Front Page

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

By Malini Parthasarathy

"We believe that India is a great democracy, that the Vajpayee Government is leading India well and that it will do the right thing when it comes to investigating the violence (in Gujarat)..."

As National Security Adviser to the U.S. President, George Bush, and with an office just down the corridor from the Oval Office in the White House, Condoleezza Rice is at the hub of the administration's new post-September 11 worldview. It is a worldview which has become primarily and deeply engaged with the lessons of the terrorist attacks last September that have so traumatised the American psyche. One consequence is a more driven and internationally activist foreign policy on the part of this administration which true to its own Republican moorings had originally started out suggesting disdain for the high-voltage interventionism said to be favoured by Democrats. By launching the war on terror with ongoing and elaborate military operations in Afghanistan, the Bush administration has found itself pulled away from its traditional inclinations and now in the grip of an all-consuming emphasis on the battle against terror externally and at home.

Dr. Rice, a former Stanford University provost and a Russia specialist, is one of the key strategists behind the anti-terror campaign and it is apparent that she is putting all her energies into what she sees as a critical moral battle that is being fought not just for America but for the entire world. Whether it is a battle whose moral resonance can withstand the chilling ground realities of denial and deprivation in Palestine or retain the empathy of allies and coalition partners wary of adventurist interventions, as for instance in Iraq, is another matter.

Yet it is apparent that for now, Dr. Rice and other key decision-makers in the Bush administration have committed themselves to making the war on terror the centrepiece of America's foreign policy and they will not allow this campaign to be sidetracked or overwhelmed by the contradictions that emerge subsequently. They are determined to go down the road however long it takes and however bumpy the ride may be, to bring the terrorists who struck at America last September, to justice.

In a conversation at her office in the West Wing of the White House, Dr. Rice explained the new American strategic perspective and how it is shaping the administration's responses to the various recent crises. Here are excerpts from the interview:

Malini Parthasarathy: Initially after September 11, when you (the U.S.) started the campaign in Afghanistan, the moral purpose seemed very clear... eliminating the terror networks (behind the September 11 attacks) but now with the political agenda broadening, such as the suggestion that you are going to move against Iraq, for which the moral case is not very clear at least to the developing world... secondly, the way Israel also seems to have utilised the political space in this whole anti-terror atmosphere to infringe on Palestinian human rights, national rights... don't you see all that as diluting the moral purpose of the campaign?

Condoleezza Rice: The American moral purpose in fighting terrorism as well as that of the coalition has been very, very clear. The first is that it's not just about our own case... we've made the case that it's about terrorism in any place, terrorism that angered India for instance, in the December 13 incident at the Parliament. Terrorism is always wrong wherever it is. And that is the case the President is carrying... that there can be no cause that is served by terror.

As to Iraq, we had a problem with Iraq before September 11 and we have a problem after September 11 and it is that Iraq is in violation of all kinds of agreements that it signed with the international community after its defeat in the war of 1991, which, by the way, attacked its neighbour, tried to destroy its neighbour. We have with Iraq a concern about the development of weapons of mass destruction... we know that it's a repressive regime, that it represses its own people, that it threatens its neighbours, and it's trying to acquire the most dangerous weapons, in fact has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people. It is true that the Iraqis do cavort with terrorists very much but the case with Iraq has to do with the obligations it undertook in 1991 and one of those obligations was not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And that's the case with Iraq.

Do you have evidence that they have collaborated with the Al-Qaeda or are part of the whole terrorist network... ?

The case with Iraq has to do with the weapons of mass destruction they're acquiring, the threat that they are to the region... I would not be in the least surprised if they are supporting Al-Qaeda and we do know that in the Palestinian case, the Iraqis are offering $25,000 to parents... people whose children blow themselves up... a terrible thing to do. This is an awful regime... and we think the moral case against Iraq is very clear.

But don't you think that given that the primary objective that you set is the elimination of the Al-Qaeda and similar terror networks, will not the political agendas that creep in and the contradictions that are there such as over what's happening between Israel and the Palestinians undermine the primary objective?

No, no, because we have many objectives. We have the objective of the war on terrorism, but the objective of bringing peace in the Middle East has been a longstanding American objective and it is an objective that goes back to many Presidents of the United States.

And there, the President has been clear that there are responsibilities on all sides... for the Palestinians 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, and to live in peace with their neighbours.

For the Israelis, they do have to come into conformity with Resolutions 242 and 338 as part of a negotiated settlement. They should do more for the Palestinian people. We believe very, very strongly that the humanitarian situation the Palestinian people face is really appalling and we are giving humanitarian assistance ourselves to the Palestinian people. And it is for the Arab states to be more involved in bringing peace to the region and to stop the incitement of terrorism in their official media... but the Middle East also has its own special dynamic of trying to bring an eventual territorial settlement that will create two States, Israel and Palestine.

President Bush has been saying these last two days that the U.S. is going to be in Afghanistan for a long time... it's one thing to go after terrorists but are you going to get into the nation-building thing that people like you particularly didn't want the United States to get involved with?

None of us have ever been against helping to build nations but it's not a military job to help build nations. The nation builders in Afghanistan have to be the Afghan people. The international community and America can be partners in building that nation.

