G-8 to seek bar on loans to India, Pak

At a Press conference later, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said the tests had “paradoxically…increased the pressure on the international community to resolve the Kashmir dispute”. He seemed fairly unimpressed with reports of talks between the two countries. “I have only heard…but it would appear from the exchanges so far that they have not got to the point of sitting down.”

Albright, addressing the Press conference separately, admittedthat the G-8 “had a little bit of an emotional roller-coaster on it (the possibility of talks)…we heard India made an offer…dates didn’t match…we’ll have to see..” She added: “All of us believe that we have to deal with the root causes…lack of communication…and Kashmir specifically.” She, however, categorically stated that these were issues that had to be settled bilaterally between India and Pakistan.

In a statement to the G-8 ministers, Albright urged the countries not to undermine her government’s economic sanctions against India and Pakistan and not to allow relations with the two countries to “drift back to business as usual.”

The strongly-worded communique of the G-8 ministers endorsed the statement by the P-5 countries in Geneva last week and ignored India’s offer to reopen Foreign Secretary-level talks on June 22, in response to a similar offer from Pakistan.

It also ignored the Indian Government’s statement that any attempt to seek unconditional commitments and an end to itsnuclear weapons programme would be “short-sighted and counter-productive”.

While condemning both countries for their nuclear tests, the communique said that despite the tests, India and Pakistan “do not have the status of nuclear weapon states in accordance with the NPT”.

The communique echoed the UN Security Council resolution calling on India and Pakistan to “stop all further nuclear tests and adhere to the CTBT immediately and unconditionally…to refrain from weaponisation or deployment of nuclear warheads and testing or deployment of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons…refrain from further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

It reiterated the P-5 statement by asking both countries to “undertake to avoid threatening military movements, cross-border violations or other provocative acts and statements…discourage terrorist activity and any support of it…(and) resume without delay a direct dialogue that addresses the root causesof the tension, including Kashmir, through early resumption of the Foreign Secretary-level talks.”

Today’s meeting, apart from widening support for the P-5 agreement among the non-nuclear OECD countries, attempted to include `other’ countries which, it is believed, would add to the moral opprobrium against India and Pakistan. This took the form of a luncheon meeting of six countries, including South Africa, Brazil, Ukraine and Argentina, all of whom have voluntarily renounced their nuclear capability. The Philippines, as a representative of ASEAN, and China are also part of the effort to bring more pressure to bear on the two countries.

Albright said the presence of non-nuclear countries proved that “the problem before the international community was not that the nuclear “haves’ were lining up against the nuclear “have-nots”. This part of the summit was little more than a signature campaign and it is uncertain how many signatures were actually collected. Incidentally, South Africa and Brazil aresignatories to a statement last week which strongly criticised the five original nuclear powers for not actively seeking nuclear disarmament.

Albright was asked repeatedly whether the US and the other P-5 countries intended to enter into a dailogue to dismantle their own nuclear arsenals, she said that this “is all very interesting…but we must keep our eyes on the ball…the problem is that these two countries have conducted tests…decreased their security and increased the chances of chaos.”