USIS Washington File

22 March 2000

Text: Clinton Interview with ABC World News in New Delhi

(President stresses importance of India and Pakistan dialogue) (3850)

President Clinton said March 21 in an interview with ABC World News
anchor Peter Jennings in New Delhi that anything he can do to get
India and Pakistan "to focus on what it would take to reduce the
tensions is important. And I think right now the important thing is
respecting the line of control, reducing violence and find a way to
resume the dialogue."

Clinton said his official trip to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan is
having an impact on how leaders and officials are thinking about the
future and that he is a strong supporter of the Lahore process that
supports a dialogue between India and Pakistan.

The Pakistanis have been "good allies of ours. I want to continue to
be a good ally for them," Clinton said. "But I think they have to have
a plan for restoring democracy and they have to have a non-violent
plan for resolving their differences with India."

The United States' policy on Kashmir, Clinton said, "is first, respect
the Line of Control. Second, do not promote violence by third parties
in Kashmir. Third, negotiate. And, fourth, with respect to India, that
there's not a military solution to Kashmir's problems by India, either
-- that the Kashmiris deserve to have their own concerns addressed on
the merits."

"The most I can do right now is to oppose violence, particularly
oppose violence propagated by third parties within Kashmir, and to
support and reaffirm the Line of Control," he said.

The President said he would carry the same message about nuclear
restraint and the need for dialogue between India and Pakistan when he
visits Pakistan later this week.

Regarding his meeting with Syrian President Assad in Geneva,
Switzerland, March 26, Clinton said he was hopeful that the meeting
might lead to a solution to both the Syrian and the Lebanese issues.
However, he also said that there was no agreement yet and
"principally, it's a decision for the Israelis and Syrians" to work

The President said he is "encouraged by the decisions that have been
made by the Israelis and the Palestinians," who resumed negotiations
in Washington March 21. "I think they are committed to going forward
and they have a pretty good timetable -- they're going to have to work
hard to make it."

Following is the White House transcript of the interview:

(begin transcript)

Office of the Press Secretary
(New Delhi, India)

March 22, 2000


Maurya Sheraton Hotel
New Delhi, India
March 21, 2000

4:20 P.M. (L)

Q: Prime Minister Vajpayee said that you will conclude, now that
you're here, that the situation -- Kashmir, between India and
Pakistan, is not as bad as they say it is. Is that what you conclude?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that I've concluded that he is going to
do everything he can to avoid having it escalate it into a war with
Pakistan. And that is encouraging. But I still think it's a difficult
situation, to say the least. I think it's important that they both
show restraint. I think it's important that they respect the line of
control, both sides do.

And then, over the long run, I think what really matters -- in terms
of an ultimate resolution -- is that the people of Kashmir feel that
their legitimate interests are being addressed in some formal fashion.
But I do feel better about his determination to avoid a war -- at
least what you might call a full-scale war. But I don't -- I'm still
very troubled by the fact there's so much violence there. A lot of it
obviously is propagated beyond the borders of Kashmir, and I don't
think the line of control is adequately respected.

And I think -- you know, what happened at Kargil was very troubling to
me, because I supported strongly the dialogue between India and
Pakistan in the Lahore process. I still think it's a difficult
situation, and I don't think they should take it lightly, either side.

Q: Moreover, Prime Minister Vajpayee is much more militant with the
Indian press than he was with you today.

THE PRESIDENT: That's good, though. That means that -- maybe that
means my trip here has a beneficial impact. And I hope I can have some
impact on the Pakistanis when I go there.

Q:  What do you mean by "impact," Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I spent last July 4th trying to persuade
former Prime Minister Sharif to withdraw back behind the line of
control. He did. I think it weakened him when he did, frankly; but it
was the right thing to do.

I think that they -- these countries need to be thinking about
reducing violence and increasing cooperation and dialogue, and freeing
up their immensely talented people for different pursuits. If you look
at how well the Indians and the Pakistani Americans have done, how
well they're doing in the information economy in the United States,
how well they're beginning to do here -- it's truly a tragedy that
they're basically trapped in this position which, even if it doesn't
lead to war, leads to big expenses on defense, which could be spent on
education and health care or the development of a modern economy.

