ISLAMABAD, 31 March 2004 — “Sometimes leadership is mistaken for unilateralism,” US Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently, referring to fears in the Middle East about a US initiative for region-wide democratic change.

In an interview with Arab News, Powell also corrected himself to avoid giving the impression that the US had a hand in India-Pakistan negotiations. “I hope that we can resolve it. I hope they can resolve it — Pakistan and India — it’s not for the United States to resolve it,” he said.

He reaffirmed that change in the Middle East “has to come from the region. The region has to want it,” saying all the US was doing was to offer help in response to calls for democratic change from within the region.

In the interview, which focused largely on Pakistan, Powell stressed US determination to be firm with Pakistan and India over their nuclear weapons arsenal.

But the secretary ducked a question whether the US acknowledged that Israel is a nuclear power, implying that Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal was “deniable”.

“Israel has not demonstrated yet in a manner that India and Pakistan have that it is or is not a nuclear power. I mean we’ve all seen the test. Both sides have declared it, so it’s not anything that can be denied,” he said.

Below is an edited text of the March 18 interview:

Arab News: What is your vision of a Pakistani-US relationship five years hence?

Colin Powell: I think the American people want to have a long-term relationship with Pakistan and it doesn’t just reflect the current political situation. After Sept. 11, however, new opportunities appeared for us to enter into a long-term relationship with Pakistan.

President Musharraf made the choice to join in the war against terrorism and to help us do what we had to do in Afghanistan. Over the last three years, we have gone beyond the war against terror.

We now have economic activities, debt relief, development aid for Pakistan and a better military-to-military relationship. All of these are signs of a more permanent and growing relationship.

So five years from now, I hope we’re still talking about more development aid. I hope we’re still talking about how we can help Pakistan improve its school system.

Q: Do you believe that a lasting peace between India and Pakistan is possible without a just settlement of the Kashmir issue?

A: Well, first of all, I’m pleased that the cease-fire along the line of control has been holding and everybody acknowledges that the incident level has gone down significantly. We must keep it there, and particularly after the snows melt, when people get nervous again.

I believe that the Kashmir issue ultimately has to be resolved. And I hope that the process that was begun by Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf in Islamabad here on Jan. 6 will lead to a solution.

Eight different baskets of issues were set out and Kashmir is one of them.

Q: So if seven of those eight issues were resolved and Kashmir wasn’t resolved, do you think that there can be lasting peace in the subcontinent?

A: Well, I hope that we can resolve it. I hope they can resolve it — Pakistan and India — it’s not for the United States to resolve it.

We will lend our good offices to both sides. But I think as long as the Kashmir problem is out there unresolved, it will be a continuing source of tension and disagreement, hopefully not a cause of war.

Q: People generally feel here that Pakistan is being unfairly blamed for the security situation in Afghanistan, which people would argue was of the United States’ own making when in October of 2001, after the removal of the Taleban, the US, instead of placing more troops on the ground, relied on Afghan warlords. Today some of that is coming back to undermine the Karzai government.

A: We don’t blame Pakistan, we blame the Taleban remnants. We blame Al-Qaeda for continuing to try to maintain a presence in southeastern Afghanistan and in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

What we think we have to do is not go back and examine what mistakes might have been made three years ago but work together now to defeat these Taleban elements and Al-Qaeda. They are a threat to Afghanistan. I submit they are also a threat to Pakistan.

The operation (in the tribal areas) the other day, I regret that there was loss of life and I extend condolences to the families of those Frontier Corps men who lost their lives or were injured. But they’re serving the cause of freedom. They were doing the right thing.

Q: Mr. Secretary, when analysts here examine the reasons of terrorism and political extremism in our region, they maintain that these are legacies of the last proxy battle of the Cold War, one that we jointly waged against Soviet occupation. But the fact that we promoted unbridled use of force and a particular ideology has in some ways come back to haunt us. What lessons has the US drawn from that strategy?

A: That dialogue is important. That dialogue is often difficult to get started — we have seen many occasions in the history of South Asia where dialogue got started and then fell apart.

What I have seen in this current environment is that, with the beginning of the Jan. 6 process not only are the leaders committed to it, but they see it not just as “let’s have a summit and solve all problems.” No, let’s lay out a plan of how we go through these difficult issues.

The other thing I’ve seen here in Pakistan and in India, the people want this process to succeed. They do not want to return to the old days.

Q: On the nuclear proliferation question, how soon will the United States accept the well-known reality that India, Israel, and Pakistan are nuclear powers? And when will you work this reality into the NPT, which right now just acknowledges five nuclear states?

A: Well, we all know that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. It’s not a debatable question. It’s a fact. NPT accession is up to India and Pakistan.

Q: Israel?

A: Israel has not demonstrated yet in a manner that India and Pakistan have that it is or is not a nuclear power. I mean we’ve all seen the test. Both sides have declared it, so it’s not anything that can be denied.

Q: One last question, in December 2002, you announced a US-Middle East Partnership Initiative, which was welcomed in the region. But what happened then? You know you came out with a very controversial Greater Middle East Initiative. Why did you do that? And why was Pakistan put into that initiative? It seems like you backtracked on that initiative...

A: No, not at all...

Q: So can you explain that to us?

A: The Middle East Partnership Initiative is alive and well, and we are providing a considerable amount of funding to it to help nations, principally in the Gulf region, the Middle East region, to fix their infrastructure, to do civil society development, to help with their educational systems.

The Greater Middle East Initiative is a way of scaling that up, to do more, and to get other industrial nations involved in helping Middle East nations to go down the path of political reform, open up their political systems so that everyone can participate, including women.

A number of these nations are doing things now, so this is a way to encourage them. People have gotten the wrong idea that we’re going to impose.

Q: They saw it as a unit, actually

A: Well no, quite the contrary. But sometimes leadership is mistaken for unilateralism. The United States stepped forward and said, you know, the Arabs themselves have written reports that said we’ve got to change what we’re doing. We’re not educating our young people correctly.

We don’t have the kind of democracy that we ought to have and need to have. So the United States said, well, we can help you with that, but it has to come from the region. The region has to want it.

Q: We were surprised when you added Pakistan to the region.

A: Well, I’m not sure we’ve fully decided in our discussions with the G-8 and the European Union as to how wide we should consider this program. Otherwise it’ll end up being so big that we can’t really manage it.