'We Need To Be Led By The Evidence'

Relevant excerpts from the Foreign Press Center briefing by the USAssistant Secretary for South and Central Asia in Washington, DC on July 17

On relationship with India: We have, I think, accomplished a lot withIndia and it's also coming up tomorrow, the one-year anniversary of PrimeMinister Singh's visit to the United States. So it's a good occasion, I thinkalso, to recognize that we are taking the vision that the Prime Minister and thePresident enunciated, taking many of the concrete programs that the Presidentand the Prime Minister announced during the President's visit to India in March,and turning those into reality, turning those into commissions and funding andstudies and legislation and especially moving forward very quickly on theU.S.-India civil nuclear arrangements.

Our Congress has been very supportive. We've seen legislation move now fromcommittees in the House and the Senate. We look forward to seeing votes in theHouse and the Senate, maybe this month. There are some -- I think the House willbe acting, perhaps in the next week, and we hope the Senate will as well.

So the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement is on track. The legislation ismoving forward quickly and the United States is keeping our commitment ofturning the President's and the Prime Minister's vision into reality that thecompanies can use for cooperation and that we can use to help support Indianeconomic growth and India's economic future.

On Pakistan and Afghanistan: The other area that I'd like to talkabout a little bit is Pakistan and Afghanistan, the war on terror. Ourrelationship with Pakistan is much broader and we have initiated a whole seriesof dialogues with Pakistan -- the Strategic Dialogue, the Economic Dialogue, theEducation Dialogue, the Science Dialogue -- all these areas where we have realpractical cooperation going on with Pakistan, helping Pakistan with its energyneeds as well.

In addition to that, there's a lot of cooperation with Pakistan in terms ofhelping the Pakistani Government support its efforts out in the border regions.You have in both Pakistan and Afghanistan a similar process going on ofgovernment extending its control, extending its peaceful and beneficialactivities to the edges of the frontier on both sides, and we're supporting thePakistani Government in doing that and on the Afghan side of the border we'resupporting the Afghan Government in doing that. So that with the deployment ofNATO troops, the deployment of policemen, drug eradicators, but also thebuilding of roads, building of electricity lines, irrigation schemes, governmentoffices, we're helping both Pakistan and Afghanistan extend their authority outto the edges of the country so that these places can't be used by terrorists tofight us, to fight NATO, to fight the Afghan Government and to fight thePakistani Government; and in the end, in addition to the actual fighting thathas to take place, bringing the benefits of government, the benefits of goodgovernment and development, to these regions, because I think what we think inthe long term will bring peace and security to the people who live there.

So those are some of the big things we're doing. We can talk about any of thecountries and specific issues in this region, but I thought at this moment, fiveor six months after I started and one year after the Indian meetings with thePresident, it was a good time to come out and tell you things are going quitewell in this region and there's a lot of progress in turning the visions intoreality.

Question:  Hi. To a more recent and controversial event. Have youseen any evidence to suggest that Pakistan or Pakistani-based groups that areinvolved in Mumbai blast? And also there is an impression that U.S.-Pakistanrelations are on the slide -- that the United States is not very happy with whatPakistan is doing or not doing on the part of Iran's border and also is notdoing enough to stop people from crossing over into Kashmir.

Richard Boucher: Well, let me deal with two things. One is the Mumbaibombings were a horrible tragedy. They were obviously well-prepared by somebodywith evil intent, by somebody with local knowledge, by somebody with -- or somegroup, some individuals, some people with a lot of planning and malice, so forth-- you know, and a lot of malice. The evidence, you know, as far as who theywere, who was responsible, I don't think we've seen all that yet. That's to beexpected. The Indians are conducting the investigation and investigators usuallydon't talk about their investigations until they've reached firm conclusion. Sowe look forward to seeing how the evidence develops. We look forward to hearingthe firm conclusions of the investigators.

I know there's a lot of speculation out there now. That happens in thesecases. But I think we need to be led by the evidence before we start trying todraw conclusions and make policy pronouncements on it. So that would be ourattitude and I think that should be the attitude of others as well.

