Pakistani Action Followed By Reciprocity From India

Excerpts from Press Briefing, June 3.

Question: Thank you. Can you say why Armitage is going to India and Pakistan, whathe hopes to accomplish and what his message is?

Philip T. Reeker: Okay. We've said that many times before, but certainly, as youknow, the situation in South Asia remains very tense. Today President Musharraf ofPakistan, Prime Minister Vajpayee of India, are both in Almaty, Kazakhstan, for meetingswith their regional counterparts. We welcome very much the very positive efforts there inAlmaty by President Putin and others in the international community to foster discussionsat reducing tensions, at lowering the risk of war between India and Pakistan.

As we have said before, the solutions to problems between India and Pakistan willultimately be found through dialogue, not through conflict. An armed conflict will onlyadd to the problems of the two countries and to their people. Only terrorists will benefitfrom war in South Asia. As you know, we have been in very close touch with Pakistani andIndian officials, as well as leaders of other interested countries.

Deputy Secretary Armitage is departing tomorrow for the region. He spoke with BritishForeign Secretary Straw this morning. Secretary Powell spoke on Saturday with PresidentMusharraf. He also spoke with Spanish Foreign Minister Pique, as well as Turkish ForeignMinister Cem on Saturday.

And as you know, following Deputy Secretary Armitage's visit on the 6th and 7th toPakistan and to India, then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will also be going to Pakistan andIndia later in the week, continuing a trip that he is making to the region.

We continue to stress that Pakistan needs to follow through on its commitment to stopall infiltration activities by terrorist organizations across the line of control inKashmir, and that India needs to show restraint while President Musharraf carries throughon his commitment. And then we would expect India, in turn, to take reciprocal steps toreduce tension. As Secretary Powell pointed out, we must see that infiltration across theline of control stops, and stops permanently, and we want President Musharraf to use allhis authority to stop it, keep it stopped, get the tension down and get this immediatecrisis behind us.

Question: Can you give us any more details about the conversation with PresidentMusharraf over the weekend with Secretary Powell?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't think I am in a position to go into any great detail. TheSecretary has been reiterating the points I just made, the same points the Secretary madequite publicly on Friday, the same points that Deputy Secretary Armitage made today in histelevision appearances; and that is, the need to get tension down, the need to keep thetwo sides from escalating right now, and that there is no other activity than diplomaticactivity that can be brought to bear at this moment to de-escalate the situation.

And so we are going to keep watching this very closely, and we have the upcoming travelthat we just discussed.

Question: Can I just follow up briefly? So far, efforts -- sort of diplomaticefforts to get them to back down have failed. Is there anything new that Deputy SecretaryArmitage will be taking with him that he can use in his negotiations?

Philip T. Reeker: I think if there were anything particularly new, he would talk tothe Indians and Pakistanis first. Our position is quite clear and that with the rest ofthe international community, is working with both countries to make them see clearly thefact that armed conflict will not accomplish anything in this situation. The need for themto both exercise leadership in their countries and in the region to de-escalate, to getthe tension down, ultimately to pursue a dialogue, which we think is the way forward onissues that divide them, including Kashmir. And so that is the message the DeputySecretary will be taking with him, to avert armed conflict and war in this situation, andto deal with issues peacefully.

Question: Do you know how many Americans have left the subcontinent, andparticularly how many from the Embassy dependants and nonessential, non-emergency staff?

Philip T. Reeker: The authorized departure that we announced on Friday is goingsmoothly via commercial airlines. Tickets are readily available, we understand, and weexpect that most of our non-emergency staff and dependents will have departed within aweek.

I would reiterate, however, that all of the US posts in India -- our Embassy and ourthree consulates -- remain open for business. I don't have any particular numbers, exactnumbers to share with you, nor do I have numbers available on a departure of non-officialAmericans. Again, I think we have seen that travel is quite available through commercialairlines, and certainly in the press and media reports we have seen that a number ofpeople have been leaving India.

Question: Can I just follow up on that? So you expect most of these people will begone in a week -- are you actively encouraging them to leave, rather than just offeringthem the opportunity to –

Philip T. Reeker: Well, I think we have been quite clear in our public travelwarnings, and that's the same information that we give to our official Americans at posts.This is an opportunity for official Americans to leave -- that is, non-essentialemployees, non-emergency employees and their families. I think Ambassador Boucher wentthrough that last week in terms of those steps we take, and people will make their owndecisions clearly.

