Scene-Setter for Trip to South Asia

11:08 am

MS. ROCCA: Thank you. And thanks for coming today. I know a number of you already, even though this is my first press conference. I see a lot of familiar faces in the room, and so thank you for coming.

I've been on the job now for about seven weeks, and on the eve of my first trip to the region as assistant secretary I wanted to get together with you. This is the first, I hope, of many meetings as a group and individually. I look forward to getting to know you and to working together closely.

I'm also very much looking forward to this trip. I've traveled to the region before, but as I said, this is my first trip as assistant secretary. I'll be leaving Washington on Saturday, the

21st, stopping first in India, then Nepal, and then Pakistan. I'll be meeting with my counterparts in the host governments and consulting with colleagues in our embassies and consulates. I'm sorry I won't be able to visit the other countries in the region, but I hope to rectify that soon.

On this trip I will want to hear first-hand about the concerns of the region and better understand how to make our relationships more effective, as well as discuss the Bush administration's foreign policy priorities in South Asia. I'll be putting this information to use as soon as I return to Washington. This administration believes that the U.S. has important political and economic interests in South Asia. As you know, we are in the process of formulating policies that will be in line with those interests, and what I will bring back from South Asia will be an input to that process.

While some of the details of our policies are still to be worked out, I'll tell my hosts in the region that we're committed to working together with South Asian countries to promote greater stability and security in the region, to increase prosperity and standards of living, and levels of trade with the U.S. We want to have bilateral relationships that are truly bilateral. We do not intend to view relations with one country through the prism of any other country.

We also want to protect the regional and global environment, fight disease, pursue scientific and technological advances, and further strengthen the rapidly growing cultural ties between the region and United States.

This administration is serious about engaging with the region. Our new ambassadors to India and Pakistan -- Dr. Robert Blackwell and Wendy Chamberlain -- have just been sworn-in in the last two days, and they'll arrive in New Delhi and Islamabad very soon.

Indian External Affairs and Defense Minister Singh, and Pakistani Foreign Minister Satter have already had useful visits to Washington. Deputy Secretary Armitage visited New Delhi, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, is there right now. Indian Foreign Secretary Iyer met with Undersecretary Grossman in May, and Pakistani Foreign Secretary Inamul Haq will come to meet with Mr. Grossman sometime in the near future.

Recent events in the region have highlighted some of the difficulty it faces, but there are also many places where there's potential for progress. The just-concluded India-Pakistan summit should not be seen as a failure, but as the first step in a difficult and lengthy process. Both countries have indicated they want to continue the dialogue aimed at reducing tensions and resolving their differences. We strongly support sustained engagement between India and Pakistan.

Bangladesh has just begun its election process with a caretaker government installed to oversee the voting. Bangladeshis have an opportunity here to strengthen their democratic institutions by maintaining a peaceful political environment during the process.

Sri Lanka faces domestic political uncertainty at a time when the nation needs to focus on ending years of war. We continue to support moves towards a lasting end to hostilities and negotiated political settlement of the conflict, which are being facilitated by the Norwegians.

In Nepal, the former king and many in the Royal Family have been tragically killed and the Maoist insurgency continues to grow. We support the Nepali government's efforts to protect its citizens and officials while it offers to conduct a political dialogue that will, we hope, lead to a peaceful settlement within the democratic framework established by Nepal's constitution.

And Afghanistan's conflicts continue with no real end in sight, unfortunately. We continue to work with the U.N. and others in support of a political settlement, while providing assistance to the Afghan victims of drought and ongoing war. We also remain very concerned with the continuing harboring of terrorist groups by the Taliban. This is a threat to all countries, including Afghanistan's neighbors.

Now, after that brief review, I'd be happy to take some questions.

MODERATOR: Questions? The mike's coming.

Q Parasuram from the Press Trust of India. One of the amazing things about the recent summit was that while the media said it was a failure, Washington, as well as the foreign ministers, as well as the principals, say it was a success. Can you flesh out why you think it was a success? And also, yet a process that is going to be -- considering the defenses between the two sides, doesn't it appear as if no matter how many meetings are held, you'll get the same result?

