Interview with the Minister of External Affairs
Mr. Jaswant Singh

Courtesy: The Times of India - 24th July 2000

---

The Vajpayee government's perception of India as a leading player on the world stage may well account for some of the recent shifts in foreign policy. In the aftermath of Pokhran, Kargil, Bill Clinton's visit, the missions to Israel, the India factor in the Sri Lankan conflict and the freeing of Indian peace-keeping troops in Sierra Leone, there is a heightened sense of diplomatic activism in the ministry of external affairs. Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh is especially conscious of New Delhi's higher international visibility. 

Is it not true that the recent visits of you and the home minister to Israel have impacted adversely on traditional ties with Arab countries? 

India's relations with any one country is not at the cost of another, the visits of the home minister, foreign minister and a state chief minister around the same time is purely coincidental. You refer to Israel but not to my visit to Gaza. I am the first foreign minister to visit Gaza after Nehru did as prime minister. The first person I met on this trip was Yasser Arafat, with whom I discussed all aspects of the West Asian peace talks. Our ties with Israel are not security oriented, but form a full diplomatic relationship, covering all aspects of bilateral cooperation, including software. 

I do not see any adverse impact in our relations with Arab countries, as you seem to suggest. We have an excellent rapport with them and the recent visits of the foreign ministers of Iran, Libya and Oman are there for all to see. 

How do you view the Sri Lankan government's devolution proposals that have been rejected by the Tamil parties? 

We are very mindful of the sovereign rights of Sri Lanka. We do not like to assume that we have a right to transgress their sovereignty. We continue to have a very real interest in the earliest possible restoration of lasting peace and the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Lasting peace can return only through political dialogue leading to a solution in which all the people are able to meet their aspirations. 

The India-Sri Lanka accord and the devolution package decided thereafter is one aspect. The Sri Lankan government came up with another proposal in 1995. We are awaiting presentation of the final devolution package to the Sri Lankan parliament. I am informed that the various political parties are going to be consulted. It is our hope that maximum consensus would be achieved and that all Tamil parties will be consulted. We laud the initiative of Chandrika Kumaratunga. It is the first time ever that the Sri Lankan parliament would be considering such a package. The process must be carried forward to the satisfaction of all. 

You had said at one stage that the Norwegian formula will not work. Are you still sceptical about it? 

I was sceptical at one stage when there was a flare-up in hostilities. Norway is in constant touch with us and consults us regularly. We provide them with whatever advice we consider necessary. The Norwegian effort needs India's support and encouragement. 

On Pakistan, there may be sections opposed to talks at higher political levels. But as nuclear neighbours, should we not keep communication channels open? 

I don't think we have to communicate only because we possess nuclear weapons. Your question suggests that no communication channels are open. Well, let me say this, that the director-generals of military operations on both sides are in constant touch with each other. A number of confidence building measures (CBM) related to the nuclear issue are already in position. When we advocate cessation of cross border-terrorism across the Line of Control (LoC), it is not merely in the interest of creating an environment for dialogue; we are also underlining that the LoC, which is born of a treaty -- the Shimla Agreement of 1972 -- is after all a very major CBM. 

Even after your 12 rounds of talks with Strobe Talbott, the US sanctions remain. Why? 

The imposition of sanctions by the US, though born of the compulsions of their domestic legislation, is unacceptable. 

Will the US Nuclear Missile Defence programme unleash a new arms race and set back moves for disarmament? And given China's decision to increase its missile stockpile, is there re-thinking in New Delhi? 

We have consistently held a view that opposes the militarisation of outer space. The NMD will adversely influence the larger movement towards disarmament of which India is a staunch advocate. We believe that technological superiority will result in a reaction in other parts of the world, thus reviving the possibility of yet another, and newer, arms race. We cannot support this development. 

Does this mean that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is now dead? 

On the CTBT, not withstanding the US senate's veto, India has pursued a consistent policy and we will continue to do so. This is because our decisions are made in New Delhi, not elsewhere. On the decision to sign the CTBT the government is attempting to work towards a political consensus on the issue. 

How far have you progressed in India's quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council? 

It is not a quest, it is India's rightful due. 

How is India preparing to cope with the emerging instruments of foreign policy, such as energy? When do you see the gas pipeline to India from Iran via Pakistan taking shape? 

Let us not see it in the context of Pakistan but in the larger context of energy security. We are in touch with not only Iran but several other countries, from Nigeria to Indonesia, Australia, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Let us not forget Bhutan and Nepal that are vast reservoirs of hydro-electric energy. 

You have not mentioned the proposed gas pipeline through Pakistan? 

It would be a mistake to take a uni-directional view. The pipeline project is a bilateral matter between India and Iran. A working group is addressing all aspects of the issue. 

You must be relieved that the trauma of our troops in Sierra Leone is over. What has this mission accomplished? 

This is not the first mission in Africa. Our presence has been there in the past too, in Congo, Namibia, Somalia and now Sierra Leone. We have no strategic interest in Sierra Leone. But we have a commitment. The Indian peace-keepers have given an exceptional account of professionalism and relating to citizens of that country. I consider that the management of the situation in Sierra Leone was one of the most outstanding examples of a joint diplomatic-military exercise in which as a team the ministry of external affairs and the ministry of defence addressed themselves to one of the most trying and challenging situations that they have ever faced.