Question: And you have indications from them that they do intend to –

Philip T. Reeker: What I understand from this vantage point, Jonathan, is that weexpect most non-emergency staff and dependants to have departed within a week. I can'tmake any specific predictions for you on what every individual eligible for that departurewill ultimately decide to do.

Question: Could you explain to us how Mr. Armitage's mission and Mr. Rumsfeld'smission are going to interrelate exactly?

Philip T. Reeker: Well, I think it's a continuous engagement at highest levels ofgovernment with the leaders of both India and Pakistan to make quite clear our concernsand our feelings. We're coordinating very closely with the rest of the internationalcommunity. As I mentioned earlier, President Putin, along with other leaders, are inAlmaty, hosted by the Kazakh Government, to clearly make some of these points as well tothe Pakistan and Indian leadership. Foreign Secretary Straw was in the region. TheEuropean envoy Mr. Patten was previously in the region.

So this is an important part of the diplomacy and an important part of the engagementto have the international community make quite clear to India and Pakistan the need tode-escalate and remind them that the repercussions are far too great to allow this todevolve into armed conflict.

And so both Deputy Secretary Armitage and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will bereiterating that message. They are important parts of our national security team andtraveling on behalf of the President.

Question: Will there be any division of labor between the two? In other words, willthey sort of tackle a slightly different aspect of the –

Philip T. Reeker: I think we will leave that for their own personal diplomacy andallow them to carry on their mission. I can't really describe for you exactly how they aregoing to go about taking their messages, but I can assure that it will be similar to whatI have said here today.

Question: The key to the whole thing seems to be getting some evidence that changesare taking place on the ground in terms of stopping the cross-border infiltration, and theState Department said on Friday that there was some evidence that the Government ofPakistan had issued orders for the infiltrations to stop. Have you seen any evidence of achange?

Philip T. Reeker: Well, I think that is exactly what Secretary Powell noted onFriday, and Deputy Secretary Armitage again said that we want to assess PresidentMusharraf's stated position that he's stopped the infiltration, that there is indeed noinfiltration across the line of control. We will be continuing to look at that veryclosely.

In return, of course, we would like to get India to begin a de-escalatory step of somesort that can then be visible to Pakistan. So that is the message we are taking to both ofthem. We are watching very closely. I don't have anything more specific in terms ofintelligence or other sources to share with you, but it is certainly something that wethink is of the utmost importance.

Question: Is the US sharing satellite photographs with one or both governments–

Philip T. Reeker: I wouldn't get into those intelligence matters. I never do.

Question: I wanted to follow up Jonathan's question, maybe in a different way. IsRumsfeld coordinating his trip with the State Department?

Philip T. Reeker: I guess I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Is his travel -- Imean, he's going –

Question: No, I mean what Jonathan means, but I thought this might elicit a reply,his question being of course how do they interrelate -- the Armitage and the Rumsfeldstops in India and Pakistan. One way would be if Rumsfeld has coordinated what he is goingto say to them, ask of them, with the State Department.

Philip T. Reeker: Certainly I would expect -- I think you were witness to thePresident discussing the fact that these two officials would be traveling when thePresident spoke about it last week. They are going at his behest. Secretary Powell andSecretary Rumsfeld were sitting on either side of the President at the time in the cabinetmeeting when the President discussed that. This gets discussed -- and indeed coordinated,Barry -- at the highest levels of the national security apparatus. And so we are takingadvantage of both of these senior leaders' travel to make quite clear our points and tocontinue working with the rest of the international community to get the temperature down,to lower the tension and move forward in a more positive direction.

Question: When you speak of de-escalatory steps by India, are you referringspecifically to a reversal of the buildup of forces along the border?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't think I would presume from here to try to lay out anyparticular steps. I'll leave that for our officials to perhaps discuss with both sides.But I think it's quite clear on the face of it that, as Deputy Secretary Armitage saidthis morning, if we want both sides to be reasonable and logical, to lower thetemperature, and that we want to assess, as Secretary Powell said, President Musharraf'sstated position, which he has repeated, that he has stopped the infiltration, that he'sdoing everything he can, that there's no infiltration across the line of control. And thenin return, India could begin some kind of de-escalatory step that would be visible toPakistan. This is going to take both sides making a concerted effort in terms ofleadership to get this tension down, and hopefully create an atmosphere more conducive topursuing a dialogue on the issues that separate them.

Question: And should a dialogue follow the steps that you want the two sides totake?

Philip T. Reeker: That is something we have always called for. We think thesolution to problems between the two countries, including the question of Kashmir, areissues, and in the case of Kashmir, is an issue that should be solved through dialoguebetween the two sides, taking into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir. That hasbeen our position all along, and we'll continue to say that. But we are focused very muchright now on getting the tension down to make sure that this very difficult situationdoesn't spiral into an armed conflict, which will only bring misery to people on bothsides.

Question: Is there anything beyond the cross-border infiltrations that the US islooking to Pakistan to end, in particular closing down terrorist camps that India saysexist on the Pakistan side of Kashmir and turning over those 20 individuals that theIndians had asked for many months back?

Philip T. Reeker: Again, I think that the two sides need to communicate thoseissues to each other. We need to see the steps that the Secretary and Deputy Secretaryhave described in terms of President Musharraf living up to his promises, doing everythinghe can to stop the infiltration.

We do consider President Musharraf to be a strong ally in the war against terrorism andto take many steps, as he has, to end terrorism. He spoke in January quite firmly aboutthe need for the silent majority, as he called it, in Pakistan to stand up againstterrorism and terrorists who were taking Pakistan down the wrong path. And I think indeedthat the majority of the Pakistani population has listened to that call and supportsPresident Musharraf in that.

Fighting terrorism is not always easy, but he's got to exercise every lever that he canto do that. And so we'll be looking to President Musharraf to do that. The DeputySecretary will be speaking with him later this week, and then with the Indian side, makingquite clear those points, and that includes particularly the line of control and makingsure that that infiltration is stopped.

Question: I ask because the Pakistanis' concern is that if the infiltration ends,Vajpayee will up the ante and will want the terrorist camps to be closed and whatnotbefore India would take reciprocal steps. So it sounds as if what you're saying is the USbelieves that the reasonable first step in order to get reciprocal action on the Indianside is to end the infiltration.

Philip T. Reeker: I think we've been quite clear on that, and the Secretaryreiterated that last week. The Deputy Secretary said it again today. I don't want to getinto hypotheticals about what- if's. What we want to see is that action, because we thinkthat's very important, and then some reciprocity on the side of the Indians so that thePakistanis can visibly see that there is goodwill on both sides. And then we can look atpossible confidence-building measures that both sides can take to continue a de-escalationand create an environment that is more conducive to the dialogue that we think isnecessary to solve these problems.

Question: Just really quick, and this may be a taken question, but on the StateDepartment's position about the ultimate status of Kashmir. Does the State Department havespecifically an opinion on the referendum that was conducted some 50 years ago in Kashmirthat said that they wouldn't want to be part of India?

Philip T. Reeker: Our position is that it needs to be a dialogue between the twosides, taking into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir. I think that's as far asit goes, and at this point I don't have any specifics to remind you.

Question: The Kashmiris –

Philip T. Reeker: There are a variety –

Question: -- they say that that they voted on this many years ago and thereshouldn't be –

Philip T. Reeker: I think you want to check some of the history on this. There areUN resolutions and other things that have never been fulfilled over a long period of time.That's why we think the solution is that there needs to be a dialogue between the twosides, and whatever we can do to facilitate, and the international community can help withfacilitating both sides, we're willing to do.

Question: Do you think that that dialogue should happen immediately, or these othersteps that you're looking for the Pakistanis and Indians to take should be taken before adialogue starts? Or do you -- would you urge the parties to begin an immediate dialogue?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't think I'm going to try to urge one way or the other. Whatwe're focused on is de-escalation, getting the tension down, preventing the outbreak of awar. But we've made quite clear what we think the longer term solutions need to be -- thatis, dialogue -- to find solutions between the two countries. I don't think at this pointI'm going to provide you any specific plan one way or the other. We're going to let oursenior officials go and talk to both sides, bringing home again the importance of easingthe tensions.

Question: My question is do you think that a dialogue would de-escalate thesituation, or should there be a de-escalation before there's a dialogue?

Philip T. Reeker: I think there needs to be a de-escalation. I'm not going to tryto make any particular decision back or forth. I think I was intentionally not answeringyour question because I don't have an answer to it.

Question: You will probably have to take this, but –

Philip T. Reeker: Try me.

Question: -- I'll ask anyway. I think it's a valid question, which I doubt you willanswer. But –

Philip T. Reeker: Prejudged.

Question: The question of economic sanctions against Pakistan, some people havebeen suggesting it might be useful if re-imposing them was an issue that was in the airagain at this time.