Why Clinton should visit Pakistan

US President Bill Clinton, according to the latest news reports, will embark on his South Asian countries visit sometime in March this year. While India is keen that the US president must not include Pakistan in his itinerary, officials in Washington opine that if Pakistan is overlooked then the president’s visit will have little significance, considering the geo-political scenario of the region. It is also argued in Washington as well as in saner circles in India that ignoring Pakistan will contribute more to the tension in the region. Pakistan, it cannot be denied, is the most important role player country in South Asia as its borders are aligned not just with India but with China, Russia, Afghanistan and Iran as well.

Furthermore, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and Sri Lanka to an extent) are not only the main role players in South Asia's geo-political and geo-strategic scenario, they are all neighbour countries. So, whatever influences one country in this regional set-up is bound to influence the others directly or indirectly. History proves it. If there is political turmoil in Afghanistan and Iran, it affects not just Pakistan but India and Bangladesh as well. Similarly, if there is unrest in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh it invariably has its ramifications in the region as a whole, irrespective of the source from where the tension springs. The 1971 war between India and Pakistan involved the then East Pakistan, resulting in the creation of Bangladesh. The Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka, the Sikh insurgency in Indian Punjab, the Kashmir problem and the Assam unrest -- all affect not just one particular country but the entire South Asian bloc. That is why, whether one likes it or not, Pakistan cannot be overlooked or sidelined by anybody. Nothing will matter without the involvement of Pakistan as all events unfolding since 1947 have shown.

It is in this context that President Clinton's visit to the region must be viewed. The Americans simply cannot sideline Pakistan, whatever the reasons there might be, at any stage, and concentrate only on India and Bangladesh. Without Pakistan's involvement the US cannot hope to achieve its long term interests in the region. This the US President has to accept and admit. He must remember that by avoiding Pakistan, his visit will achieve literally nothing, except some economic agreements and packages between Washington and New Delhi.

It is puzzling to really figure out why Mr. Clinton should go to India and Bangladesh only. His government openly voiced its support for the political developments in Pakistan on and after October 12, 1999. So what political mileage he hopes to gain by not visiting Pakistan is simply hard to understand. Not only that, following the visits by U.S. State Department officials last

month, and Clinton’s openly stated clarification on the IC814 hijack incident (saying that there is no evidence to suggest that Pakistan knew or backed the hijacking), it becomes all the more vital that the head of the White House includes Pakistan in his schedule.

Here it will be worthwhile to consider what leading experts on international relations have said about the US president’s visit. Tariq Rauf, Director, International Organizations & Nonproliferation Project, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA, states in his comments to the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington: “Bangladesh, India and Pakistan each have their problems and their strengths. It would be unwise for the US to play favorites with any one country. Clinton should visit Dhaka, New Delhi and Islamabad--with both common and differing objectives for each capital. Regarding Bangladesh, the principal focus would need to be on economic development and trade, environmental restoration, and security. For India, key issues would relate to security and safety of nuclear and missile capabilities, CSBMs, and dialogue with Pakistan including on Kashmir, economic development and trade, and human rights. And for Pakistan, essentially the same agenda as for India but also including relations with Afghanistan and Iran. The US needs to invest the same level of political and economic capital in dealing with South Asia, as it has done in the Middle East.”

Then we have Brian Cloughley, former Observer of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) who very rightly comments while analysing the itinerary of the US president. He says: “If President Clinton and his advisers wish to foster an approach to stability, equanimity, moderation, rapprochement and confidence-building in the Sub-continent, then Mr Clinton should journey to both India and Pakistan. Mr Tom Pickering said on Dec 10 that the US hopes "to see further confidence-building measures and, ultimately, a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people." Good. And let that be the signal for engagement with

Pakistan --- and let that engagement include a presidential visit.”

To conclude we can state that every American president -- as well as the other leaders of the world -- has accepted Pakistan's significance in South Asia. And whoever visited India and Bangladesh has made it a point to visit Pakistan. It needs to be remembered by White House officials that it was Pakistan that brought together Washington and Beijing when Nixon visited this part of the world in 1969. By avoiding Pakistan Clinton would only be deviating from what is in all means a positive path. He will certainly not succeed in deriving anything gainful, either in the US or on the international scene by visiting only India and Bangladesh.