U.S. downplays Clinton statement on J&K

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

NEW DELHI, MARCH 22. Senior Clinton Administration officials are downplaying the President's statements on Kashmir which New Delhi had interpreted as having endorsed its stand on the issue. On Tuesday, Mr. Bill Clinton, in a joint appearance with the Indian Prime Minister said that talks between India and Pakistan could not be expected ``unless there is an absence of violence'', a theme he did not repeat in subsequent comments.

The New York Times has quoted unnamed White House officials as moving quickly to clarify the President's remarks saying that as the U.S. was not a party to any talks between India and Pakistan, it could not set any preconditions. A senior U.S. official, however, said India should take heart from the ``message of support'' that Mr. Clinton delivered against the violence in Kashmir.

American officials were quoted in The Washington Post as saying that Mr. Clinton had not intended to create the impression that his statements on Kashmir gave Islamic insurgents a ``green light'' to keep India and Pakistan from seeking an accord by fomenting further violence.

Over and beyond the reports in the American media, the Secretary of State, Ms. Madeleine Albright, had herself brushed aside the notion that a ``significant shift'' had taken place on the U.S. stand on Kashmir. Briefing White House mediapersons travelling with the President, she said, ``I would not interpret it that way. I think our policy is what it was when we came here and what the President has said many times.''

It is being pointed out that the latest violence in Kashmir further underscored the need for a dialogue between India and Pakistan. Ms. Albright clarified this point saying it had also been emphasised by Mr. Clinton in his discussions. ``The President has made quite clear...that it is very important to respect the Line of Control, show restraint, renew the dialogue and try not to solve this militarily,'' Ms. Albright said.

Senior Clinton Administration officials do not wish to amplify the President's remarks on Kashmir. In fact the reason why there had been very few briefings was because the U.S. did not wish to be in a more difficult position than it is already before Saturday's talks in Islamabad.

In pointing out that the President was not carrying any specific messages from Indian leaders to General Pervez Musharraf, the impression is that Mr. Clinton would be firm in conveying what he has in mind on Kashmir. In India, Mr. Clinton repeatedly stressed the need for a dialogue; and in Pakistan will stress the phenomenon of escalating violence and in the need for Islamabad to rein in the militant outfits. It is to be seen how much of all this Mr. Clinton will convey to Gen. Musharraf.

Despite the talk of a ``new era'', leading American newspapers spoke of a series of encounters that would include no concrete movement on nuclear issues and a ``sharp rebuke'' of the President by his Indian counterpart at a banquet on Tuesday. These ``... showed that the opening chapter was spiked with surprises,'' said The New York Times report.

The Indian President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan, dismissed the notion of the sub-continent being the ``most dangerous place'' in the world. Mr. Clinton took no notice of this in his remarks and The Washington Post says U.S. officials shrugged them off ``as a minor venting of frustration''.

There has been some expression of surprise of the tone and content of what Mr. Narayanan had to say in his speech. If there was no response from Mr. Clinton, it was because American Presidents rarely use an occasion such as a banquet to talk about substantive issues.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Next     : U.S.-India Commercial Dialogue to be launched