Magic Words Fail India

THE Pokhran tests have been a public relations and diplomatic disaster for India. Nuclear experts, observers, analysts in the US Administration—everyone agrees that Pakistan, having learnt from India's mistakes, has done a much better job at diplomatic damage control.

"The BJP has not distinguished itself in its public demeanours. People are looking at the facts and India has not done a good job of convincing anyone that there was any pressing reason to conduct these tests," says Gary Milhollin, director of the Washington-based Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Dismissing Indian references to a Chinese threat as "silly", he warns that "India is likely to lose a lot. This will set back India's technological development without providing corresponding strategic benefits. It has clearly been a mistake."

Among the few who disagree are Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Cirincione says he recently appeared with the Indian High Commissioner for Australia on an Australian TV programme, Lateline, in which the Indian diplomat was "very good". "He cited Harold Macmillan and how proud the British were at the time of their nuclear tests in the 1950s. I have heard a number of Indian commentators making this point and recalling words from several decades ago. If it was a good thing then, why isn't it a good thing now? American policy-makers have no answer to that."

But Cirincione admits that there was a "certain projection of arrogance," even from the Indian Ambassador in Washington. "In some ways he (Naresh Chandra) and other Indians are echoing the arrogance of the nuclear weapon states. So you have the Indian defenders of the blast using the same rhetoric and posture as those they condemn. It strikes the average person as a bit frightening, hypocritical and suspicious, but maybe it is impossible for India to have made the case in the first place."

바카라 웹사이트A diplomatic observer who has previously served in New Delhi, referring to Chandra's long-winded statements on CNN, insists "India deserves a better ambassador in Washington. This is not the calibre of person we are used to. He was totally out of it. He was obviously out of the loop. They should get someone with better media skills." An Administration official, however, dismisses the notion that the State Department is paying particular attention to what Indian and Pakistani diplomats are saying. "There aren't any magic words to justify what happened. This is not a spin issue," he says. "India tested first and without justification. This rebounds to Pakistan's credit. The Pakistanis used India's testing as their own justification, even though we think it doesn't excuse them."

바카라 웹사이트Angry China specialists in the Administration describe the BJP's initial use of the "Chinese threat" factor as a justifica-tion for testing, and reacted strongly—to drop all reference to China and to talk instead of Pakistan, as a "major diplomatic blunder". Says one analyst: "They invented a reason and did not even have enough arguments, specious or otherwise, to sustain it. I suppose they realised too late that using China as a reason could backfire. India has not handled itself well."

Pakistan's PR exercise, on the other hand, has success written all over it. All the while keeping an eye on India's diplomatic goof-ups, last week, Akram Zaki, chairman of the Pakistan Senate foreign relations committee, flew into Washington on a damage-control mission accompanied by former defence minister Shahid Cheema. Addressing a joint press conference at the Washington National Press Club with ambassador Riaz then—when Beijing Khokhar, Zaki articulately portrayed Pakistan as the aggrieved party, which was reluctantly forced to enter the nuclear and ballistic arms races started by India.

"We were forced to redress the imbalance" caused by India's testing, which had led to a military and psychological threat to the entire region, he said. Sidestepping questions on Pakistan's nuclear links with China, Khokhar stressed that "India cannot be trusted, we cannot rely on their word." He ridiculed New Delhi's "no first use" proposal as an "Indian ruse."

바카라 웹사이트Indian and Pakistani diplomats have also gone head to head on many TV talk shows, in which Pakistanis have triumphed nearly every time. "Their speakers are more personable and more articulate. They speak in sound bites. That's what you need for an American audience. Not some Indian bureaucrat going on and on in a ponderous and boring fashion," says an analyst, who does not want to be named.

"India by virtue of being the larger power and going first appears to be the bully. Pakistan comes out of all this looking marginally better. They look like they're responding, not taking the initiative. There is much more blame for India for starting this and the solution is for India to back down," feels Cirincione. One diplomatic observer agrees with this assessment: "The Pakistanis have always been better at this game. Look at their record from the beginning of the Kashmir conflict. They won the PR war—in Geneva, at the UN, in London, or in Washington. More people were talking about human rights violations by India. Very few mentioned the fact that the Pakistanis were actively involved in training and arming militants in Kashmir."

Echoes another diplomatic source: "The Pakistanis have better contacts in the Administration, in Congress, and in the press. They know how to use the system. They are also showing themselves to be the victims and India as the perpetrator. They had two weeks between the tests to learn. It was obvious that Indian diplomacy was caught on the wrong foot and was ill-prepared. On the other hand, the Pakistanis prepared the US Administration for what they were going to do."

Could Pakistan be taken off the hook by the US? "We want to change their behav-iour," responds an Administration official. He agrees, however, that the US wants to "minimise unintended consequences" for Islamabad. "We are mindful of a possible economic collapse. We don't want to start a war or cause a coup or something. It would not be in US interests to cause any kind of instability in Pakistan."