Special interest, but no special envoy — Clinton

“Unless we were asked by both parties to help, we can’t get involved (on the Kashmir issue),” Clinton said at a White House press conference. He said in every other case, such as the Middle East or Northern Ireland, the US was involved because both parties wanted so. But in the case of India and Pakistan, although the US was in a position to make a constructive contribution, it would not interpose itself.

“If they don’t want us, it won’t be doing any good; we’d just be out there talking into the air. And I’m not in for that,” Clinton said.

The President’s categorical assertion that India and Pakistan have to tackle the Kashmir issue between themselves disappointed the Pakistani lobby hoping for mediation and came as a relief to Indian supporters.

Even more significantly, the President virtually ruled out an emerging Pakistani demand to appoint a special envoy for Kashmir, saying it would not contribute to the resolution of the problem.

“I agree that a bilateral dialogue is the most productive approach to a solution, and that a US special envoy (for Kashmir) would not contribute to a resolution of the problem,” Clinton wrote in a letter to the co-chairman of the India Caucus, Congressman Gary Ackerman.

The President, however, said he continued to be concerned about the lack of dialogue between India and Pakistan. “Both countries should work to resume their dialogue with the goal of resolving all the issues dividing them, including Kashmir,” he added.

When asked at the White House event if the US would step in if both countries asked, Clinton responded with an emphatic “absolutely”. He then went on to make a case for some kind of US involvement with lavish praise for the people of the subcontinent. He spoke of the success in terms of education and income levels of Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans who had done “stunningly well” and “astonishingly maybe, had good contacts with one another (in the US).” But in South Asia, he suggested, the tensions were holding back progress.

“If the tensions between India and Pakistan could be resolved, it is my opinion, based on my personal experience with people from India, people from Pakistan and people from Bangladesh, that the Indian subcontinent might very well be the great success story of the next 50 years.

“You’re talking about people who are basically immensely talented, have a strong work ethic, a deep devotion to their faith and to their families. There is nothing they couldn’t do. And it is heartbreaking to me to see how much they hold each other back by being trapped in yesterday’s conflicts,” Clinton said feelingly.

The President however said he had not made a final decision about a stopover in Pakistan although he was going to India and Bangladesh. “I will make a decision about whether to go based on what I think will best serve our long-term interests in non-proliferation, in trying to stop, particularly, the arms race, and trying to help to promote stability, democracy and a resolution of the conflict between India and Pakistan,” he said.

Hours before the President spoke, his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, faced lawmakers at a Congressional hearing who were agitated at a possible Presidential stopover. Cautioning that a Clinton stopover in Pakistan would send the wrong message to the international community about the United States’ commitment to democracy, Congressman Sam Gedjenson said it would also be seen as legitimising the military coup in Pakistan.

“I know that the Pakistan issue is before us. But I think that as we see the military ruler in Pakistan removing the court system, trying the elected leader for treason, it would be the wrong signal to send,” argued Gejdenson.

Albright toed the familiar White House line on the Presidential stopover: No decision yet.