Man for all reasons confuses diplomatic observers

Man for all reasons confuses diplomatic observers
March 2000

The Statesman

What’s the US policy on Kashmir? Mr Clinton’s speeches have created confusion about whether he has moved closer to the Indian position or intruded into Indian space by according the USA a role in the region - and calling repeatedly for a resumption of dialogue.
While the basic tenets of US policy on the need for India and Pakistan to solve the Kashmir issue, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people remains unchanged, Mr Clinton’s visit has also thrown up a number of nuanced approaches that have fleshed out this basic position.
Diplomatic observers are reserving their judgment until the completion of the trip to South Asia, with Mr Clinton’s coming comments in Islamabad being seen as the defining moment in spelling. out the US policy. But analysts point to the doublespeak that has given the USA a broad range of options for the future.
The disparate comments over the past three days have contained the four steps outlined by President Clinton for the region, including respect for the LoC, a halt to violence, restraint and resumption of dialogue, mention of support of elements in the Pakistan government for perpetrating violence in Kashmir and a call to the Indian government to address the concerns of Kashmiris.
The package, in fact, has had something for everyone, the essential pre-requisite of the successful intermediary, to be seen as a friend of every party. The position taken by Mr Clinton has contained elements that can be owned by disparate groups and has had both the Indian government and the All-Party Hurriyat Conference claiming that his comments have been favourable to their positions on Kashmir.
As far as the Indian government is concerned, it has taken succour from the fact that Mr Clinton has called for a respect for the LoC, which cuts both ways as the President pointed out it was important that “both sides” respected it. Another comment that was music to Indian ears was his comment on the involvement of elements of the Pakistani government in support for those engaged in violence in Kashmir as also his statement that Pakistan needed to have a non-violent plan for resolving its differences with India.
The Hurriyat, however, feels Mr Clinton’s comments have focussed attention on the need for negotiations on the Kashmir issue with the involvement of Kashmiris, which reflects their position.
Describing President Clinton’s address to Parliament as a positive signal, the Hurriyat spokesman told The Statesman that the speech was a clear cut signal which had also spelt out the U S offer of support.
Refuting the claims of the government that President Clinton’s call to end violence was a cognisance of its position, the Hurriyat says state violence and the violation of rights was the biggest form of violence in the state.
India and Pakistan, the Hurriyat says, must use this opportunity to begin a dialogue since they would have to begin talking “if not today, at least six months later.”
That the US still sees for itself a role in the issue is borne out by the fact that Mr Clinton has already expressed hope that his trip here had a beneficial impact on what he has described as a difficult situation and also that the Indo-US relationship, over time, would take the two countries in a different direction.
He has also enunciated clearly that the US has an interest in trying to avert a larger conflict and trying to reduce tensions between the two countries.
The American interest in the region is nowhere spelt out as succinctly as in the vision statement between India and the USA which states that both countries would engage in regular consultations to work together and with others for “strategic stability in Asia and beyond”. It also says they would bolster joint efforts to counter terrorism and “meet other challenges to regional peace.”
Where India can take heart is in the US President’s complete rejection of violence as a means of approaching the Kashmir issue. In fact, Mr Clinton said one of the reasons why the U S would not get involved was because he did not want it to get dragged into the situation because of deliberate acts of violence.