The United States said on Thursday since it had good relations with both Pakistan and India, it had been in contact with them, saying of peace process that "we have tried to encourage that," but added it could not be called a US mediation.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said what Pakistan and India had done to reduce tensions and now to seek some progress in their relationship was a matter that deserved praise of all of us; and "is something that we have commended.
"And we'll continue to work with them as if we can contribute to that process," he said.
Asked would you call this a US mediation role between the two countries, Boucher said: "No, I wouldn't put it that way.
"We've been quite up front that these countries, these leaders of these countries have taken very bold steps that we have welcomed.
"They have taken initiatives with each other. They have reciprocated initiatives from each other. They deserve the credit for taking these steps," Boucher said.
"To the extent the United States, has had good relations with them, has had contacts with them, we have tried to encourage that. We have tried to encourage the kind of dialogue that they now look for between each other. And many others in the international community have encouraged this and applauded when they've taken the bold steps that they have taken," he said.
"We've welcomed, certainly, the political courage that's been exhibited by leaders on both sides and the actions that they've taken recently to really bring about some remarkable developments in relations between India and Pakistan. We'd welcome the confidence-building steps that are being taken with training and sizes of diplomatic missions.
"We think that resuming transportation links will allow family members to meet and to improve people to people ties and that expanded diplomatic links help the countries address the complex agendas that they face.
"So we'll be interested in the overall process that's under way," the spokesman stated.
REDUCTION OF TENSION: The State Department spokesman said it was a matter of accomplishment, for which Pakistan and India deserved all the praise.
"What the United States has done is to try to help reduce tensions between India and Pakistan, when everybody thought a year-and-a-half, two years ago, they were on the verge of nuclear weapons, is a matter of record.
"There has been a reduction in tensions;" he stated, and referring to measures taken, he said the steps that both the countries had taken had contributed to the easing of tensions.
Responding to a question on Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha's scheduled 'to visit to Washington, Boucher said: "Our agenda with India is broad and deep.
"We just, as you know, the White House just made an announcement on how we can enhance a strategic partnership in a number of areas. That's something that the Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, among others, has worked on for some time," he said.
He was asked has Sinha any kind of special agenda before he addresses the US officials on the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (Saarc).
He said the United States had "welcomed certainly the political courage that's been exhibited by leaders on both sides and the actions that they've taken recently to really bring about some remarkable developments in relations between India and Pakistan.
"We'd welcome the confidence-building steps that are being taken," he added.
The United States, he said, would be interested in the overall process that was under way. "We'll be interested in further improvements and further steps forward in the US-India strategic relationship. So there's always plenty to talk about with our Indian friends and colleagues."
Asked was a visit by a high official from Pakistan on cards, he said he would have to check.
CTBT: To a question on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), he said "cookie-cutter approach" was not possible. "But it's not one size (that) fits all. The countries are different, circumstances are different. The world is not a single thing out there.
They're not just a bunch of foreigners. They're different countries with different circumstances, different places that, to pursue the United States interests, we don't necessarily tell everybody to wear the same jacket."
He was asked that since 2001, there was no longer a US diplomatic priority at all to convince India and Pakistan to sign up the CTBT. "Is this another case of different clothes for different people?"
A journalist referred to an interview by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in which he had said that he saw Pakistan's nuclear weapons as a response to India's build-up of conventional forces.
Again on CTBT, a newsman asked as to why is it that the United States feels it necessary to welcome or to suggest to the countries that they sign up to treaties, and particularly, the CTBT, that it itself is not a party to and has no intention of becoming a party to?
Boucher said: "Different clothes fit different people.
The circumstances of different countries may be such that it's a good thing for them to sign up to the CTBT, whereas it's not a necessary or appropriate step for the United States to join. If a country wants to make clear that it's not going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, the CTBT is one of the ways of signing up to the international norms with that regard.
"The United States has nuclear weapons, has certain responsibilities in that regard that we exercise very carefully, very prudently, but it may mean that that treaty is not right for us because we're in a different set of circumstances," he said.
Pressed further, the spokesman said: "The rest of the world knows the United States has nuclear weapons. The rest of the world knows how responsibly we've acted with the regard, knows how many thousands and thousands and thousands we've been destroying and will continue to destroy, knows how responsibly the United States has acted with regard to nuclear weapons for the last 60 years.
"It's not the same circumstance as a country that has had a clandestine programme, has not had nuclear weapons in the past, in the past, and might have been at some time seeking to introduce them to a region that is in turmoil and with great danger and without the same level of responsibility maybe.
"The fact that that government wants to come out in public and make a pledge that they are not going to develop nuclear weapons or chemical or biological, that they are going to get rid of the work that they've done so far, and that they will not pursue this, they will not ever test is quite a different thing," he added.
Comments
Comments are closed.