The strong statement of US Ambassador Robert Blackwill on terrorism (See page 9) is not aimed only at his Indian audience but also carries a message for the US State Department that still believes in maintaining strategic parity in the sub-continent.His words that ‘‘fight against international terrorism will not be won until terrorism against India ends permanently and there can be no other legitimate stance by the US, no American compromise whatever on this elemental geopolitical and moral truth’’ are crucial.In fact, South Block believes Blackwill was forced to leave his job as he was frustrated at the State Department’s attempts to view the sub-continent through the prism of India-Pakistan relationship. This was clearly not Blackwill’s goal as his vision was the ‘‘world’s oldest and largest democracies operating together to transform their relations, to forge concentrated strategic collaboration for decades ahead.’’ Blackwill it seems wanted India on a different pedestal as compared to Pakistan.While many here share the perception that Blackwill lost his job because of his proximity to the top Indian leadership, including Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani, South Block denies it, saying that the US Ambassador fully understood the collective decision-making process of the Indian political system.Blackwill indeed shared a good relationship with Advani, whom he met no less than seven times in the past two months. However, it is apparent that his interaction with Advani also served the purpose of moderating the DyPM’s stance on cross-border terrorism.Before going to the media with his statement, Blackwill personally called up senior Ministry of External Affairs officials, including foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal, and informed them of his desire to go back to Harvard. His rapport with South Block becomes evident from the fact that even though the MEA was in the know of Blackwill’s parting statement, few at the American embassy knew what their Ambassador was up to.
