It’s been a hectic few weeks on the foreign policy front. The won’t-go-away-easily question of sending troops to Iraq, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit, Pakistan’s woolly-headed peace moves and now the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly meet. So, is India sending troops to Iraq? External affairs minister Yashwant Sinha says in an exclusive interview that the situation hasn’t changed much since India said ‘no’ last time. Excerpts from an interview
You have been holding consultations with your counterparts on the Iraq situation. The US has also indicated it is willing to try afresh for a UN resolution on Iraq. What is India planning to do?
They are concerned about the deteriorating ground situation in Iraq. We feel that the sooner sovereignty is restored to the Iraqi people and governance is handed back to them the better, or else the security situation will not improve. It is not a question of having more troops on ground, it is a question of a fundamentally different approach. Where the Government becomes Iraqi and they start taking care of their own problems, which includes security, their natural resources, their reconstruction. The sooner this happens it will be better for Iraq.
But what about sending the troops?
We will see what the credible Iraqi regime wants, they will not need foreign forces.
So, are you saying that we will not get into any more arguments with the US on the troops issue. Is there a hitch on the issue?
It’s not a question of a hitch now, the decision to send troops or not was never smooth. There were host of considerations including domestic ones. What the CCS decided on July 14 was that even in order to “consider”, we need an explicit UN mandate. The ground of reconsideration has not arisen as there is no resolution.
It’s been more than two years since the start of the war on terror. Not only is the war nowhere near finishing, worse, our own concerns have been largely ignored. What is happening?
Till the time there is an absence of clarity on the global war against terrorism it will continue to be weak. Then, there is the issue of double standards: they cannot live with one set of terrorism, but they can live with another, only because it doesn’t affect them. If you say that cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan is bad then cross-border terrorism in India is equally bad. You cannot say that cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan needs to be fought but terrorism in India needs to be condoned.
Terrorist organisations have been banned but they reappear under different names. Take the case of LeT. When Pakistan says that we have closed camps that is not enough. What do you do with those people, have you disarmed them, have you arrested them, have you proceeded legally against them? So, closing a camp is not good enough. These are issues the international community must consider seriously. India’s proposal for a comprehensive convention against terrorism has been pending since 1996, much before September 11. We must have a clearer approach against terrorism if the war against terrorism has to be successful. We have not only said this to the US but also to others.
There are concerns about our growing friendship with Israel, that it may cost us our friends in the Arab world and our commitment to Palestine. Did we forcefully articulate India’s position on Palestine and Iran, during the talks?
Our committment to the Palestinian question remains unaltered and we have told them as clearly as possible. I spent 75 minutes with Mr (Ariel) Sharon and we stated our position to the Israelis as clearly as they told us their concerns. We told them about our relationship with Iran. But then in the conduct of bilateral relations, no country can determine what our relationship can be with a third country. They may have security concerns but we have explained in some detail where Indo-Iranian relationship stands and they should not have any concerns on that count.
What about the India-Israel-US axis against terrorism?
Any cooperation between these three democracies will be a part of the fight against global terrorism. It will be a part of our bilateral arrangements with them along with the international agreements on counter-terrorism. It’s not a question of an axis. No country in the world can claim they are safe from terrorism, an international understanding is developing despite differences.
What is your assessment on cross-border terrorism, has it changed since PM announced his peace initiatives?
There is no change in the ground-level situation. Pakistan continues to give support to terrorism, the infiltration continues, the infrastructure is also intact.
But what about the argument (often put forward in Pakistan) that an increase in terrorist violence will force India to a dialogue?
That has never succeeded in the past and will not work in the future. Our position remains clear and consistent that there is no question of a dialogue till Pakistan stops terrorism. In any case their argument for a dialogue does not hold ground. We cannot sort out all the issues between India and Pakistan in one sitting. It has to be over a period of time. If dialogue has to be meaningful and sustained, the right atmosphere must be created for it.
Recent people-to-people contacts have shown that people want peace. Even hardliners like Fazalur Rehman played the peace pipe when he was in India recently. So, then, is the military regime the main hurdle?
I have no doubt in the mind that the military regime is a stumbling block to peace. I have told my interlocutors that they must understand the nature of the Pakistani state and military. If you treat Pakistan as a normal polity then you are making a mistake.
Any possibility of talks anytime soon, say on the sidelines of the coming United Nations General Assembly meet?
Whether it is New York, Timbuktu, Islamabad or New Delhi, there is no bilateral dialogue possible till Pakistan stops cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mehmood Khursheed Kasuri has said that he will be personally coming to India to deliver the invitation for the SAARC summit in Islamabad. Do you see it as a PR exercise or a genuine move to build bridges?
We haven’t heard officially about it, we will take a view when it comes. I would like to say that the Foreign Ministers of countries do not go around delivering invitations to the head of Governments, there are other diplomatic channels available. In any case the dates for the SAARC summit have been decided by the SAARC standing committee and we know about it.
But has Pakistan responded to our peace moves? Do you see any intention to reciprocate?
If we had got enough from Pakistan then we could have solved all issues. We’ll have to persevere and be patient and make Pakistan see reason.
But for how long?
You have to see in perspective, that for every terrorist incident that takes place, there are nine that are prevented. We have to fight the scourge of terrorism, and we will win.