So I hope that my trip here and the long-term rekindling of the
relationship with India that I'm committed to for our country can
basically slowly, over time, take this in a different direction.

Q: Forgive me for being more pointed -- you know as well as I do that
you're talking, to a very large extent, in generalities. What do you
think the United States can really do here, especially given the fact
that the Indians say the United States has no role?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that what they say is that we have no
role in Kashmir. And they have every right to say that. Every place in
the world I've been involved in the peace process -- you know, it's
because we have been able to inspire the confidence and have a
relationship with both parties.

But I think the United States does have an interest in trying to avert
a larger conflict and trying to reduce the tensions between the two
countries. I think we do have a clear interest there.

Q:  So?

THE PRESIDENT: We've worked with the Pakistanis for years. We want it
-- and obviously we've got a big interest in India's future. So,
therefore, I think anything I can do to get them to focus on what it
would take to reduce the tensions is important. And I think right now
the important thing is respecting the line of control, reducing
violence and find a way to resume the dialogue. Now, beyond that, it's
up to them.

Q: You'll tell the Pakistanis they should respect the line of control,
the de facto cease-fire line?

THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely.

Q: And what will you tell those Kasmiris, or Pakistanis, who believe
they're fighting to free the Muslim Kashmiris from Indian control?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think that -- the same thing I said to
the Indians. I don't think there can be a military solution to
Kashmir. And the tangled history of it does not admit of a simple
solution. I think that the best chance that the Pakistanis have, if
they want to have a positive impact on what they believe the
legitimate concerns of people who live in that part of Kashmir that's
in India, is through a dialogue, not through acts of violence and
supporting acts of violence.

And I think for many years they thought that might get us involved,
and it won't. I'm not going to be dragged into something that -- first
of all, that India doesn't want us to be part of; and, secondly, that
I got dragged into from deliberate acts of violence. I just don't
think that's right.

Q:  So what is America's Kashmir policy?

THE PRESIDENT: Our policy is, first, respect the line of control.
Second, do not promote violence by third parties in Kashmir. Third,
negotiate. And, fourth, with respect to India, that there's not a
military solution to Kashmir's problems by India, either -- that the
Kashmirs deserve to have their own concerns addressed on the merits.
But I don't think we ought to get in the position of saying that we
think that an ethnically diverse country like India can't exist
anymore. I don't agree with that.

Q: Do you support the Kashmiris' right to a referendum on their own
independence? Do you support the right as it was laid out by the
United Nations in 1948, for them to have a plebiscite on their future?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's been a lot of changes since 1948,
including what happened in 1971 and a number of things since. What I
support is, I support some process by which the Kashmiris legitimate
grievances are addressed and I support respecting the line of control.
And I think the Pakistanis and the Indians have to have some way of
talking about it. And the Indians have to have some way of talking to
their own Kashmiris about it that recognizes there's not a military

But the most I can do right now is to oppose violence, particularly
oppose violence propagated by third parties within Kashmir, and to
support reaffirming the line of control. And Prime Minister Vajpayee
just said today that if the Pakistanis would reaffirm the principles
of the Lahore Declaration and not promote or support violence on the
other side of the line of control, and respect the line of control,
that he thought a dialogue could be resumed.

I think that is the best hope, ultimately, for resolving this.

Q: Who are these third parties you're referring to, involved in

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we know that there have been instances of
violence within Kashmir that were propagated by people who were not
from there, but they weren't necessarily elements of the Pakistani
government -- I don't want to accuse Pakistan of something it didn't

Q: Do you believe the Pakistan Intelligence Service facilitates the
infiltration of fighters to Kashmir?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that there are elements within the Pakistani
government that have supported those who engaged in violence in

Q:  And what will you tell General Musharraf about that?

THE PRESIDENT: Just exactly what I said to you. And I want to talk
with him, as I did with Prime Minister Vajpayee, about the future. I
think that in order to get out of a fix -- when you get into a fix
like this and you feel paralyzed by your past practices, the only way
to change it is to have a vision of the future which convinces you
that if you want to achieve a certain goal you've got to do it in a
different way. And I'll do my best to persuade him of that.

