I n d i a  p r e s s e s   f o r  S e c u r i t y  C o u n c i l  S e a t  a t  U N

Q & A / Jaswant Singh foreign minister

---

Los Angeles Times Service

Jaswant Singh, foreign minister of the world's most populous democracy, has helped orchestrate the dramatic diplomatic transition in relations between India and the United States. Reciprocal state visits - President Bill Clinton to India in March and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Washington this month - marked the new era, according to U.S. officials. The foreign minister was interviewed by Robin Wright during Mr. Vajpayee's state visit to Washington this month.

A: I'm not the architect. The architect is the times, the circumstances, the transformed global situation. In the years after World War II, the United States felt its national interests were best served by a variety of alliances that didn't include India. In those early years after its independence, India had to move into a position of balance between the two competing superpowers, hence, nonalignment.

What we need in Indo-U.S. relations is stability and predictability. Also, the ability to engage with each other with candor, in confidence and with the sense of being able to deal with differences of approach on issues.

Q. Despite improved relations, U.S. sanctions imposed on both India and Pakistan after their 1998 nuclear tests, remain in place. How much impact are they having on India?

A. We didn't believe sanctions would have the results you expected. India has a continental-size economy that sustains 1 billion human beings. So far, sanctions have been counterproductive. Trade has grown by 27 percent over the last year, and it hasn't reached its true potential because of sanctions. Exports from India are growing, and imports from the U.S. are sluggish. So you're only hurting yourself.

Q. Do you foresee any change in India's position on nuclear tests and signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Under what circumstances would India use a nuclear weapon?

A. I don't see any circumstances. We have announced a no-first-use policy. We've also announced no use against nonnuclear states. Weapons of mass destruction are meant for the role of deterrent.

India has a voluntary moratorium on any future nuclear explosive testing. We have said we will not stand in the way of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that our moratorium will continue until then.

Since the substance of our obligation on banning explosive testing is there, we're only looking at the style - as to how you comply with that substance.

We've said that until we have a domestic political consensus on this issue, please have patience. We intend to do it. Parliament will meet in November. It's my expectation that we'll have a full-fledged discussion and that the political community will eventually come around to a consensus.

Q. A recent Central Intelligence Agency estimate predicts a 40 percent to 60 percent chance of war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in the next couple of years. What odds would you give the danger of conflict?

A. Far be it from me to comment on the U.S. intelligence system. But if you were to carry out an analysis of the historical factor of errors by this great institution, you would be better able to judge. There are nil chances of conflict. I have something to do with policy  formulation. I know what is happening and what we will do. 

Surely  you should appreciate that in 1999, we were put to a severe test in Kargil, not because we wished to score points but because India is a responsible nation that believes that, as a nation, we have a responsibility to the international community not simply to our Western neighbours. We suffered casualties. As a soldier, it saddens me. My son volunteered to be in Kashmir, and we lost over 500 men. But we conducted our policy, under the most testing times, with great restraint.

Q. Various governments dating back to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi have pledged to grant Kashmir greater autonomy. Why won't your government follow through?

A. As far as management of our internal affairs and autonomy to states and decentralization, we had a commission established on it. I just attended an interstate council 10 days ago, and we discussed the report of that commission on granting greater functional autonomy not simply to Jammu and Kashmir but to other states of the union and the government is moving toward it. 

But for you to consider Jammu and Kashmir some kind of territorial dispute would really be an error. I'm astonished at times that people don't point and out that 38,000 square kilometers of Jammu & Kashmir is disputed with China and is currently under its occupation. The entire northern' areas are occupied. This is the real territorial dispute.

Q. India has increasingly expressed its desire for a larger role in the United Nations and other international institutions commensurate with its numbers and leadership in the developing world. What role would India play, and how might it change the balance of power in the world?

A. It's ironic that in the early years of the Security Council, a seat was offered to India, and in an act of possibly the most profound historical abnegation, the then prime minister said "No," it shall not take a seat unless China first gets represented.

India, more than any other country - as a civilization and culturally, not just because of its membership in the non-aligned movement or the Group of 77 [developing nations] - has to give voice to those who don't have a voice and those who are deprived and fall into the category of want. This is not just India's duty. This is the UN's obligation, too.

In terms of the balance of power, in India we have always known that the essence of power is to know the limits of power.