As far as U.S.-Pakistan relations, you know, one of the reasons I tried tomention it in the opening statement, is U.S.-Pakistan relations have been verypositive recently. We've been cooperating across the board in things that are --areas that are important for Pakistan's development, areas that are importantfor Pakistan's success as a moderate, stable, democratic society. And our goalis to help Pakistan achieve success in all those areas that we're working withthem: strategic issues, the fight against terrorism, finding energy supply,educating its population, building a democracy. These are all the areas thathave been outlined for President Musharraf in his program of EnlightenedModeration and we want them to succeed. And we're working with Pakistan acrossthe board to try to help them achieve that success.

The fight against terrorism is a tough one. We all have to do more. We allhave to make sure that terrorists are not allowed to operate, not allowed toprosper, not allowed to find sanctuary. We're playing an important role in thatwith the military operations we're conducting in Afghanistan. We play animportant role in terms of the development programs we have in Afghanistan, youknow, the support that we give to Pakistan for its own development programs. Sowe are in that together. We're all fighting a common enemy and we're all goingto try to keep cooperating, keep improving and keep doing better so that we canbeat this threat, the big threat to Pakistan's success.

MR. BAILY: Yes, sir?

Question:  After the dinner in Vienna in March at which theChinese Ambassador approached you for a nuclear deal with Pakistan similar tothe one with India, has there been any further --

Richard Boucher: Who said that?

Question:  I've seen documentation. Has there been any furtherapproaches to you or anyone else in the State Department for a similar deal? Andsecondly, the G-8 has submitted -- issued a statement on nonproliferation, whichis a paragraph, which implicitly endorses the Indo-U.S. deal. Can you reflect onhow we have got here, considering that after the 1998 nuclear test the G-8 wasthe engine for condemning India and the engine behind the Security Councilresolution on the Indian nuclear test?

Richard Boucher: As far as things -- discussions taking place withinthe Nuclear Suppliers Group, we're really not supposed to talk about it and so Idon't want to violate the confidences of that organization. But I think in termsof what you've seen, I think it's safe to say that I have not seen any proposalby any government to make a similar sale to another country along the lines ofthe one with India. We certainly believe that the situation with India isunique. That's the way we've approached this agreement. That's the way wepursued it and I think that remains the view of many other members of theinternational community. So I haven't seen anybody make a proposal for anyoneelse along those lines.

As far as the G-8 and nonproliferation, it's truly an interesting questionthat if you look at, you know, the G-8 countries a number of them have alreadypronounced themselves firmly in favor of civilian cooperation with India. Wealso know that the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency isstrongly supportive of civil nuclear cooperation with India under the terms thatwe've outlined. So there is, I think very strong desire on the part of manynations in the world to have this kind of cooperation with India to help Indiameet its energy needs in a clean manner for its future economic development.

But I would point to the other side of this as well; that India certainly haschanged its attitude towards many of these organizations and towards theinternational nonproliferation effort. And it's important -- it's important thatIndia is changing its mindset. It's just a very interesting speech given by theforeign secretary last week about the one year anniversary of the Prime Ministerand President's agreement, but also about sort of India's attitude towards theworld. And I think as we change our attitude towards India, it's interesting tosee the Indians reflect on their relations with others in the world,particularly with some of these organizations that they have had problems within the past. And it's interesting to reflect how important it is that India isjoining the international nonproliferation effort because they understand theimportance of that effort to India's future stability, security and safety.

Question:  I have two questions, both are actually linked to eachother. I believe President Bush and Prime Minister Singh met on the sidelinesyesterday of the G-8 meet. My first question is can you bring us up to speed asto what they discussed? One of the issues apparently was a civilian nucleardeal. And the second question is can you set a timeline for the next stage ofthe legislative process and where we are with respect to that?

Richard Boucher: I appreciate the question about the meeting betweenPresident Bush and Prime Minister Singh. The reason that I didn't mention it inmy own remarks was that I don't really have a lot of information on it yet. MyState Department people who were out there during the meeting are in an airplaneon their way back, so I haven't had a chance to talk to them yet. And so I'veseen the statements and I've seen the press reports but that -- I don't haveanything more than you have on that one.

On the future timeline, I'm always hesitant to predict how the Congress willact because the Congress decides on its own how and when it wishes to act. Butour expectation is the House will take up the matter in about a week. The Senatemay take it up soon after. Once each passes legislation, assuming that thelegislation's not exactly the same, they'll have to go through conference whichwould happen after their August recess. So perhaps in September they could putthrough the final legislation.