The Afghan people want to build their nation, that is very clear, you can see it in the way they came into the streets after the Taliban was routed. You see it in the fact that they are participating in the political life of the country, they are going back to school in large numbers, they are trying to get involved in economic projects.

Nation building is a term we don't like because it suggests that it's the responsibility of somebody else to build their nation. Nation building is a project for the Afghan people. The Americans and the international community will be partners...

Would it be possible to maintain that distinction?

Oh yes, absolutely because the interim authority in Afghanistan is in the lead. They are making the policies, they are making the policies in a democratic way... they will have a Loya Jirga which will bring together all the different aspects of Afghan society to create a government. And we will be supportive with assistance in reconstruction, aid and training and assistance. But the Afghan people have to keep the lead in building their own nation.

Coming back to the question of moral purpose, one of the values that the United States has always stressed is democracy... now that the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, is a critical ally of yours in the coalition against terror, what do you make of the referendum that he has just held? The U.S. has been very muted in its criticism, there wasn't much said...

The referendum will take place and it will have whatever results it has but the important thing is that we have made very clear to President Musharraf that we expect that he will carry through on his promise to hold parliamentary elections in October that are consistent with international standards and that put Pakistan back on a firm democratic path and I don't think we could have been any clearer, I've myself been in the meetings with President Musharraf and we've made very clear that the parliamentary elections are not the end but the beginning of putting Pakistan back on a democratic path.

We do think that it is important that he has been doing other things as well, reforming the educational system... that contributes to democracy because if you reform the madrassas and make them places that people learn to live together and (be) tolerant... if you give the speeches he did about how extremism is not just wrong but actually holds people back, that will contribute to democracy as well. So we believe that the process of getting back on the democratic path in Pakistan is underway in many ways... but we've been very clear that we expect it to be completed.

But there have been things like the Opposition parties not being allowed to hold rallies and there are reports that Pakistani journalists have lost their jobs for raising critical questions such as on the Daniel Pearl case. In terms of civil society, there is a sense of repression...

Our view is that Pakistan, in order to fulfill its prosperous future and in order to be a good neighbour, is going to have to be democratic and we believe that Musharraf is doing some helpful and useful things to create the conditions for greater democracy and to be a good neighbour but there's no question that we are very focussed in looking ahead at the October elections... they have to meet certain international standards and that means also the Opposition has to have the ability to speak in order to make its case before the elections.

When I interviewed President Musharraf recently and asked him about the list of 20 terrorists wanted by India, he dismissed the list as rubbish and said there was no way he was going to hand them over... do you share Musharraf's view of the list, do you think India is overreacting by mobilising a huge number of troops on the border to press its case?

I think we have tried not to be so involved in the details but we have said that the legitimate concern of India over cross-border terrorism has to be addressed by Musharraf, that the kinds of incidents that are carried out by organisations that associate themselves with the Kashmiri cause, that those organisations need to be put out of business and that since no cause can be served by terrorism, these organisations are not serving the Kashmiri cause... and we've been very clear with Musharraf that we expect to see actions to follow up on his January 12 speech that said Pakistan will end any support to extremists.

Would you think it's okay for India not to talk?

I think India has responsibilities here too and what the world does not need is a conflict between India and Pakistan. It would serve no one for India and Pakistan to come to military blows. We need time to work the anti-terrorism agenda. The United States is engaged in the anti-terrorism agenda on behalf of everyone including on behalf of India and Pakistan. So we have urged the Indian Government to give diplomacy the primacy here... to give us all time to dismantle the terrorist networks, to begin dialogue over the issues that are at root cause here and we think that's the way ahead. We have been, by the way, very respectful of 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 to the Indian people in December. It could not have been easy to do what they've done, to keep talking but we really believe that this is the way forward...

But there is a feeling that after Gen. Musharraf's January 12 speech, India should have let up a little bit...

There is a sense in which as the Pakistanis have tried to be responsive — and they have tried to be responsive, we do believe they're doing some things — that it would be good for India to take some steps too. The important thing though is that everybody stay away from brinksmanship, that nobody use force here and that we give diplomacy and the anti-terror campaign and the dismantling of the terrorist organisations time to work.

The United States is committed to that anti-terrorism agenda all over the world and we are working very closely with Pakistan and we want 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. We have a large and good future with India as it emerges as an economic power, it's a great democracy... it is by the way a very important demonstration of the ability of people to live together who are from different backgrounds and different religious backgrounds. We have been impressed with the Indian Government which has reacted so strongly to the sectarian violence. That's very important.

But what has happened in Gujarat has evoked strong criticism from human rights groups... people have wondered why the United States has not been forthcoming in its criticism unlike the European countries...

Because we believe that India is a great democracy, that the Vajpayee Government is leading India well and that it will do the right thing when it comes to investigating the violence and the acts of violence.

We believe that India is a good partner and, just to go back to the point — that a conflict between India and Pakistan will serve nobody.

But doesn't the moral credibility of your anti-terror campaign get compromised when it's okay that human rights get trampled like what's happening in Gujarat... the Government going after Muslims?

There needs to be a clear investigation of those events and the right thing needs to be done... and we believe the Vajpayee Government will do the right thing and we'll encourage them to do the right thing.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

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

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu