EASING TENSIONS

February 22, 1999
		India and Pakistan, the world's newest nuclear powers, agreed to take steps to reduce the risk of nuclear war and to address the Kashmir question. Following a background report, Elizabeth Farnsworth and guests discuss the agreement.

June 11, 1998: Jaswant Singh, senior member of India's BJP party, talks about the future of India's nuclear program. June 10, 1998: Secretary Albright calls for the U.S. and Russia to reduce its nuclear weapons. June 4, 1998: The world's nuclear powers urge India and Pakistan not to conduct more tests. June 3, 1998: A report on the CIA's failure to forsee India's nuclear tests. May 29, 1998: The regional implications of India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests. May 28, 1998: The Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. , the Indian ambsassador to the U.S. and National Security Advisor Samuel Berger discuss the India/Pakistan dispute. May 12, 1998: A background report on India's decision to test nuclear weapons. March 20, 1998: Online Forum: Read what some experts had to say about the recent elections in India. March 4, 1998: The BJP wins elections in India. Aug. 17, 1997: A report on Pakistan and its relationship with India. Aug. 14, 1997: India opens its markets to foreign investment. May 13, 1996: How has foreign investment in India widened the gap between classes? May 10, 1996: Will the Hindu Nationalist party be able to form a coalition government? Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the military and Asia   Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Organization Islamic Republic of Pakistan Parliament of India Bharatiya Janata Party Indian National Congress Party	SPENCER MICHELS: A police band played military music to welcome India's prime minister to Pakistan on Saturday on the first official visit in ten years. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee came from India by bus to the only working road crossing on the 1800-mile border. His trip also inaugurated a new bus line serving the two countries, which have had a long history of mutual antagonism. Until now, nearly all border crossing has been by plane or by rail. The 250-mile bus trip, which the prime minister joined toward the end, went from New Delhi to the Pakistani border city of Lahore. There, Vajpayee and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif shook hands and embraced, presenting a very different picture from the strained relations of just a year ago. Last May, first India and then Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, threatening further destabilization of an already tense region. India and Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947, when a predominantly Muslim Pakistan was carved out of mostly Hindu India. In 1990, the two countries came close to a fourth armed conflict over the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. India rules two-thirds of the territory, but regards it all as part of India, including a slice seized by China in 1962. Pakistan, which controls the rest, wants a vote by Kashmir's mostly Muslim residents to determine its future. In recent months, there have been repeated border skirmishes. Just last Friday and Saturday, at least 22 people were killed in Kashmir, adding to the estimated 30,000 to 50,000 civilians killed in the struggle over the years. Following this weekend's talks, the Indian and Pakistani leaders signed a declaration aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear war.
	Reducing the risk of nuclear war.
	In several documents, they agreed to notify each other of any accidental, unauthorized, or unexplained incident that could prompt a nuclear war. They also promised to continue their current moratorium on nuclear testing, and to give notice of any ballistic missile tests. But they could not agree on a clause stipulating no first use of nuclear weapons. At a press conference, both declared that more talks were needed on the question of who should rule Kashmir, and who should decide. NAWAZ SHARIF, Prime Minister Pakistan: The ice has broken, and I think both governments will be able to make further progress on all the issues, including the issue of Kashmir. ATAL BEHARI VAJPAYEE, Prime Minister, India: The discussion is going on. It's very difficult for me to say what solution will emerge. You wait for the outcome. SPENCER MICHELS: Before the historic meetings and during the talks, thousands of militant Muslims protested, calling the Pakistani leader a traitor and urging the Indian leader to go home. Three people were wounded as riot police fired tear gas at the demonstrators. About a hundred people were arrested. But the Indo-Pakistani diplomacy will continue this week, with more talks scheduled between the countries' foreign ministers. JIM LEHRER: And to Elizabeth Farnsworth in San Francisco. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And for more, we get two views. Michael Krepon worked in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Carter administration, and is now the president of the Henry Stimson Center, a nonprofit organization focusing on arms control and security issues. He was last in India and Kashmir in October. And Paula Newberg just came back from living for two years in Pakistan, where she worked as a consultant. She has written extensively about Pakistan and South Asian affairs. Michael Krepon, how important symbolically are the bus trip and all that followed?
	Symbolism of the bus trip.
	MICHAEL KREPON, The Henry Stimson Center: Well, there are two hugely important symbols involved in this trip, Elizabeth. The first was the bus trip. And this territory, this terrain was the scene of great bloodshed during partition; perhaps as much as one million people lost their lives along this pathway. And so taking a bus and creating a new bridge between the countries was hugely important. The second use of symbolism by the Indian prime minister was to go to the place within the war in which the founder of Pakistan issued a proclamation calling for separate homeland. By going to this place, the Indian prime minister signaled to everyone in Pakistan that India is prepared to live with Pakistan and has no designs on Pakistan. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Paula Newberg, do the agreements live up to the symbolism? Are they also very important in your view? PAULA NEWBERG, Author: The agreements are very provisional. The Lahore declaration, which was issued at the end of the discussions, on the one hand offer a framework of idealism, but I think they have to be rounded in tremendous realism. If you tried to abide specifically by the agreements, they leave enough loopholes really to be able to drive a bus through, but, in fact, if you take the spirit of these agreements, at the very least they offer the opportunity for both countries to have political cover and a political groundwork for furthering a set of talks that have not been particularly useful in the last few years. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean? Go into a little more deal about the political cover. PAULA NEWBERG: In the last several years there have been a series of talks among the diplomats of both countries, and these have been interspersed with a good deal of diplomatic tit for tat. As a result, neither country has really gotten very far in getting its diplomacy through to the other. At the same time, there's a kind of realism that has been brought in, because most of the people who live, particularly in northern India and in Pakistan, would prefer to have better relations. So the political cover in a way comes from both prime ministers deciding that rather than speaking only to their advisors or only to the most vocal of the political parties in either country, that they will go to the people and say, "All right. We're going to provide a foundation which you have set for us. You want this, we will now try to work in that spirit." It doesn't mean you are going to actually get anywhere with. The specifics make it very difficult to push forward, but it gives both prime ministers a cover to act a bit more openly in the face of what had seemed like a much more violent possibility after the nuclear tests last spring. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Michael Krepon, how do you see the importance of the agreements?
	The importance of the agreements.
	MICHAEL KREPON: I'm more optimistic than Paula. I don't think these prime ministers are now looking for political cover. They've exposed themselves to important constituencies in their countries that are opposed to this process of reconciliation. They have associated themselves in a very personal way with the process. Reconciliation requires symbols. It requires words, and it requires actions. They have laid out a work program in Lahore, and they have said publicly that we want this work program completed by mid-1999. The prime minister of India, Prime Minister Vajpayee, has invited his opposite member from Pakistan to take the bus to New Delhi. And I suspect in New Delhi that it will not be a hollow meeting. They will be very specific, concrete examples of a process at work, out of that summit meeting. Elizabeth, these countries have been around as independent states for 50-plus years. They've had three summit meetings. Three summit meetings. This one was by far the best. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Paula Newberg, is Kashmir still the key issue separating them? PAULA NEWBERG: Kashmir has always been the key issue that the government separates them. The Indian government hasn't defined Kashmir as the issue that separates them. And, indeed, I think both of these leaders are quite realistic at understanding that they are, in fact, working against something of a tie. If you look at the Lahore Declaration, it, for example, says that the letter and the spirit of the Shimla Accord must be followed. Now the Shimla Accord was signed after the last war. That was in the early 1970's. What the Shimla Accord does, however, is say the issue of Kashmir will be decided by the Indian government and the Pakistani government. Interestingly, it leaves aside the one set of people who are most directly affected, which are the Kashmiris themselves. Now, over time, both the Indian and the Pakistan government have probably overreached themselves in the strategies that they have tried too pursue in Kashmir. In a way they're almost kind of pulling it back so that it's a realism they can define before other parties get in the way. So I wouldn't want to call this a bad idea. And I don't want to mute Michael's enthusiasm. I just think that both of prime ministers and the people who work with them are extremely realistic, and they have to temper the opportunity they see with the necessities of what brought them to this table in the first place. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Michael Krepon, do you think that it does set a context for resolving the Kashmir issue? MICHAEL KREPON: Well, for the last 20-odd years, the Indian government has said to the Pakistani government "come sit down with us and we'll talk about Kashmir." And the Pakistani government has said, "No. We'd rather have third parties involved." Now the Pakistanis are sitting down with the Indians. And I think it's up to the Indian government to do some very serious discussions on Kashmir. It's a big hurdle, Elizabeth, especially during the summer months when it really heats up. Immediately after the nuclear tests, there was a threefold increase in violence across the dividing line in Kashmir. So that's one way in which this process can be derailed. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Paula Newberg, on the nuclear issue, does this make inevitable that both countries will sign the comprehensive test ban treaty do you think?
	The nuclear issue.
	PAULA NEWBERG: I don't think anything is inevitable in South Asia. One can only hope this provides enough momentum so that it might bring them to that point. But I'd say now and the middle of 1999, there are four months which can be very short or extremely long. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And that's been, Paula Newberg, a main goal of U.S. policy, has it not, to get that treaty signed? PAULA NEWBERG: It has. And it's not clear that that is as fundamental a goal to the leaders in South Asia as it is to the United States. And I think we need to clarify something that Michael said. It is true that the Pakistanis have always asked for third parties to be involved in negotiations, for example, about Kashmir. Those third parties, however, have been outsiders; they have not been the Kashmiris themselves. And in the same way, I think both countries have had a difference of opinion as to how much the external world should set the agenda that allows regional stability to become a better possibility. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Michael Krepon, you both have touched on this in your -- all the things you've said tonight, but why is this happening now? Why did these two leaders with this terrible history between them, both leaders of parties that are based in separate and different and warring religions, why they come to do this now? Is it as simple as the fact that there were nuclear weapons tested and that scared everybody to death? MICHAEL KREPON: Well, nuclear weapons don't solve problems; they complicate them. I think in this region, the two prime ministers really said it best. The Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said, you know, we've struggled for 50 years and what has it gained us, and the Indian prime minister, Vajpayee said, you know, we can't change our geography, but we have to change our history; we have to turn the page. Pakistan is struggling as a country. And they cannot do better with an estranged India as a neighbor. And as for India, India created a whole new set of problems for the region by firing off these tests, and the Indian prime minister understands that he has a grave responsibility to help turn the page. There is a working majority in both countries that really wants a better relationship. You get a palpable sense in both countries that things cannot go on as they have. And finally, I think we have two leaders who are up to the task of dealing with the domestic constituencies who don't want progress and who can throw grenades into the mix. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Thank you both very much.