Blackwill contests U.S. policy on cross-border terrorism

Our Diplomatic Correspondent

Ambassador Blackwill's forthright support to India's stand on cross-border terrorism has cost him his job. He leaves the country as a great friend of this ancient nation. The ambassador challenged the State department, arguing how its dangerous policies vis-a-vis cross-border terrorism were preparing the ground for a renewed, more lethal phase of Islamist terrorism. The state department, which is seen as a part of the problem in this country, how could it stomach its own ambassador reminding it, "the fight against international terrorism will not be won until terrorism against India ends permanently. There can be no other legitimate stance by the US, no American compromise whatever on this elemental geopolitical and moral truth. US, India and all civilised nations must have zero tolerance for terrorism".

The state department, which is pursuing 'Brezinski line' in achieving geo-political objectives, brushed aside concerns and the assessment of Ambassador Blackwill. He warned that Pakistan having nuclear weapons in its armoury, might Jeopardise the American interests. In an article on the theme, "An action agenda to strengthen America's alliances in Asia", he forecast that the adverse impact may start coming to the fore in the next five years. He feared that Pakistan was on the verge of joining the category of a “failed state” and a fragmented nation, dominated by Islamic fundamentalists. Besides risking an Indo-Pak war Islamabad ran the risk of passing on the nuclear technology and fissile materials to a few other equally fanatic Muslim states.

Ambassador Blackwill reminded the state department how it was a mistake on its part to have viewed India " through the prism of its confrontation, with Pakistan". Also, the US fixation with India's nuclear programme, at the expense of a broader strategic approach, was not a correct one, he added.

The state department's obsession of a possible war over Kashmir and its blatant support to Pakistan in seeking parity with India, has only led to greater Jehadi intransigence and keeps South Asia smouldering.

Ambassador Blackwill did not believe that India has to hold a dialogue with Pakistan before terrorism comes to an end, a view clearly not endorsed by Christina Rocca, who authored the infamous statement after Nadimarg advocating a dialogue. Blackwill did not give to Hurriyat the political attention they craved for and refused to meet them on his two visits to Kashmir. He cancelled his only scheduled meeting with them, when APHC announced establishment of an "election commission" to monitor the poll in the state. At a briefing at 15 Corps Headquarters, Blackwill even interrupted when the word "militants" was used. He declared, "There is no such thing as militants. They are plain and simple terrorists". Ambassador also refrained from lecturing India on the issue of communal violence in Gujarat.

In early February this year, Rocca, known for her anti-Indian stance confronted Mr Kapil Sibal, Indian Foreign Secretary, accusing New Delhi of deliberately turning up the tension with Pakistan by threatening to take "strong measures". She also strongly believed that it was in US's interest to give General Musharraf whether over Kashmir or Afghanistan--a longer and longer rope. The pro-Pak lobby in state department was joined by the non-proliferation hawks to unleash a patently pro-Pakistan policy. There was an American demarche that told India to back off on Afghanistan. It was done to keep Pakistan in good humour. The non-proliferation lobby sought to put brakes on the Trinity issues (civilian nuclear, high-tech transfers, space) on which the transformed relationship between India and the US is not reflected. The State Department's recent policies to de-emphasis the need for Pakistan to fulfill its commitment on cross-border terrorism; and the increased emphasis on dialogue have put a spanner in the anti-terrorist campaign. In this scenario, Ambassador Blackwill was becoming increasingly irrelevant. With growing tension between Pentagon and the State Department, neither George Bush nor Condelizza Rice could help him out This left no options for Blackwill.

Ambassador Blackwill had previously spent 14 years teaching at Harvard and 22 more years as a career foreign service officer. He taught International Security at Harvard and was a specialist on Chinese affairs. His knowledge about China and Russia is phenomenal. At the time of his posting to India, he had left an ambassadorship to NATO. He preferred India, believing he could inject substance into the Indo-US relations.

He established a close rapport with Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani. His interactions with Indian bureaucrats and politicians made him more sensitive to Indian concerns. Blackwill didn't allow India to fall of the agenda and assiduously reminded top U.S. policy makers of the need to carry Indo-US relationship to a higher pedestal. He used his personal clout to push things forward. Among his major accomplishments was pushing for easing curbs on high-tech trade to India, increasing both the quality and quantity of senior US visitors, enhancing the military relationship and organising an Indo-US strategy group at the respected Aspen Institute. The problem the ambassador faced with the State Department was not merely on the pace of the India-US relationship but the sequencing of actions vis-a-vis Pakistan.

Blackwill's departure is a big loss to India. Selig Harrison, an expert on India at the Centre for International policy in Washington, said he believed relations between the two democracies were at a stalemate. He added the hopes for progress for strengthening ties that were aroused when president George W. Bush came to office had not borne fruit.