MS. ROCCA: Well, we consider it a success because the meeting took place. They've talked about continued dialogue. And though there wasn't a joint statement, the fact is that three days is not a very long time to overcome 50 years of differences. And the fact that Prime Minister Vajpayee has accepted the invitation to go to Islamabad, that the foreign ministers plan to meet at some point soon, that Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf will meet on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly in September, these are all signs of progress that perhaps there will be a process put in place.

And we think that the differences between the countries in the region will be better resolved through dialogue.

MODERATOR: Sir?

Q Thank you, Madame Secretary. The question on Bangladesh. We hope that he will make up this trip to Bangladesh at a good time. The question is, illegal arms are at large --

MODERATOR: Could you tell us who you are?

Q This is Arshad with the Daily Inqilab, Bangladesh.

Illegal arms are at large, questionable voters list, deplorable law and order prevailing now in Bangladesh with the new caretaker government in place. Madame Secretary, to what extent the authority in Bangladesh assured you of the security of foreign observers who will oversee the forthcoming election sometime in October, when the immediate former prime minister, Sheik Hasina, has armed herself with an unprecedented security for life?

MS. ROCCA: First, Arshad, it's nice to meet you in person after speaking to you on the phone so many times. (Laughs.)

Q (Off mike.)

MS. ROCCA: The caretaker government in Bangladesh is the third such, as I understand it. The caretaker government oversaw the elections in '91 and in '96, and both times the elections were free and fair. And we see there's no reason why they shouldn't succeed this time. We continue to call for both sides to maintain restraint and to provide an atmosphere that's peaceful and conducive in the lead-up to the elections.

MODERATOR: The gentleman here.

Q My name is Nayyar Zaidi. I work for Daily Jang in Pakistan, which you may be seeing when you go there.

To your observation that 50 years of differences cannot be overcome in three days, I just want to point out that this was not the only or the first meeting held in 50 years. There have been other meetings. So in that context, in Shimla there was a joint statement and even an agreement. In Lahore there was a joint statement. But here we do not have a joint statement, and aren't we going backwards, or regressive?

MS. ROCCA: I think the fact that there is -- there seems to be momentum, there's a sense of momentum about future meetings and future discussions that will be held are a cause for optimism.

Q There is any -- (off mike) -- meetings except Vajpayee's visit?

MS. ROCCA: Vajpayee's visit, the meeting of the foreign ministers at some point in the near -- in the future, the meetings on the margin of the U.N. General Assembly. These are all high-level, sustained senior-level discussions, and this is something that we strongly support, and hopefully -- and gives us some cause for some optimism. But a process (is in place ?). Sorry. (Referring to microphone feedback noise.)

MODERATOR: The gentleman here. The mike is coming.

Q (Name and affiliation off mike) -- Pakistan. I wonder, would you be taking up the question of restoration of democracy in Pakistan during your visit, or has that been pushed slightly into the background because of the summit?

MS. ROCCA: Yes, of course I'll be taking up the issue of democracy. Obviously, you know, the United States is in the business of promoting democracy, and democracy in Pakistan is very important. We've had assurances from President Musharraf that there will be elections in 2002, and we'll be talking to government -- both to President Musharraf and others -- to make sure that -- to help ensure that those elections take place. The fact of the matter is that the sanctions on Pakistan cannot be lifted, the Section 508 sanctions on Pakistan cannot be lifted until the president is able to certify that democracy has been restored. So of course we will continue our discussions and continue to press for a peaceful restoration of democracy in Pakistan.

Q And will you be meeting politicians there, apart from those people in government? Would you also be meeting the opposition parties?

MS. ROCCA: That's the plan, but I can't tell you -- I don't have the exact details; the schedules are still being worked, but yes, indeed, that is the plan.

Q Thank you.

Q K.P Nyer (sp) from the Telegraph Newspaper of India. When President Clinton was in India last year, he articulated what has subsequently come to be known as the four pillars of America's Kashmir policy; that is respect for the Line of Control, ending support for third-party violence in Kashmir, negotiations between India and Pakistan, and finally, addressing the concerns of Kashmiris by the Indian government. Before that, for 36 years the U.S. position on Kashmir has been that it is disputed territory, that the wishes of the Kashmiri people must be taken into account in any settlement, and that it should be settled bilaterally between India and Pakistan. That's been the position articulated by both your predecessors.

