Opinion - Editorials

A balancing act

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION seems determined to strike a sense of balance while seeking to engage India without alienating Pakistan during the ongoing American campaign against the politics of terrorism on the wider international stage. This and other highly nuanced aspects of America's present worldview, whose focal point is the globalised anti-terror campaign, have been outlined with much clarity and candour by the U.S. National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in an exclusive interview to this newspaper. Categorical indeed is the position adopted by Dr. Rice that the U.S., which is "working very closely with Pakistan" about an "anti-terrorism agenda" with a global sweep, "want(s) to work very closely with India" too. Amply clear are the circumstances in which Pakistan emerged as a critical ally of the U.S. in its coalition against terror in the context of the terrorist outrage that shook America and the world last September. Now, in Dr. Rice's view, Washington's eagerness to "work very closely" with New Delhi, no less, is anchored to a specific reasoning. The U.S., according to her, is alive to the possibility of "a larger future with India that will be very well served by the work (the two countries) do together in the anti-terrorism campaign". A formulation of this magnitude does not at all imply any suggestion of a zero-sum American game in the India-Pakistan context. More significantly, there is nothing in Dr. Rice's emphatic comments to indicate any intention on the part of the U.S. at this stage to make a definitive intervention of the diplomatic kind in respect of the issues of contention between India and Pakistan. By saying that the U.S. has "tried not to be so involved in the details" as to resolve the running feud between New Delhi and Islamabad over India's list of 20 identified terrorists and criminals, the top-ranking American policy-maker has clearly underlined Washington's anxiety to maintain a degree of balance and fair play as regards the two estranged South Asian neighbours.

It is entirely reasonable that Dr. Rice should have called for a sustained military restraint by New Delhi in its confrontation with Islamabad. No strenuous argument is required to recognise that such a policy will be in India's own enlightened self-interest as well. Moreover, no contradiction exists between the insistence by Dr. Rice that New Delhi should bear "responsibilities" of this order and her own robust appreciation of India's overall demeanour in the context of the terrorist strike against its Parliament House last December. Considerations of realpolitik too demand that the Bush administration's transparent passion for a balanced view of the compounded India-Pakistan rift must be read in terms of America's worldwide anti-terror agenda. Not surprisingly, therefore, the U.S. National Security Adviser is eager to emphasise the proposition that "it would serve no one for India and Pakistan to come to military blows" when Washington "need(s) time to work the anti-terrorism agenda".

Washington's current priorities in regard to Islamabad include the suggestion that "the legitimate concern of India over cross-border terrorism has to be addressed by (President) Musharraf". The U.S. has told Pakistan that the organisations which "associate themselves with the Kashmiri cause" really "need to be put out of business" because "no cause can be served by terrorism". These ideas reveal a vigorous degree of American pressure on Pakistan. However, a measure of symmetry can be seen in Washington's policy of urging New Delhi "to give diplomacy the primacy" on matters concerning Islamabad and "to begin dialogue over the issues that are at (the) root cause" of the India-Pakistan tensions. Now, the India-Pakistan landscape certainly falls within America's glasshouse vision of the global scene. It is no less obvious, however, that Washington addresses each of its many concerns, be it Iraq or the Israel-Palestinian war, as almost a unique case.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

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

Stories in this Section

• A balancing act
• The voter's right to know
• A different summit
• Food security
• Communal raj and criminal society
• Use of Article 355
• 'Fatwa' politics is not the answer
• Tough, persistent
• Questions for home
• Parade them
• Not BJP alone
• Hidden agenda
• Self-defeating
• Contradictions

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