I just don't think that this is the way to deal with Kashmir and I
don't think it's a good enough reason to drive, in effect, the whole
existence, the whole policy of the Pakistani government. The
Pakistanis are great people, too. They've been good allies of ours.
They've helped us even in my time, since the end of the Cold War to
get terrorists, the terrorists involved -- one involved in the World
Trade Center, one involved in the CIA killing. They've helped us in
other contexts. I want to continue to be a good ally for them. But I
think they have to have a plan for restoring democracy and they have
to have a non-violent plan for resolving their differences with India.

Q: Just so I understand then, Mr. President, you want the United
States on the sidelines in this -- giving advice, but not involved in
any three-way attempt to settle the Kashmir issue?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think the United States can be involved in a
three-way attempt to settle the Kashmir issue, unless and until they
both want us. I think that that is the evidence -- you know, if you
look at, we're in the Middle East because they both want us, not to
say that either side agrees with everything I say and do, but we have
a certain credibility there borne of years and years and years of
labor and a welcoming into the process. The same thing is true in the
Irish peace process.

So I think that right now what I need to do is to try to convince both
sides to avoid the worst -- and there's something to be said for
avoiding the worst here. And then to adopt some common principles
which will allow the resumption of the dialogue. If we can get them to
renounce violence as a way of resolving this and to restore their
dialogue, respect the line of control so the dialogue can be restored,
then who knows what will happen and what they decide to do and how
they decide to do it.

But if they stay sort of hunkered down in unapproachable positions,
then I think we'll have to work very hard to avoid a more difficult

Q: I have a nuclear question. The United States tells people in the
rest of the world to be like us. And the Indians say, right, we're
just like you, we're a democracy, we're a free market economy and we
have nuclear weapons in order to protect our national security. What's
wrong with that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what's wrong with it is that we're trying to lead
the world away from nuclear power and away from the threat of nuclear
war. And when the Indians took this position they basically said, we
don't think we can be secure without nuclear weapons and it's our
right as a great nation to have them.

And we, first of all, don't believe it does -- we don't believe it
enhances their security. We think countries like Brazil, Argentina,
South Africa, South Korea, that walked away from the prospect of
nuclear programs, are more secure and have more funds to support their
own national security and the development of their people and their
economy. And we believe that it sends a bad signal when a great
democracy like India, in effect, is telling the world that we ought to
get into another arms race.

I've tried to reduce the arms of the United States. I hope this year
we'll make another effort to reduce the arms of the United States and
the arms of Russia. I've tried to support the comprehensive test ban
treaty, the nonproliferation treaty, the restriction of the
distribution of fissile material.

So I think -- India, it sounds great to say, well, the United States
has nuclear weapons and they're a democracy, we ought to. But if you
look at the whole history of this thing, what they're saying is, we
want to reverse the move toward reducing the nuclear threat because we
say we ought to have nuclear weapons.

Q: Well, they also say, sir, that these are weapons of self-esteem and
this is a U.S. --

THE PRESIDENT: Self-esteem, that's right. If they're weapons of
self-esteem for India then every nation in the entire world has the
same right to self-esteem -- so, therefore, however many countries
there are in the world, everyone that can afford one ought to have a
nuclear weapon. I do not believe that that would make the world safer;
I believe that that would make the world more dangerous.

So I respect what the Indian say. They say, look, it's not just
Pakistan -- China has nuclear weapons. You know, it wasn't so many
decades ago we had a border war with China; we have our problems
there. But I think that most people believe, and have studied this
believe that all nations would be more secure if we reduce the overall
nuclear threat and reduce the number of people that had access to
nuclear weapons.

And also keep in mind, the more nuclear weapons you have, the more
nuclear material you have, the more risk you have that that nuclear
material will be subject to pilfering. So you have to worry about, not
only about other states becoming nuclear states, but even terrorists
getting a hold of small-scale nuclear weapons. I just think that it
takes the world in the wrong direction. It's an honest disagreement we
have with the Indians.

Q: Yes, because the Indians say to you, you Americans say well, you
just don't trust us --

THE PRESIDENT: That's not true.

Q:  -- it's okay for you, but you don't trust us.

THE PRESIDENT: No, that's not true. Actually, I do trust them. I
believe Prime Minister Vajpayee when he says, I will never be the
first to use nuclear weapons. So it's not a question of trust.

