archive: PM's letter sent US alarm bells ringing
PM's letter sent US alarm bells ringing
Ramesh Chandran
Times of India
June 28, 1999
Title: PM's letter sent US alarm bells ringing
Author: Ramesh Chandran
Publication: Times of India
Date: June 28, 1999
WASHINGTON: The spectacle of bodybags of Indian
soldiers coming down from the mountains in Kargil
was creating an intense public pressure on the
government in New Delhi to react and it would be
compelled to attack Pakistan if Islamabad failed
to withdraw its forces from the Indian side of
the Line of Control - this was the sum and
substance of an ``alarming letter'' that Prime
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee wrote to US
president Bill Clinton.
The contents of this letter were conveyed to Mr
Clinton in Geneva. As the president was
delivering a speech to the International Labour
Organisation, his national security adviser Sandy
Berger ``slipped out to receive the alarming
letter'', a report in The Washington Post said.
The letter stoked rising American fears that
India, having lost more than 100 troops, would
``storm across'' the ceasefire line that divides
Kashmir or open a second front elsewhere on its
border with Pakistan. Such an escalation could
effectively scuttle the Administration's
dwindling hopes of a ``constructive new
relationship'' between South Asia's two new
nuclear powers. The Vajpayee letter seems to have
had an immediate impact as the Administration's
foreign policy engine was thrown into high hear.
According to the daily, Mr Clinton and secretary
of state Madeleine Albright sent ``multiple
messages'' to both New Delhi and Islamabad after
Sandy Berger and assistant secretary of state for
South Asian affairs, Karl Inderfurth, had seen
the import of the letter. Mr Clinton then
``decided to turn up the pressure on Pakistan''.
First, he persuaded the G-8 countries to include
in their final communique a statement condemning
the ``infiltration of armed intruders'' and
demanding ``full respect'' for the de facto LoC.
The statement also did not call for a ceasefire,
an implicit acknowledgement of India's right to
defend its territory. Then Mr Clinton sent Gen
Anthony Zinni, commander-in-chief of US central
command, to Islamabad to tell ``Nawaz Sharif and
his military commanders to pull back to their
side of the LoC.''
The Post reported that what happens next would
depend on Gen Zinni's assessment of Pakistan's
response. An unnamed ``senior official'' was
quoted as saying that impoverished Pakistan could
not afford ``full-scale war and is counting on
receiving a $ 100-million loan next month from
the IMF''. Washington could hold up those funds
to pressure Pakistan.
Another anonymous ``senior administration
official'' quoted in the report says: ``We're not
making any predictions. It could get worse if the
Indians reach the level of frustration that they
need to strike somewhere else.'' It also states
Pakistan's incursion into Kashmir has turned ``US
diplomacy upside down''. After orchestrating an
international condemnation against the Vajpayee
government for conducting nuclear tests in May
last year and imposing sanctions, Washington
looked at the retaliatory Pakistani tests more
sympathetically and looked for ways to ease the
sanctions. Now, India is drawing praise for its
restraint in the Kashmir conflict and it is
Pakistan that is being criticised.
The report added that after initially promising
public neutrality, Mr Clinton authorised US
officials to say there was no doubt that the
intruders on the Indian side of the line were
Pakistani regulars and not militants. Most of
them are regulars from the 10th Corps of the
Pakistani army. The report admits that the
50-year-old Kashmir dispute may not be resolved
soon but it was essential for Pakistan to pull
back its troops and then return to the
negotiating table.
The promise of Lahore had quickly disintegrated
and Karl Inderfurth says: ``This has been
enormously disappointing. We didn't think the
next stop on the diplomacy bus would be Kargil.''
Why would Islamabad embark on such a high-risk
military adventure for a ``relatively minor
territorial advantage?'' One would be to force
Kashmir into international fora. Another
``possibility'' cited is that senior Pakistani
military officers wanted to ``abort the Lahore
process'' although some US officials discount
this theory saying Mr Sharif ``cleared'' the
Lahore initiative with his generals.
US officials also share India's concern that
Pakistan's top military officers are trying to
``export into Kashmir the same type of rigid
Islamic orthodoxy imposed on Afghanistan by the
Pakistan-backed Taliban militia. Both Mohammad
Aziz, chief of general staff, and Gen. Pervez
Musharaff, the army chief, have spent their
careers ``supporting one Mujaheddin after
another''.
Indian ambassador Naresh Chandra was quoted as
saying: ``We don't want the Talibanization of
Kashmir but if you use these guys as guest
terrorists of the Pakistani army, what would be
the consequences?'' The report did not mention
that Islamabad had refused to heed Gen Zinni's
proposal asking Islamabad to pull back its forces
to its side of the LoC. With the deadline for the
next tranche of $100 million from the IMF to
Islamabad approaching, Washington's next move is
awaited.
Back
Top
|
