach of the United States as it has embarked on its war on terror, made it clear that the Bush administration has made the anti-terror focus the core of its post-September worldview, manifesting therefore in an uncompromising attitude to the perceived use of terror anywhere, be it the Middle East or South Asia.

Asked for the United States' perception of the validity of India's demand that Pakistan hand over the 20 criminals listed as wanted by India and of the mobilisation of troops on the Indian border, Dr. Rice said that the administration had "tried not to be so involved in the details'' but it had said that India's "legitimate" concern over cross-border terrorism would have to be addressed by the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf. It was also conveyed to him that since "no cause can be served by terrorism", those organisations that "associate themselves with the Kashmiri cause" which carried out acts of terror were not really serving the Kashmiri cause, Dr. Rice said. It was made clear that given the kinds of incidents carried out by these organisations who had associated themselves with the Kashmiri cause, these organisations need to be "put out of business", she said, adding that the United States had been "very clear" with Gen. Musharraf that it "expected to see actions to follow up on his January 12 speech that said Pakistan will end support to extremists".

At the same time, the United States believed that India "has responsibilities here too" to avoid a conflict, to give diplomacy primacy, to allow time for the anti-terror agenda to work and, more importantly, "to begin a dialogue over the issues that are at root cause here", Dr. Rice said. She praised the Vajpayee administration for its restraint in the face of the December 13 attack on Parliament. "We have been very respectful and indeed admiring of the statesmanship that Prime Minister Vajpayee and his Government have been showing in the face of what happened to them and the Indian people in December. It could not have been easy to do what they have done... " She also observed that there was now a sense that as the Pakistanis had "tried to be responsive", it would "be good for India to take some steps too". It was important that "brinksmanship" and the "use of force" were avoided.

Asked whether there was not an element of moral compromise in the reticence of the United States to criticise the Pakistan President's attempt to gain political legitimacy through a referendum, Dr. Rice said that the United States had in fact made very clear to Gen. Musharraf that it expected him to hold the proposed Parliamentary elections in October "consistent with international standards", which included providing space for the Opposition to present its case freely and which would also "put Pakistan back on a firm democratic path". She said that she had been in the meetings of the U.S. President with Gen. Musharraf and "I don't think we could have been any clearer... we've made very clear that the parliamentary elections are not the end but the beginning of putting Pakistan back on a democratic path."

She also made the case that the Pakistani President by reforming the educational system and making strong statements against the retrograde impact of extremism was making an important contribution to democracy in Pakistan. Dr. Rice said that the U.S. believes that "Musharraf is doing some helpful and useful things to create the conditions for greater democracy and to be a good neighbour" and that "the process of getting back on the democratic path" in Pakistan was "underway in many ways". But the Bush administration had made clear to the Pakistan President that it expected this process "to be completed".

Asked why unlike the countries of the European Union, the United States had not expressed concern over the events in Gujarat, Dr. Rice said: "Because we believe that India is a great democracy, that the Vajpayee administration is leading India well and it will do the right thing when it comes to investigating the violence..." Observing that there "needs to be a clear investigation of those events", Dr. Rice said that the United States would "encourage" the Vajpayee administration "to do the right thing". She said that just as the United States was "working very closely with Pakistan", it also wanted to work "very closely with India because we have a larger future with India that will be very well served by the work we do together in the anti-terrorism campaign."

Refuting the suggestion that contrary to her own strategic inclination and to the Republican party's traditional aversion for projects such as "nation-building" in other countries, that was precisely what the U.S. was embarked on in Afghanistan, Dr. Rice asserted that the Afghan people were the "nation-builders" in their own country and that since the rout of the Taliban, the Afghans were now enthusiastically participating in political life and education. The interim administration in Kabul was taking the lead. "Nation-building is a project for the Afghan people... the Americans and the international community will be partners... we will be supportive with assistance in reconstruction, aid and training..."

Asked whether the moral purpose of the anti-terror campaign, which had seemed more self evident when the U.S. went into Afghanistan after the perpetrators of the September 11 incidents, had not been diluted by the insertion of other political agendas such as the prospect of a U.S. military operation against Iraq and Israel's own utilisation of the anti-terror focus to attack Palestinian human rights and national aspirations, Dr. Rice disagreed. The moral case against Iraq, which had "a repressive regime", was a threat to its neighbours, and was trying to "acquire weapons of mass destruction" in contravention of obligations it undertook after its defeat in 1991, "was very clear", said Dr. Rice. "We had a problem with Iraq before September 11 and we have a problem with Iraq after September 11."

On the Israel-Palestinian standoff, the U.S. National Security Adviser said that while peace in the region was a longstanding objective, Mr. Bush was clear that while the Palestinians would have "to denounce terrorism, not try to use terror as a weapon, not to throw away the future of Palestinian children by making them suicide bombers", Israel would have to conform to the U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 and "do more for the Palestinian people". The Arab states, she pointed out, would have to be more involved in bringing peace to the region by stopping "the incitement of terrorism in their official media".

Reflecting the Bush administration's strong post-September 11 determination to make the elimination of terrorism the number one international priority, the main theme that underlay Dr. Rice's observations was that "terrorism is always wrong wherever it is and that is the case that the President (Mr. Bush) is carrying... that there can be no cause that is served by terror."

For details of the Interview click 'There can be no cause that is served by terror'

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

Stories in this Section

India should give the anti-terror campaign more time: Rice

`There can be no cause that is served by terror'

Centre agrees to intervene in Gujarat

Gill appointed Narendra Modi's Security Adviser

Controversy over EU position `regrettable'

31 Shirdi-bound pilgrims killed in bus accident

New post for Rajnath Singh

Arafat free

SC directive to EC