Talk of n-conflict again

By K.K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, APRIL 18. An unnamed Foreign Policy Advisor of the Bush administration could have done without the remark on nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, recently made in an unwarranted context. Though a side comment, quoted by a leading newspaper, while developing a story on the crises faced by the new administration in Asia, it revealed a fixation with an issue, often cited while outlining scary scenarios of South Asia.

A report in International Herald Tribune dwelt on the lot of Mr. George W. Bush, who, during his 12 weeks in the White House, had had more than his share of bad luck in Asia. It mentioned the mid-air collision with China, a maritime collision with Japan and a diplomatic collision with two Koreas and added this quote from the senior advisor: ``The only thing we've missed is a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. But we've still got plenty of time.''

The three incidents are real, solid developments, the result of the working of complex forces at work in various parts, of the uneasiness in the relations of major powers and the lack of a correct balance in the new administration. In each case, there has been intense diplomatic fall-out. The newspaper's story (provided by the New York Times Service) aptly described the how and why of these incidents thus - ``The aircraft collision off Hainan Island was an accident waiting to happen. The sinking of the Japanese boat by a (U.S.) Navy submarine was a freak occurrence. And the bitter arguments over whether to isolate North Korea or engage it reflected a deep split among Mr. Bush's advisers.''

To club an imaginary scenario with these hard developments reflected a peculiar mind set which had sought to exaggerate a problem to make political points to suit the thinking in some of the Western chanceries. Ever since the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998, some sections abroad had developed the theme of ``Kashmir, a nuclear flash-point'' or ``South Asia, the scene of nuclear conflict''. There were two objectives behind this talk - one, an attempt to reinforce the case for a third-party role to resolve the Kashmir problem and, two, to impose a discriminatory non-proliferation regime on India.

Now, there could not be two opinions on the need and urgency of India and Pakistan agreeing on confidence-building measures, in general, and, in the nuclear field, in particular. This precisely was sought to be achieved at Lahore over two years ago, when the two sides mooted several ideas in this regard. Unfortunately, the achievements of Lahore were undone by Kargil and, later, the military rulers of Pakistan virtually disowned those decisions. It is perfectly in order to call for the renewal of efforts by the two countries to pursue, even to improve upon, the proposals worked out in the past. But the talk of a nuclear confrontation is regarded motivated in India and causes suspicions.

It is, perhaps, a stray observation by the Foreign Policy Advisor, made rhetorically to emphasise the magnitude of the crises, actual or potential, in Asia. There is nothing to suggest that the new administration would lean on this theory in its approach to South Asia. So far, there are only one or two authoritative pointers of its thinking. In his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, in February, Mr. Bush expressed hope for resumption of the dialogue between India and Pakistan. Recently, the U.S. State Department spokesperson, in his briefing on the meeting between the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, and the American Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, ``welcomed the recent Indian offer of talks (an obvious reference to the Pant mission)'' adding that ``we would encourage all groups to take advantage of the offer and to enter into talks to reduce violence to foster a process of dialogue.''

Hopefully, these sentiments and not the talk of nuclear confrontation would guide the policy-makers in the Bush administration.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Foreign media: 'decision not influenced'
Next     : A big blow to Army's image: former Chief