tribuneindia...Mailbag

THE US tilt towards Pakistan during the Cold War era, as mentioned by Mr Hari Jaisingh in his July 9 article (Washington pact and beyond: India's real test begins now), was understandable. Pakistan provided military bases and was a front-line state against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That this tilt should continue after the Cold War, despite Pakistan showing little regard for US concern about nuclear proliferation, the missile control regime and international terrorism was rather amazing.

The USA can do a great deal to nudge Islamabad indirectly towards accommodation with India. Pakistan's unwillingness to accept the geopolitical realities in the subcontinent is mainly due to the concept of equality so assiduously promoted by Washington during the Cold War years and even later. India and America are both democracies with faith in the rule of law and a free Press. If the USA eschews its policy of benign neglect towards India, Pakistan might kick and cry for a while but it will finally come to understand that it is better to go along with India than to wage a war. The latest stand by President Clinton on the Kargil conflict has turned the tide of Indian public opinion heavily in favour of Washington, making it easier for whichever Indian regime is in place to be more accommodating on some of America's own concerns.

India has suffered badly at the hands of terrorists. It has lost over 100,000 human lives in terrorism-related violence, including the lives of two Prime Ministers, a State Chief Minister and a retired Chief of the Army Staff. But Washington showed little concern about the scourge of terrorism at that time. It was only when the American embassies in Nairobi and Dares-Salam were simultaneously bombed on August 7 last year that President Clinton woke up and retaliated by launching a missile attack on E1-Shifa Pharmaceutical plant at Khartoum on mere suspicion. But such a unilateral action is not the answer. Why does the world not endeavour to ensure international peace and security on a firm and just footing by bringing into being a comprehensive anti-terrorism international regime empowered to book terrorist states like Pakistan? Time has clearly come when all the nations of the world, the USA in particular, should surrender a part of their sovereignty to save the remaining part from the terrorists.

Anti-India drive: Mr Jaisingh suggests that the Indian policymakers should take advantage of the current favourable trends to establish anew this country’s relationship with the USA. In particular, he is sanguine about the relationship between the two countries based on their shared antipathy towards religious fundamentalism, “provided the government is clear about its objectives and targets.”

I believe the author feels that this new development will be synchronous with a certain US hostility towards Pakistan. (“There are no permanent tilts in international diplomacy”.) This new relationship will then check Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir.

In my opinion the American tilt in favour of India may put an end to Pakistan’s armed aggression in Kashmir and terrorism aided and abetted by it there (one is doubtful even of this outcome, considering the nature of various forces operating in that country), but it will not stop its anti-India propaganda.

Two-way traffic: It has been rightly observed that “good intention cannot be one-way street. It has to be two-way traffic.”

In my opinion, the tilt in US policy in favour of India has two aspects. Firstly it is due to the diplomatic maturity of the Vajpayee government, which could convince the international community that India wants peace with Pakistan. The Lahore Declaration reflected that diplomacy. By telling the world that Pakistan had stabbed in the back by crossing the LoC in Kargil, the Indian government could convince the international community that it was Pakistan which was creating problems.

The second reason for the US tilt towards India can be its intention to develop a new kind of friendship with this country as there was a new party in power, which they perceive to be fundamentally different from the previous regimes, manned either by the Congress or ex-Congressmen. The previous governments were hostile to the USA by their very nature.

From the USA’s angle, it would always be in its own national interest to have good relations with a big democratic and stable country like India, with a large scope for economic cooperation.

Diplomacy at its best

PRIME Minister Vajpayee’s refusal to accept President Clinton’s invitation for visiting Washington just after Mr Nawaz Sharif’s visit to that place was an example of diplomacy at its best. This is partly because it was unfair on the part of the US President to treat India, which had been wronged, and Pakistan which was an intruder in Kargil, on the same footing and partly because the manner and timing of invitation itself had a tinge of arrogance and superiority, making it look more like a summon than a request.

Had Mr Vajpayee accepted it, he would definitely have sent a wrong signal to the world, as by implication, he would have shown his willingness to some sort of mediation by a third party and would have thus unintentionally fallen into a diplomatic trap.

That he could see through the game and rise to the occasion is a tribute to his diplomatic skill. It makes us feel proud of him. It proves that we, as a nation, have the courage of conviction in our stand on the Kargil issue and are mature enough to watch our interests without any help from others howsoever well-intentioned it might have been.

S.P. MALHOTRA
Panchkula

	M A I L B A G	Friday, July 16, 1999
weather n spotlight today's calendar