Considering that there is a significant difference between these two positions, which one does the Bush administration subscribe to, or is there a third formulation on Kashmir?

MS. ROCCA: I don't see them as being mutually exclusive.

Q (Off mike) -- President Clinton's interview to Peter Jennings that for the first time the U.S. administration formally said that the LOC must be respected. Secondly, in all previous positions, the American stand has been that the wishes of the Kashmiri people should be taken into account. There's a significant difference between saying that the wishes of the Kashmiri people should be taken into account and saying that the Indian government must address the genuine concerns of the Kashmiri people.

MS. ROCCA: Our position now is that the issue of Kashmir should be resolved between India and Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

MODERATOR: In front here. It's coming.

Q I'm Judith Smeltzer (sp) with ANI in Delhi. One of the main sticking points at the summit was Pakistan's alleged support for Kashmiri militants and Pakistan's refusal to kind of discuss the issue. Does the U.S. see that Pakistan is supporting Kashmiri militants, and is this an issue that concerns the U.S. at all?

MS. ROCCA: Terrorism worldwide is, obviously, of great concern to the United States. Terrorism in South Asia is an issue of great concern as well, and we're talking with all the governments in the region, and we want to work with all the governments in the region to counter terrorism.

Q But I'm sorry, on this specific issue of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, is that something the U.S. has a position on?

MS. ROCCA: As I said, we continue to talk to -- we see the entire issue of terrorism and counterterrorism as an important one in South Asia, and continue to talk to both governments about it. We think it's in the interests of Pakistan to work with us as well, and they do.

MODERATOR: Way in back there.

Q I'm -- (name inaudible) -- from Times of India. Madame Secretary, countries all over the world -- several countries have territorial disputes: Greece/Turkey, Britain/Argentina, Russia with many of its neighbors. And all these countries continue to do business while talking about their territorial disputes.

In this particular instance, particularly at the summit, it became evident that Pakistan had a single point agenda of talking only about Kashmir. Does the U.S. endorse or subscribe to this position, to the Pakistani contention that there should be only Kashmir on the table right now and nothing else at all, to the exclusion of all other issues?

MS. ROCCA: We're not taking a position on the agenda of the discussions between India and Pakistan. We think the fact that the discussions are taking place are progress and should help relations in the region and resolve the issues, the outstanding issues between the two countries.

MODERATOR: Here. It's coming.

Q (Name inaudible) -- India Abroad. The U.S. has scrupulously stayed away from mediation or giving the perception of any mediation. But there are some analysts in town who believe that it's about time that a little more aggressive prodding has to be done. On the other hand, there are others who perceive the constant encouragement that the U.S. is giving both countries, telling them to engage in dialogue, as some form of pressure.

How do you all feel? Do you see a U.S. role? I know that India doesn't want a third-party intervention and Pakistan has been virtually imploring that it happen. What's this encouragement, where does it go? Is there an extension of it or is it going to be just, quote, unquote, "encouragement" and that's it?

MS. ROCCA: We -- the United States does not -- is not involved in these negotiations and won't be unless asked to by both sides, and that's still the position.

MODERATOR: The gentleman in the white shirt.

Q Hi, Steve Cohens (sp) from AFP. I'm curious as to the effect on the U.S. relationship with Pakistan that the visit of the Pakistani foreign minister a few weeks ago had. After assuring the secretary of State that democracy would soon be coming to Pakistan, overnight General Musharraf declared himself president, I understand to the anger of a number of people in the State Department who felt that the secretary had been embarrassed.

What kind of effect has this had on the relations with Pakistan, especially at a time when a lot of analysts see the U.S. dispensing with a kind of balancing between the two countries?

MS. ROCCA: First of all, let me say that we are concerned about democracy in Pakistan, as I mentioned earlier. It is a concern and we continue to push for it. And we want to -- and we've stated to President Musharraf our concern that he stick to his plan to hold full elections by 2002. We've also been pressing for a road map on how to get back -- on how he plans to get back to democracy.

I'm sorry; there was a second part to your question.

Q Yeah. I was interested in the impact on the relationship and the communication between the two sides over the -- I don't know if you would call them misunderstandings, or events a few weeks ago.

