Once a professor at Harvard, then a member of the core group advising President George Bush, called the ‘Vulcans,’ Robert Blackwill has been a frontline witness to the steamy India-Pakistan saga in his current incarnation as US ambassador to India. With the all-powerful Americans practically brokering both the tension and the stalemate in the region, Blackwill spoke to Jyoti Malhotra. What is your reaction to the military de-escalation by India and Pakistan over the last few days?Very positive. We have been worried since the mobilisation began since December-January, that with these two forces mobilised forward, at hammers cock, one incident could produce a confrontation. This has been the preoccupation of the administration throughout, including Secretary Powell. we believed that one of the most important de-escalatory steps would be getting those forces back away from one another. This redeployment lowers tensions and reduces the likelihood of a spark setting off a major conventional conflict. With tensions down, some more space has been created for the resumption of serious discussions between India and Pakistan. We very much think it is a step in the right direction. How do you see this unfolding now?First of all, it is up to the governments of India and Pakistan. But we believe that in the context of which the deescalation has occurred, now is the time to begin planning for a serious resumption of discussion on the differences you have. Including on Kashmir, but not just Kashmir. Our strong view is that the process of discussion can further reduce the temperature between the two sides and start a process in which differences are addressed. So we hope that will happen. What if the government started with offering discussions short of Kashmir?My impression is that the Indian 8-point agenda from the past still has logic to it. But my guess is that if India were to say that we’d like to talk about seven those but not eight, it would probably be not a very acceptable approach in Islamabad. We think the comprehensive approach is the best approach. But in addition to diplomatic steps, such as returning the High Commissioner to Islamabad, one could imagine people-to-people steps. For example, resuming air and rail traffic and sporting contacts. These are essentially people-to-people steps, not high diplomacy. Anything that strengthens the interaction between the people of India and Pakistan is good. But that’s not all. Terrorism against India has to end, that is an absolutely crucial part of this. We continue to work on it ceaselessly, to end any terrorism against India emanating from Pakistan, India or Pakistan-occupied territory. So while the effort to reduce tension between the two countries goes on, we continue to work with others extremely hard to end terrorism against india. With Pakistan?Pakistan, of course, but also other international actors. As you know, it’s not only the US that has been urging Pakistan to end terrorism, the British, French have talked. This is a very important part of our approach. So we’re not telling India to resume the dialogue in isolation. The broad strategy should be to . work towards the goal where there is no terrorism. India’s view is that terrorism should end before dialogue can begin. Are you saying this should happen simultaneously?Yes, our view is that these things should go in parallel. We and others will continue to work very hard in Islamabad to try to promote the objective of no more terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied territory. But at the same time, India and Pakistan should resume a serious discussion about their differences. How can something like this happen?I won't be drawn into details. We don’t have blueprints, we think this has to be generated by the two governments together. But I will say that in a context in which we have had a successful, credible, positive election in J&K, about which my government has spoken about already, as well as an election in Pakistan where there will be a new prime minister in a couple of weeks, we think there is space for discussion between the two countries. I think it would also help if the level of rhetoric was diminished by the two sides. I don’t think exchanging brickbats in this situation is particularly helpful. So if you put all this together, you’re approaching a strategy of getting at this problem in a sustained way. Also, if India and Pakistan do not discuss their differences seriously and in a prolonged way, why is this crisis ever going to go away? So, parallel efforts, less rhetoric, more discussion, progress on cross-border terrorism, demobilisation of forces, all this offers some promise of moving ahead. When you say ‘this problem won’t go away,’ are you referring to Kashmir?It's broader than Kashmir. It’s not accidental that it’s an eight-part composite dialogue that India has in mind. Its most acute set of differences of course reside in Kashmir, but there are others too, and both sides should discuss all their differences. I import myself into this set of questions via my long experience in dealing with US-Soviet affairs. The record of that decade-long confrontation is that one side or the other would refuse to talk without precondition. I think history shows that it’s almost always a mistake. Sometimes Moscow would put up that precondition, sometimes Washington would, but it was almost always a mistake. It’s much better to discuss, take apart, analyse, illuminate differences. Nothing prevents governments from saying what they don’t like about the other one’s policy. I’m not saying, go in with a smiley face and say that everything’s fine, not at all. Seems to me, in such circumstances, India should begin discussions with Pakistan on cross-border terrorism. Where and how would the US come in to tell Pakistan that it must live up to its own promises to end terrorism?You can be sure that we continue to say several times every week. We’re working on this problem. We have stamina on this. Because we think its important in principle that terrorism against India ends. There’s a view here that America is so consumed with Iraq that it doesn’t have time for the India-Pakistan story.If there is such a view, it is quite mistaken. Secretary Powell spoke to Musharraf in the last 36 hours. The Secretary also talked to Minister Sinha in the last 24 hours. So this is not a record of disengagement. We have major equities in the transformation of the India-US relationship, with Pakistan, with Pakistan’s assistance in the war against terrorism, al Qaeda, etc. What would be your route to dialogue? You have the example of the Agra summit before you.Let me give you my professorial prejudice. Our successful US-Soviet summits were all carefully prepared. The ones which depended on spontaneity didn’t work out very well. What is your sense of the Indian Government?I am not a spokesman of the Indian government, but let me make a conceptual distinction between good offices and mediation. Good offices have to do with process, mediation has to do with outcomes. We offer our good offices on process, we say, couldn’t you start speaking to one another? Notice what we do not do—as we began doing in the Middle East after the 1973 war—that, not only do we want you to talk, but here is where we think you should end up. That’s called mediation. We’re not doing that here, will not do that here, we think outcomes are a matter for India and Pakistan to decide for themselves. So we’ll do process, but not outcomes. Your assessment of the Pakistani elections?A positive step towards democracy, which is positive. We have a sustained message to the Government of Pakistan and we’ll keep saying it, (not only) that Pakistan will be served by democratic governance but also that this region would be safer, stable and more secure.
