- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,033
- Likes
- 8,354
Indian role key to future success in Afghanistan: US
WASHINGTON: "We refuse to accept the notion that somehow we can have strong relations with only one country in South Asia at a time," says a senior US official while defining the Obama administration's policy towards India and Pakistan.
Speaking at a seminar on the start of US-India Strategic Dialogue this week, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns also hinted that the US was not against India's inclusion in the UN Security Council as a permanent member.
"India's expanding global role will naturally make it an important part of any future consideration of reform of the United Nations Security Council," he said.
"Of course the United States attaches considerable importance to relations with Pakistan, but those relations do not come at the expense of India," said the State Department's No. 2 diplomat while explaining how the Obama administration planed to balance its ties with the two neighbouring nations.
He also delineated how the US sought to balance Indian and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan but made it clear that Washington would not ask India to reduce its high-profile role in that country.
"We also highly value India's role in building economic and social opportunities in Afghanistan, and see India's continued involvement there as a key part of that country's future success, not part of its present problems," said Mr Burns.
The US diplomat also described how it was in the US interests to help evolve better relations between India and Pakistan. He was also very clear in underlining the need for Pakistan to act against the terrorist groups that targeted India or the United States.
"We will continue to urge Pakistan to take decisive action against the violent extremists who threaten its own interests as much as they do the security of India and America," said the senior US diplomat.
"None of us, least of all Indians and Pakistanis, can afford a resurgence of tensions between two nuclear-armed states," he said.
"And none of us, least of all Indians and Pakistanis, can afford to see groups with global terrorist ambitions like Lashkar-e-Taiba continue unchecked."
Mr Burns sought to answer several key questions that are often raised in India, admitting, "We can't afford to gloss over such questions, or pretend that they don't exist."
The questions that, according to him, are often asked in India are:
— The US seeks to "re-hyphenate" relations with India and sees India mainly through the prism of preoccupations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
— The US does not push Pakistan hard enough on terrorists who kill and threaten Indians.
— The US will hurry towards the exit in Afghanistan and leave India holding the strategic pieces.
— The Obama administration is tempted by visions of a "G-2" world that "downgraded" India because it sees Asia exclusively through the lens of an emerging China, with India's role secondary.
Under-Secretary Burns also highlighted the questions that trouble US policy makers:
Some Americans worry that it is India which "self-hyphenates" "¦ that India sometimes has a hard time realising how far its influence and its interests have taken it beyond its immediate neighbourhood "¦ that India doesn't always see as clearly as others do how vital its own role in Asia is becoming.
Some Americans worry that India is ambivalent about its own rise in the world, still torn between its G-77 and G-20 identities. And some Americans wonder if India has the drive to overcome obstacles to its own ambitious development efforts.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...e-key-to-future-success-in-afghanistan-us-360
WASHINGTON: "We refuse to accept the notion that somehow we can have strong relations with only one country in South Asia at a time," says a senior US official while defining the Obama administration's policy towards India and Pakistan.
Speaking at a seminar on the start of US-India Strategic Dialogue this week, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns also hinted that the US was not against India's inclusion in the UN Security Council as a permanent member.
"India's expanding global role will naturally make it an important part of any future consideration of reform of the United Nations Security Council," he said.
"Of course the United States attaches considerable importance to relations with Pakistan, but those relations do not come at the expense of India," said the State Department's No. 2 diplomat while explaining how the Obama administration planed to balance its ties with the two neighbouring nations.
He also delineated how the US sought to balance Indian and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan but made it clear that Washington would not ask India to reduce its high-profile role in that country.
"We also highly value India's role in building economic and social opportunities in Afghanistan, and see India's continued involvement there as a key part of that country's future success, not part of its present problems," said Mr Burns.
The US diplomat also described how it was in the US interests to help evolve better relations between India and Pakistan. He was also very clear in underlining the need for Pakistan to act against the terrorist groups that targeted India or the United States.
"We will continue to urge Pakistan to take decisive action against the violent extremists who threaten its own interests as much as they do the security of India and America," said the senior US diplomat.
"None of us, least of all Indians and Pakistanis, can afford a resurgence of tensions between two nuclear-armed states," he said.
"And none of us, least of all Indians and Pakistanis, can afford to see groups with global terrorist ambitions like Lashkar-e-Taiba continue unchecked."
Mr Burns sought to answer several key questions that are often raised in India, admitting, "We can't afford to gloss over such questions, or pretend that they don't exist."
The questions that, according to him, are often asked in India are:
— The US seeks to "re-hyphenate" relations with India and sees India mainly through the prism of preoccupations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
— The US does not push Pakistan hard enough on terrorists who kill and threaten Indians.
— The US will hurry towards the exit in Afghanistan and leave India holding the strategic pieces.
— The Obama administration is tempted by visions of a "G-2" world that "downgraded" India because it sees Asia exclusively through the lens of an emerging China, with India's role secondary.
Under-Secretary Burns also highlighted the questions that trouble US policy makers:
Some Americans worry that it is India which "self-hyphenates" "¦ that India sometimes has a hard time realising how far its influence and its interests have taken it beyond its immediate neighbourhood "¦ that India doesn't always see as clearly as others do how vital its own role in Asia is becoming.
Some Americans worry that India is ambivalent about its own rise in the world, still torn between its G-77 and G-20 identities. And some Americans wonder if India has the drive to overcome obstacles to its own ambitious development efforts.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...e-key-to-future-success-in-afghanistan-us-360