What I don't agree with is that a country needs nuclear weapons to
manifest its esteem or its national greatness. Nor do I agree that
India is actually more secure with these nuclear weapons. I think that
in some ways it reduces one's security.

Q:  Trust the Pakistanis with control of nuclear weapons, too?

THE PRESIDENT: I feel the same way about them. I think -- they
probably think they have a better argument, since they know they
couldn't win a conventional war with India, because India is so much
bigger. And because Lahore, for example, one of the most important
places, is so close to the Indian border.

But it just seems to me -- again, if you look at -- if you ask
yourself, where is there greater security? In Brazil, in Argentina, or
even in South Africa, or even in South Korea, where they renounced
nuclear weapons? Are those people less secure than the people of
Pakistan and India? I think you would have to say they are not less

So my argument is any country can say to us, any country --
particularly another democracy -- oh, you're a hypocrite, you've got
nuclear weapons, you don't want us to have any. Well, I'm trying to
reduce the store of nuclear weapons the United States has, the store
Russia has. The Russians have supported this. And we're trying to make
the world more stable.

I just think -- I don't think they're more secure by having nuclear

Q: On the subject of security, I'm really curious. You travel all the
time in this extraordinarily tight security envelope. And, yet, it
wasn't secure enough yesterday to go to a small village in Bangladesh.
Did you really feel a personal risk in Bangladesh? Did you end up
telling Chelsea -- or, if you talked to her, Mrs. Clinton -- I'm going
off on a trip in which I am at personal risk?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's better for me not to discuss it,
except to say this. Insofar as there was a risk, it had nothing to do
with the Bangladeshis, nothing to do with the government or the people
of Bangladesh and they were not in any way at fault. I did my best to
take account of the analysis of our security people and to act
accordingly and it worked out just fine. We had a wonderful trip.

Q:  Do you ever have your way with the security people?

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean do I ever disagree with them?

Q:  No, do you ever have your way.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean?

Q: In other ways, do you ever have your -- you can disagree with them;
do you ever prevail?

THE PRESIDENT: Sometimes. I do. I have from time to time disagreed
with them and actually done what I wanted to do. But when that happens
I try to do it the way they want to do it. Because if I disagree with
them I realize I've assumed a greater risk and I should do it in the
way they want to do it.

Q: Last question, sir. You're going to see President Assad in Geneva
on Sunday. That's a pretty big meeting. Does this mean a deal is

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't say that. But I will say this. Ever since
they met in Shephardstown the first of the year, and then the talks
sort of were stalled, I've been working very hard with both sides. I
now think I'm in a position to have a sense of what it will take for
both sides to get an agreement. So it's an appropriate time for me to
discuss this with President Assad, in the hope that we can start the
talks again.

I'm encouraged by the decisions that have been made by the Israelis
and the Palestinians. I think they are committed to going forward and
they have a pretty good timetable -- they're going to have to work
hard to make it. And I think that the only way we'll ever have this
thing the way it ought to be in the Middle East is to finish with the
Syrians and then with the Lebanese, as well.

So I think this is time, whether it will lead to a breakthrough, I
don't know. I hope it will lead to a resumption of talks.

Q: Is it safe to assume that President Assad doesn't leave the country
easily and would not agree to go to Geneva to see you were you not to
have something pretty good on offer?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it's safe to assume that I wouldn't waste his
time, either. I think that we have -- it's time for us to talk about
what we think it would take to resume these talks and move to a
resolution. And I'm going to give him my honest opinion about where we
are and where I think we can go. And then we just need to make a
decision, all of us, about whether to go forward. But, principally,
it's a decision for the Israelis and the Syrians.

Q: Does this involve a comprehensive settlement, one that involves the
Syrian Golan Heights, the Israelis and the Israeli withdrawal from

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to talk to President Assad. There isn't an
agreement, yet. But if there is an agreement, I would hope it would
lead to a resolution of both the Syrian issues and the Lebanese
issues, which is very important in Israel. The Israelis care a lot
about that. And well they should. And, of course, the Lebanese do.
We'll see. Keep your fingers crossed.

Q:    You're enthusiastic.

THE PRESIDENT:  I'm hopeful.

Q:    Thanks a lot.

END  4:40 P.M. (L)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: