The Hindu : Non-alignment still relevant: Sinha

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Aug 20, 2002

National

National

Non-alignment still relevant: Sinha

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI AUG. 19. A relaxed Yashwant Sinha, who took over the job of External Affairs Minister in July, spoke exclusively to The Hindu on a range of foreign policy issues. Excerpts from the interview:

Amit Baruah: What will be your focus in foreign policy issues as External Affairs Minister?

Yashwant Sinha: India's foreign policy has deep roots. It's a policy which was enunciated even before we became an independent country... Because it was a policy evolved during the freedom struggle, it has the backing of national consensus. From time to time, the nuances of foreign policy have been undergoing a change but the basic thrust has remained more or less the same. There have been two developments since the 1990s. One has been the emergence of the so-called unipolar world and the second has been India's acquisition of nuclear capability. Both these have been, from our policy point of view, landmark events...

If we take the first one first, we found that many of the premises of the past changed... in all spheres of international relations not only in strategic and diplomatic sense, but also very clearly.... in the economic sense. We have had to adjust our policies to suit the requirement of these changes. And, we have done it admirably. One very positive outcome has been that, as a result of the realisation both in the U.S. and India, the two democracies need not always be at loggerheads...We have been able to widen and deepen our relationship with the U.S. At the same time, we have not diluted our commitment to the infrastructure of non-alignment. I personally believe that non-alignment is still a very relevant philosophy in international relations because the basic thesis of non-alignment is that we should be able to follow an independent foreign policy... We faced a certain situation which was unfriendly as a result of the nuclear tests. But we have been able to explain the need for going nuclear... Four years down the line one can say that India's case is now much better understood than it initially was immediately following May 1998. So, on both these counts, our policy has been successful... My (foreign policy) focus will be to further strengthen these trends and ensure that we evolve most cordial relations with all our interlocutors in order to safeguard and protect our national interest.

Do you believe there is a sense of disappointment with the U.S. today given the fact they continue to describe Pakistan as a "stalwart ally" in the battle against terrorism?

As I understand (how) the U.S. looks at it, they feel that (General Pervez) Musharraf is a stalwart ally in their fight against terrorism on Pakistan's western border, namely Afghanistan... the U.S. war against terrorism was to eliminate this (Taliban and Al-Qaeda) threat. And there is no doubt that Musharraf has been more than a willing collaborator in this fight. We must also not forget that the U.S. woke to the threat of terrorism only after it was directly affected by the events of September 11. We have suffered terrorism for a much longer period... the cross-border terrorism that Pakistan was fomenting in Jammu and Kashmir was not an overriding concern. Quite clearly, it is only the threat of war between the two neighbours that has kindled their interest in this form of cross-border terrorism. And, they have done their bit. But as we have always said while we welcome their (U.S.) support this is a battle that we have been fighting and this is a battle we have to fight. So, in that context, the question of hope or disappointment becomes irrelevant.

But you do see our engagement with the U.S. and the rest of the international community as an important tool to put pressure on Pakistan and Gen. Musharraf on the issue of cross-border terrorism?

I have already said on a number of occasions that India's foreign policy is not and should not be Pakistan-centric. We will deal with Pakistan as and when it becomes necessary, but we will not allow Pakistan to dominate our bilateral relationship with any other country. This is a point I, hopefully, made quite clear to my interlocutors who have visited (New Delhi) during the recent past. I think they have gone back convinced that our bilateral relationship with them should be conducted irrespective of what happens in Pakistan. So, if they consider it worth their while to put pressure on Pakistan to desist from cross-border terrorism, fine. Otherwise, as I said, we will deal with the problem.

Your visits to the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Afghanistan and now to Nepal and Bangladesh show a new stress on neighbouring countries. What dividends can Indian foreign policy attain from such a focus?

This is not a new initiative. The initiative is as old as Pandit Nerhu's Asian Relations Conference... being part of Asia our interest in Asia is natural... we have followed a policy of pro-active engagement with our neighbours and I am only trying to push that forward...

On Sri Lanka, we have a pending request for the extradition of the LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabakaran. Do you believe that this Indian request could impinge on the peace process that is going on?

I find that this issue is good copy for the media. So, whenever you talk of India-Sri Lanka relations, the most important issue that comes to mind is what is happening to the extradition of Prabakaran. I have already made it clear in Colombo that the request for his extradition is pending. The Sri Lankan Government is aware of it. It's not that they have to be made aware of it again and again. The peace process in Sri Lanka is very important, not only from the point of view of Sri Lanka, but also for the region as a whole. Therefore, we have supported this process and we are happy the peace process is getting underway. These two issues will have to be kept apart and dealt (with) as such.

Is there anything more that India can do to help the peace process along?

I don't think we need to do anything more at the moment except to say that we support the peace process. At this point of time, we have no desire to play any direct role in the peace process.

You are going tomorrow to Nepal for the SAARC Foreign Ministers meeting. At the last summit, there were suggestions for more informal consultations among SAARC leaders. How do you view this?

When the (SAARC) summit takes place, there is also a retreat. Then there is a lot of toing and froing between the various countries, which gives us the opportunity for informal discussions. So, we don't have to formalise the informality...

Given your background as Finance Minister, how do you see the progress on freer trade in South Asia?

Our successes have been very limited so far. Unfortunately, SAARC has not made as much progress on trade and economic cooperation as it should have. We should quickly implement SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Area). We should take it beyond and evolve SAARC as a common tariff area... We should follow the example of developments in other regions and mould SAARC into a kind of economic and strategic bloc that it should be.

To return to the issue of Pakistan, India has taken the position that we will not talk to Islamabad as long as cross-border terrorism continues. Do you believe that a scenario can emerge for some kind of engagement with Pakistan?

There is need to engage Pakistan directly on a range of issues. That position was accepted in the Shimla accord... reiterated in the Lahore declaration and it was under that process that Prime Minister Vajpayee invited Gen. Musharraf to visit India... we are convinced that it is only through a bilateral process of dialogue that we can find a solution to various issues. It is Gen. Musharraf who has given an assurance which has been conveyed to us (by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage) that Pakistan will put a permanent end to infiltration... and that it will dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism. What is permanent? One day, one week? We need evidence that this is actually a permanent end to infiltration... unfortunately, there is no such evidence. Leave apart a permanent end, there is not even a temporary end because infiltration has not ended. Therefore, this precondition becomes important in terms of Pakistan's own commitment to the international community not to subject India to cross-border terrorism.

If we exclude the bilateral process, outsiders will have a larger role to play in our bilateral relationship with Pakistan...

The role of the outsiders today is confined only to a discussion on cross-border terrorism. We are not discussing any other issue with them. Our firm stand that all the issues between India and Pakistan should be settled through bilateral discussion remains totally undiluted.

India has said it will not allow institutional observers to watch the polls in Jammu and Kashmir, but individuals are free to come. If this election goes off well, will it strengthen India's position on Kashmir?

First of all, we are not allowing anyone. When we issue the visa for India, it does not say excluding Jammu and Kashmir. So anybody who has a visa for India is free to visit wherever he wants... The commitment to free and fair elections is there... in fact, if there is a dilution of that commitment the first people who will talk about it is the Indian media. And, anyone who is talking of the need for external observers, does not recognise the strength of the Election Commission and the Indian media. We don't need a New York Times reporter to come and tell us what is happening in Kashmir because (The) Hindu will report more fairly and freely.

A point was made by the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that there was a need to make the Kashmir elections more inclusive. Are you hopeful that non-traditional parties will come into the process?

I can't answer that question positively at this point of time... We think we have created the conditions for inclusive elections and in a democracy that's the surest test of strength. There is no point in people or sections remaining outside the electoral process and claim to represent the people of Jammu and Kashmir... if they have strength, they should demonstrate this in the elections. The only worry here is the interference of Pakistan in the electoral process. The speech of Gen. Musharraf on August 14 has not been helpful at all.

Can you give us an update of talks with Beijing on the border question?

We are furthering our relationship with them in all areas. We have agreed on a process to deal with the border issue and the issue of the Line of Actual Control. That process is going on... naturally, it will take time.

There is a perception in some sections in South-East Asia that India and China are competitors in South-East Asia, especially in Myanmar.

There is no need to look at this as a competition, in competitive terms. There is so much to be done that there is enough both for China and India.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National