Author: B Raman
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: November 16, 2003
URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/161103/detFEA02.shtml
On October 29, on invitation from
Henry J Hyde, Chairman of the US House of Representatives International
Relations Committee, I testified at a joint hearing which two sub-committees
of the Committee were holding on on terrorism in South and South-East Asia
and its implications for US counter-terrorism policy.
The hearing had a background. Dedicated
young men and women of Indian origin have worked to see that India's case
against Pakistan for using terrorism as a weapon to achieve its strategic
objective against India is heard in the Administration and the Congress.
A little more than a year ago, such persons decided to devote their spare
time and energy for briefing policy and law makers in the US on Pakistan's
unreliability as the so-called stalwart ally in the war against terrorism.
They formed the US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC).
Seeking a review of the USA's counter-terrorism
policy was not their sole preoccupation. They also decided to contribute
to bringing about a strategic convergence between India and the USA by
working for a close networking in the political, economic, military, scientific
and technological fields. Their most visible success so far has been in
the field of counter-terrorism. They have not brought about a change of
policy. But, they have induced second thoughts in sections of policy and
law makers.
There is a not-yet-adequately-articulated
disquiet in growing circles in the USA that the war against jihadi terrorism
has not been going well. This disquiet is presently confined to sections
of the media and the Congress, the Pentagon and the intelligence community,
but is not yet shared by the State Department and the National Security
Council Secretariat (NSCS).
"Is Pakistan a friend or foe?" is
the theme of many articles which have been appearing with increasing frequency
in the US media. Many think-tanks and academics have started focussing
on Pakistan's role.
The tireless efforts of the volunteers
of the USINPAC played an important role in the passage of a resolution
by the House on July 16 requesting the President for a periodical report
on the action taken by Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism, to dismantle
terrorist infrastructure in its territory and to stop its proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.
The fact that this important resolution
has not so far found adequate support in the Senate or from the State Department
should not detract from its value as the first indicator of second thoughts
about the viability and wisdom of the present counter-terrorism policy.
The decision to hold the joint hearing and to invite government officials
as well as four non-governmental experts - three from the US and one from
India - was the second indicator.
If one were to go only by the testimonies
of Christina Rocca, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South
Asia, and Cofer Black, the former head of the Counter-Terrorism Division
of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) one would have reasons to be disappointed.
Hopes that the induction of Robert
Blackwell, former US Ambassador to India, and his assistant, Ashley Tellis,
into the NSCS would bring about a new counter-terrorism policy devoid of
such illusions about Musharraf have been belied so far. Blackwell, known
in India as an articulate and outspoken critic of Pakistan's cross-border
terrorism, has been rendered silent in the NSCS. Tellis has resigned ostensibly
on health grounds.
India and organisations such as
the USINPAC should not let themselves be discouraged by the entrenched
"Musharraf can do no wrong" attitudes in the State Department and the NSCS.
That attitudes still persist is all the more reason for redoubling their
efforts.
Dan Burton and Dana Rohrabacher,
known for their pro-Pakistan attitude, managed to inject into the counter-terrorism
policy hearing questions relating to a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir.
While their efforts did not succeed, the discussions on their interventions
did highlight India's failure to emphasise to the international community
that the future of PoK is the most important component of what Pakistan
projects as the Kashmir dispute. This needs urgent attention.
(The writer is Director, Institute
for Topical Studies, Chennai.)
