PRESS CONFERENCE BY PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN

PRESS CONFERENCE BY PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN

The most important issue in his region and the world was the escalation between India and Pakistan and eyeball-to-eyeball contact between the two forces making that situation "extremely grave", President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan told correspondents today at a Headquarters press conference.  

He thanked the United Nations Secretary-General for his offer of good offices to resolve that dispute, "but of course one cannot clap with one hand; there has to be some acceptance for this role by India, also".  He would welcome any role the Secretary-General would like to play to resolve that dispute and bring peace and harmony to South Asia. 

After the 11 September terrorist attack and the terror campaign launched in his region and around the world, it was essential to prevent the rise of prejudice and discrimination against Muslims and the defamation of Islam in certain quarters, he said.  All extremist acts were the result of political disputes and not the result of any religious biases.  He had proposed, therefore, adoption of a declaration on religious and cultural understanding, harmony and cooperation. 

He added that he would be meeting with United States President Bush later today.  He had already met with the Prime Ministers of Japan and Denmark to discuss issues of bilateral interest.

Asked about President Bush's statement today that United Nations Security Council resolutions must be complied with and not sidelined, President Musharraf said it had always been his position that all Security Council resolutions must be implemented.  He was very pleased with that statement. 

In self-defence, and according to what the United Nations would allow, he would use Pakistan's force and effectively.  That had not meant that he was changing his stance of peace and harmony.  No sane person would opt for war, but if that was thrust on him, then that was his response.  He was not thinking of the nuclear, unconventional response.  "Thank God there is a strategic conventional balance of forces in the region", therefore, in case of conflict, one would not have to go down the unconventional road at all.  He was sure of that.

Replying to a question about his possible involvement in Iraq, he said he had made it clear a number of times that as far as Pakistan was concerned, it had "too much in its plate already and we would not like our plate to be overburdened and start spilling over".  Also, Pakistan had not had any "geographic affinity" with Iraq.  "I think we wouldn't like to get involved in it at the present time". 

He added, however, that he appreciated President's Bush's stand that he would go through the United Nations Security Council.  That was very important, and whatever its decisions were, those were supposed to be binding on all the members. 

Regarding democracy in Pakistan and how the election commission was allowed to keep certain leaders off the ballot, he asked the correspondent whether her country, India, had allowed convicts to stand for election there.  Benazir Bhutto, he added, had gone out on her own and she went out before he came into government.  She was staying out on "her own sweet will".  If she returned, she would have to

face the legal processes in Pakistan.  As far as Mr. Sharif was concerned, he had also been convicted and he was staying out. 

As far as elections were concerned and democracy in Pakistan, he said he certainly saw a new leadership emerging, and politics and democracy in Pakistan were not being converted into a ”family cult" as had been done in the past. 

Replying to a follow-up question about cross-border terrorism, he said there was a freedom struggle under way in Kashmir, but he said he understood the Indian correspondent’s question and her concerns about civilian casualties in Kashmir and elsewhere.  He had condemned all terrorist acts, but he could not convert the freedom struggle in Kashmir or undermine the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir by clouding it with certain events. 

Leaving aside whatever terrorist acts had gone on there, and he condemned those, the two Governments should be practical and realistic and understand the realities on the ground there, "and go for the aspirations of the people of Kashmir", he added. 

Yes, relations should be improved between India and Pakistan, he replied to a further question.  There was no doubt in his mind.  But, starting with everything other than Kashmir -- that was neither practical nor possible.  When individuals of a country became involved in an issue, it was very difficult for a leader or anyone else to sideline that.  The people of Pakistan were involved, and they wanted a solution to the Kashmir dispute. 

Referring to the Agra Declaration, he said that the language had been agreed between India's Prime Minister Vajpayee and himself and everyone was ready for the signing ceremony -- but then they went back on that.  After agreeing to delete certain controversial paragraphs, again they went back.  And, that was the reality of what happened. 

He said he understood why that had happened; some hard-liners were playing their role, and they scuttled the whole process, unfortunately.  Step one was to start talking and that was where the United States was playing a role.  Many other world leaders had started expressing their wish for the two countries to embark on a dialogue.  Once the process of dialogue was initiated, forward movement could occur.

Maybe the language of his morning speech to the General Assembly sounded harsh to another correspondent because he was a military man and, therefore, blunt and straight, he said to another question.  Perhaps, it was also the "language of desperation" the correspondent had heard.  He had taken so many steps on that issue in the hope there would be an Indian response.  In the absence of that, he had become desperate. 

Hopefully, he added, India would heed his wish for peace and harmony in the region and then both countries could move forward, by de-escalating the borders and addressing the core issue of Kashmir and all other issues.

Nuclear proliferation was not in the world's interest, he replied to another question.  Nuclear proliferation should be checked, and Pakistan had always said it would never be the one to proliferate nuclear technology.  Danger was present in the region because of the nuclear capability of both Pakistan and India, but that had not been initiated by Pakistan, but by India.  And, Pakistan had had to

respond for its own strategy of deterrence.  Regarding the western border, there would be global concern if there was proliferation of nuclear technology.

He said there was no infiltration, nothing going across the line of control.  But, if some people were crossing, and if the 700,000-strong army of India in Kashmir could not stop it, how could Pakistan stop it with far fewer troops on the border?  Nothing sponsored by his Government or any organization was going on across the line of control. 

"You cannot make the problem a solution," he added.  That line of control had existed starting in 1947-1948.  Wars had been fought over that line of control, so how could the problem be made a solution?  That was not acceptable to anyone at all in Pakistan or by the people of Kashmir, he was sure.

Whatever he was saying about whether or not Osama bin Laden was still alive was a "calculated guess".  And, his guess was that, probably, he was dead.  But, he might be alive.  His rationale was that he had good intelligence information initially that Bin Laden had run into the mountains of Tora Bora.  A lot of bombing was carried out there and each of the hundreds of caves there had been bombed.  He also knew that so many of them had not been searched. 

It was also known that Bin Laden was a kidney patient and had imported two dialysis machines, one for himself and one for the general public, and he had not known how he was using those in the caves or mountains, he added.  That was his judgement, but he could not say for sure.

Action by the United States against Iraq should not encourage others to follow a doctrine of preemption, he said to another question.  That preemption doctrine was not applicable everywhere physically:  Pakistan was no Iraq, and India was no United States.  Applying that doctrine should never be tried in Pakistan, therefore.

Pakistan had gone along with the first phase of the war against terrorism; was it disputing the validity of Iraq being the second phase of that war? another correspondent asked.

He said he had not wanted to dispute that argument, but in his own national interest, yes, it had participated in the fight against terrorism in its region because that had directly concerned Pakistan; it had geographic affinity with Afghanistan.  It did not have any geographic affinity with the area of Iraq and, at the moment, Pakistan was transiting from his Government to elected governance.  He had not wanted to disturb that transition by creating a de-stabilizing environment domestically.

So, there were many reasons for his desire not to become involved, but if the process of Security Council involvement was followed and if consensus emerged around the world, he would examine that situation.  His stance would be based on realities.

* *** *