archive: `The IMF is already worried about Pakistan's use of its funds'
`The IMF is already worried about Pakistan's use of its funds'
Neerja Chowdhury
The Indian Express
July 4, 1999
Title: `The IMF is already worried about Pakistan's use of its funds'
(Interview with Narendra Chandra)
Author: Neerja Chowdhury
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: July 4, 1999
Appointed by then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, Naresh Chandra has
been our ambassador to the US from April 1996 and has had to handle
many difficult moments in Indo-US relations, especially after Pokharan
II. But having had the experience of representing four governments in
Washington must have helped. Chandra has also headed the Ayodhya Cell
at the PMO during the days when the Rao government was desperately
searching for a solution to the Babri Masjid imbroglio, and served as
the governor of Gujarat. Political editor NEERJA CHOWDHURY caught up
with him when he was in Delhi recently for consultations. Excerpts
from the interview...
Q: What is the perception in the US establishment of Kargil?
A: They do not want force to be used to settle the Kashmir issue.
They had welcomed the Lahore process, they had thought that the
meeting between the two PMs could settle the issue. They believe that
Pakistan has not honoured its commitment to the Simla or Lahore
agreements. The biggest casualty for Pakistanis its loss of
credibility.
Pakistan has lost influence on the Hill. They focused on one or two
individuals for doing their hatchet work and have not been able to do
broad consultation, as India has done. Having said that, the Pakistani
propaganda machinery has had limited success with the media. Some of
the international media has overlooked basic questions. The BBC has
not answered how they (the mujahideen) can be there without the
Pakistani army.
Q: But hasn't Pakistan managed to internationalise Kashmir?
A: Anyone can internationalise an issue today. The treatment of an
elephant in Madras got internationalised. The issue of Christians got
internationalised.If there is an armed intrusion, of course the West
should take notice of it. To say that Pakistan should withdraw is not
internationalising the issue in that sense. It is not correct that
they are diminishing the bilateral forum and trying to bring it to an
international forum. The G-8 had emphasised the bilateral framework as
the correctpolicy.
So what should South Block now ensure? That Pakistan does not use it
to further its agenda of taking it back to the Security Council. That
has not happened. Precisely the opposite has happened.
Q: There is a perception that if India manages to throw out the
infiltrators, it will help strengthen the democratic forces in
Pakistan.
A: If they find the misadventure has achieved nothing it would
generate forces in Pakistan in a positive manner and the hawks will
look foolish.
Whatever show of courage is being shown by Pakistan is born out of
weakness because its leadership cannot be seen to be letting down the
army. The army is finding it difficult to say that what they have done
has isolated them. A faction in the army is saying that if General
Jehangir Karamat, not a mohajir, was there, he would not have approved
of what happened. The thinking in the Pakistani army is not unanimous.
There were hawkish elements in the army and in front organisations
which felt that if the (Lahore) bus keepsgoing, they would be
marginalised. I have a feeling that General Musharraf gave the
go-ahead for Kargil after Lahore.
Q: On the face of it, the US seems friendly towards India, which is a
break from the past. Do you feel it is a paradigm shift?
A: Yes. A nation acts out of its own interest. You have to persuade
the other side to see an area of congruence. The first thing they are
worried about is the overuse of terrorist outfits and their growing
association with the Pakistani army and giving Taliban types the run
of Pakistan. It is not good for the region, or the people of Pakistan.
Secondly, they see that the use of force to alter the LoC would
jeopardise the very sanctity of international agreements. Sartaz Aziz
said that they are ready for a dialogue, but what is the point if
there is no intention of honouring commitments?
Q: What if the US pressure on Pakistan does not succeed?
A: They have already hinted at applying pressure on the IMF. There are
two ways of doing it. One is to suspend theflow of funds pending a
review. The second way is less obtuse. This package would not have
gone through in the ordinary course unless the US had not taken the
lead. They modified the Glenn Amendment to enable the IMF to give the
loan. The US did a special favour to Pakistan, taking a negative step
vis-a-vis India.
Today, the IMF management is already worried about the usage of its
funds. If the US does not push, further funds will stop. If the
programme is going off track, the IMF would have to take corrective
action. To get this package, Pakistan needed US help. It cannot
discard its suggestion so easily. It is at this stage that a review is
being undertaken.
They will do what is in the US national interest; they will not do it
to make India happy. Yet with the Secretary of State having spoken to
Nawaz Sharif and the US President having taken a personal interest, it
would be very dificult for the US to give the impression that it has
come to nought.
Q: There has been apprehension about third partyintervention in
Kashmir...
A: Zinni is from the US Central Command which deals with Pakistan. The
Pacific Command looks after India. Zinni was selected to keep the
focus on Pakistan and the selection was significant. The message was
that the Pakistan army was being reined in. Lanpher came here to
deliver a brief.
Q: There has been a lot of speculation about the track-two diplomacy
that has been going on.
A: Our information is that to the utter chagrin of Nawaz Sharif, the
leak (about Niaz Naik's visit) took place at the Pakistani end by
people who don't want a return to normalcy.
Not talking to people does not help. If there is a lead which can
result in a respect of the LoC in a non-military fashion, it is worth
taking it. It is true, that the transgressors cannot be rewarded, but
if precious lives can be saved... All these talks are exploratory.
Q: What are the contours of the formula being explored?
A: That they must withdraw from the posts they have occupied on the
Indian side. That bothsides come to the negotiating table with a sense
of commitment. There has been a tremendous loss of credibility and
trust.
Q: The US establishment has been able to rein in the Pakistani army
all along. Why is it proving so difficult now?
A: There was a great difficulty in offering them goodies after the
Pressler Amendment. Besides, times have changed. The majority of army
recruits are madarsa alumni. The Jamaat-e-Islami, having failed to
infiltrate the political system, is now trying to infiltrate the army.
A whole lot of people feel that the policies of the US ends up
encouraging the wrong people. It has been trying to gain influence
through the armed forces, which does not augur well for Pakistani
democracy. The military content in the US-Pakistan relationship has
made their relationship narrow.
There are things like cooperation in narco-terrorism. I don't know the
extent of the cooperation. The Pakistani system is providing the
infrastructure for army/drug dealers. This is bothering senior
leadersin the US. There is a nexus with Osama bin Laden, the Pakistani
militants and Harkat ul Ansar. We have a more open set-up, they are
more fundamentalist and more militarist. If a choice has to be
exercised, most Congressmen tilt toward India.
Back
Top
|