In the meantime, we're working with the Nuclear Suppliers Group. India'sworking with us on negotiating a bilateral agreement. India's working with theInternational Atomic Energy Agency to negotiate their safeguards agreements. Soif all those pieces come together and we have the legislation, you know, it'sconceivable that all this could be done by the end of the year. But I can'tpromise specifically that it will be because each of these factors has to moveforward and get concluded on its own track.

Question:  I have two questions, two quick ones. What specificdiplomatic effort is the U.S. taking -- undertaking to calm the Indiansubcontinent right now, given the current situation after the bomb blasts andencourage dialogue, continuing dialogue, between India and Pakistan? And thesecond question is, has India expressed its concern over the sale of F-16s toPakistan and how would the U.S. address Indian concerns regarding this? Thankyou.

Richard Boucher: As far as the current situation, you've heard what Isaid about, I think, basing any conclusions or actions on evidence. And I thinkthat's pretty much been our message to everybody. We have kept in touch with theIndian Government on this. Under Secretary Burns had a meeting last Thursday inParis with Foreign Secretary Saran and where this was discussed somewhat.President and Prime Minister Singh met today. I don't know how much that wasdiscussed. But I think our message to everybody is let's find the evidence,let's find out who is responsible and then let's look together at what we can doto stop any groups or organizations or support that organizations might begetting to make sure that people can't carry out such actions in the future. Andthat's something we want to do with all the governments in the region.

We certainly hope that India -- the progress in India-Pakistan relations isnot lost and that they find opportunities to cooperate, to cooperate againstterrorist groups, to cooperate in stabilizing the region and that's somethingwe’ll continue to encourage. It's up to them to decide how to proceed. Werealize that they felt it wasn't possible to have the foreign secretariesmeetings this week. But I think our outlook remains that India-Pakistancooperation is important for the region and we hope they will find ways tocontinue it in the future.

Oh, and F-16s, I haven't heard anything from the Indian Government. That's upto the Indian Government, if you want to ask. If you want to ask them theirattitude, go ahead, but our sale is based on what we think are legitimate needsof Pakistan to defensive purposes and we proceed on that basis, not on the basisof what other people think or don't think about it. 

Question:  I'll  just follow up on a couple of responsesthat you gave. The first one is, of course, on the India-U.S. nuclear deal, Ithought you said that the House will take up the issue in about a week. I thinkthe audio here is bad. I'm not sure if that is the correct timeline that youprovided. And my second question is again about the Mumbai bombings and the factthat the secretary-level meetings, which was supposed to be held on the 31st ofJuly, they have been canceled. How much -- how much is the U.S. concerned aboutthis development?

Richard Boucher: Well, your second question I think I just answered.And the first question, yes, I did say I think the House will take up thelegislation in about a week. And we hope the Senate will do it soon after that.

Question:  Steve Collinson with AFP. Last week the PakistaniForeign Minister said at his visit to Washington that he thought the blame gamewas over. He was talking about U.S. officials and U.S. journalists perhapsaccusing Pakistan of continuing to support the Taliban and Taliban remnants inAfghanistan. Does the United States agree with that characterization of therelationship, you know, five years after -- nearly five years after September11th and recruiting Pakistan, you know, into the war on terror?

Richard Boucher: I guess I disagree with the premise of the question,that we've never been involved in some attempt to blame people. We've beeninvolved in a fight that affects us all. The terrorists that we're fightingagainst have been fighting against Afghanistan, been fighting against Pakistan,been fighting against the United States, been fighting against Europeans andmaybe some of them fighting against India as well. So every country in thisregion has an interest in stopping terrorism. And we want to make that a jointeffort. We're always looking for new ways to do more to improve ourcapabilities, to improve our cooperation. But there's nothing -- I think we havenothing but praise for our partners in this effort.

No country has done more to fight al-Qaida or has lost more people in doingso than Pakistan. We have made that abundantly clear. Are there other thingsthat we and they can do together? Yes, and we're doing them. And it's not justthe fight. It's not just the struggle. That's a very important part and thatstruggle and that fight needs to be taken to every terrorist, no matter what hispurported cause. Terrorism is inherently destabilizing for any society and allterrorism needs to be fought. But in addition, we need to stabilize the society.We need to give people hopes and aspirations they have for their children, givethem the education they need and the development opportunities they need andPakistan is equally a partner in that effort as well.