MS. ROCCA: That was a bump in the road. We've moved beyond that. We're working right now to rebuild and maintain the sustained relationship with Pakistan. And as I said, the democracy issue is important. We continue to watch it. And we have, you know, Section 508 sanctions, which cannot be removed until -- there is no waiver authority, and therefore cannot be removed until the president certifies that full democracy has been restored.

Q Raghubir Goyal from Asia Today and India Globe. Madame Secretary, many believe that the reason the talks failed was also the support for Pakistan, support for Afghanistan and terrorist -- cross- border terrorism. That's what India has been saying for the last number of years. And also, some people said that Afghanistan and Pakistan is the university to train terrorists. So then during your visit to South Asia, how can you deal with this issue before any other issue -- Kashmir issue can be solved, because Pakistan is pressing only Kashmir issue, and India is pressing (that too ?). Like in Israel, until you stop terrorism and condemn terrorism, cross-border terrorism, there is no way that you can solve any 50 years of enmity or the problems. And also, what is the most important issue of the United States dealing with India? And what do you want from India?

MS. ROCCA: Okay. On the issue of terrorism, once again -- I've already told you our position on that. We are working with both governments, actually with all the countries in the region. This is a problem throughout the region. And we're working with all the countries on the region. With India specifically, we have a counterterrorism working group, which is very efficient and which is effective and is moving forward very nicely.

On India as a whole, President Bush has identified enhanced relations with India as a priority for his administration. And as a -- I mean, India has both strategic and economic importance to the United States. It's also our largest trading partner. We want to improve our bilateral trade, among other things, but we want to -- we see India as a major player, a major world player, and we want to continue our -- will be continuing our senior-level dialogue at all levels, and we want to broaden the relationship with India on all fronts.

This is a priority for the Bush administration and, essentially, I think it was demonstrated by the unprecedented welcome in the White House that was extended to External Minister and Defense Minister Singh, and by the deputy secretary's trip to New Delhi to talk about the new strategic framework.

Q Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service. Following on that last comment, there's increasing speculation that the United States and India may pursue, in effect, a strategic alliance of sorts, directed primarily against China. I don't want you to say anything that provocative -- (laughter) -- but I do --

MS. ROCCA: I won't! (Laughs.)

Q But I would like to say it a little differently, or ask it a little differently. To what extent does the United States at this point see India as a potential at least counterweight to China's influence in the region? To what extent is it concerned that if it, in any event, is perceived that way in Beijing, Beijing itself may supply or provide or increase support to Maoists in Nepal or to different secessionist groups in East India, or increase competition for influence in Burma? I mean, to what extent are you concerned about the peripheral effects of what everyone outside the government calls this courtship?

MS. ROCCA: Let me just answer it by saying that the paradigm now is that our bilateral relationships are truly bilateral. We are not -- improved relationships with one country will not be at the expense of another one, and that applies in this situation as well. We have serious strategic and economic and natural ties with India. I know you've all heard it before, but it's true; the oldest democracy in the world and the biggest democracy in the world have a lot in common and are -- in fact have natural ties, which it's taken us too long to pick up on. It started in the previous administration; we want to continue that transformation in the relationship, and it is not directed at any other country, it is just a natural evolution of two democracies who have a lot in common.

I also would like to point out that there are a lot of -- I'd like to note that there are an awful lot of personal ties developing. There are now almost 2 million, and growing, South Asians living in the United States who are now American citizens who all have ties. Family ties between Americans and India and South Asia in general are growing and increasing, and that gives us a natural interest as well.

Q But can you address the part just about that there seems to be some, in a sense, a burgeoning competition in the peripheral areas.

MS. ROCCA: That's an outside perception, it is not --

Q You don't see any Chinese support for the Maoists in Nepal or for secessionist groups in East India?

MS. ROCCA: As I understand it -- I don't -- I can't answer that. I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that.

MODERATOR: It's coming.

Q My name is Sridhar from the Hindu newspaper. Now that President Musharraf is coming to the U.N., from what we have been seeing in reports, if you were asked to submit a paper to the president on whether he should meet Musharraf or not, what would you say?

MS. ROCCA: Oh, gosh, that's a hypothetical question. I don't know that President Musharraf is coming.

Q But he is going to meet Vajpayee -- (off mike) --

MS. ROCCA: Oh, that's right, yes he is. You know, I can't answer that. I don't know that at this point.

MODERATOR: Over here. Here, right here.

Q (Name and affiliation inaudible). There has been so much of kind of gesture politics and euphoria about the return to the bilateral front. But on the ground, the last three, four months hasn't seen anything which can be sort of substantially said to be a new paradigm and there are any concrete, specific examples of Indo- U.S. relations covering this broader agenda in concrete terms. Is there some list of items which you --

MS. ROCCA: Well, in the short time that I've been on the job, we've had two extensive working groups; one on counterterrorism and one on peacekeeping operations. This is something which -- you know, that's not inconsequential in the short six weeks that I've been on the job. I believe that both governments are working to broaden this relationship.

Q Sanctions remain in place. And as you know -- (inaudible) -- on defense research and development, which was supposed to be there during Reagan years. So any concrete project, can you say, or --

MS. ROCCA: Well, the sanctions remain in place. I believe that we will get through the sanctions issue. This is an issue which needs to be worked in the interagency process. As you may have noticed, it's taken some time to get people into the administration, so there's been a little bit of a delay. But we're working this issue and we also are working with the Congress because the fact is that proliferation concerns remain, remain an issue, and are important.

And so we're working to work our way through these sanctions, and I'm optimistic that it will happen.

MODERATOR: The gentleman way in the back --

MS. ROCCA: And that will then spur even more relations. I just wanted to make sure that I finished explaining why I was saying that.

Q (Name and affiliation inaudible) -- I represent The Nation. There is a sort of apprehension in Pakistan that while sanctions are being reviewed and they're seen as almost imminent now, Pakistan may be discriminated against, either just only Glenn is removed on both countries, which won't have much effect -- impact on Pakistan because of presence of Pressler. Well Pressler they say is just redundant because it relates only to countries which have nuclear devices. They have already tested it.

It has become redundant. So do you think there will be some relief to Pakistan also as these sanctions are removed?

MS. ROCCA: I think the discussion that one country or the other would be behind is total speculation. The sanctions review is under way now. There are two -- actually -- sanction reviews under way. One is an overall sanctions review to look at the usefulness of sanctions and where sanctions are, because there have been a number of them imposed over the years on a number of countries, and then there's a separate one on the India-Pakistan sanctions.

Pressler is one of those that is part of this review. And so it's premature to say whether one country or the other would benefit or not benefit from lifting of sanctions.

MODERATOR: The gentleman here. We'll take two more questions.

Q Christine, Aziz Haniffa, once again, with India Abroad. With the change in the Senate, with the Democrats taking over the key subcommittees again, to court -- there has been some concern that the administration may not have been consulting them enough in terms of the sanctions review that's happening. In fact, two very specific questions were asked by both Biden and Wellstone at your hearing, as well as the hearing of Professor Blackwill. And to quote one Senate Foreign Relations Committee aide, he said that Armitage has been shooting his mouth off, especially at the congressional caucus where -- of India, where he was offering some kind of time frame.

How diligently are you consulting with Congress, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the sanctions review? Because your former boss, Senator Brownback, was all for the lifting of sanctions, but people like Wellstone and Biden have -- while they are for the lifting of sanctions, they seem to be attaching some conditions to it.

MS. ROCCA: Let me say, first of all, that the understanding of the importance of South Asia and of the ability for us to move forward on our relationship with South Asia is a bipartisan issue. There is absolutely full agreement, I think, on all fronts that this is extremely important to the United States.

On the issue of consultations, they are definitely -- they will definitely be part of this. There will be no lifting of sanctions without consultation with the Congress. We don't want to move ahead without the Congress. This is -- it's part of the process, and we intend to do it.

And on the case -- the attacks in question, I think that was -- someone jumped the gun in terms of -- jumped to conclusions, because the process is under review. There is no final determination made, and we are talking to the Congress about it.

MODERATOR: This will be our last question.

Q Khalid Hasan, Associated Press of Pakistan. Ms. Rocca, I have no question. I only wish you, on behalf of all of us, a very happy trip to the region. And I hope --

Q (Off mike.) (Laughter.)

(Cross talk.)

Q So I hope, when you come back, we will have a session with you.

MS. ROCCA: Oh, yes. Of course. I hope this will be one of many.

Q I have a question --

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much.

MS. ROCCA: Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

Copyright (c)2001 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.