Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview with Marc Ginsberg, Mark Perry

Aired June 02, 2002 - 07:11   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to talk more about two of the world's hot spots right now, the Middle East and India and Pakistan. Two guests join us now. Actually, they're not really guests. They're regulars with me almost every weekend.

I guess you could say they're my co-anchors, Marc Ginsberg in Washington. He's the former U.S. ambassador to Morocco. Also, in D.C., Mark Perry, long time Middle East analyst with close ties within the Palestinian leadership. He's also the author of "A Fire In Zion: The Israeli/Palestinian Search For Peace."

Good morning, gentlemen.

MARC GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: Hi, Kyra.

MARK PERRY, AUTHOR, "A FIRE IN ZION": Good morning.

PHILLIPS: All right. So we've been talking about Israelis and Palestinians. Now we're seeing sort of an international shift here to India and Pakistan. First of all, let's talk about the pros and the cons here of India/Pakistan. What's happening there with regard to the peace deal or the attempt for a peace deal in the Middle East?

Marc Ginsberg, do you want to start?

GINSBERG: Well, Kyra, there are some correlations between the two issues and let me just at least point out two. First, obviously, there are two indigenous peoples, the Palestinian in Palestine, the Kashmiris in Kashmir, who are each looking for self-determination.

In Kashmir, however, you have a much graver threat that a wider conflict could break out, that could engulf not only the entire subcontinent but also engulf and deeply affect the American war on terrorism.

One of my biggest concerns about where we're heading and at the brink of war is that American diplomacy has not necessarily kept pace with the events that are taking place on the ground. We seem to only react in conventional ways to what must be not only dealing with the symptoms of the disease of the subcontinent but ultimately dealing with the disease itself and that is the fate of Kashmir. The only way to deal with that is for the Americans to be more proactively engaged in getting the international community to wrestle away from either India or Pakistan. The fate of American -- the American war on terrorism, which is deeply affected by what may happen between the two countries over Kashmir.

PHILLIPS: Mark Perry?

PERRY: Well, I follow Marc Ginsberg's lead on this. He's the expert on India and Pakistan. But I will say that I think there is a direct relation between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the India/Pakistan conflict.

The president was very clear yesterday at West Point that the United States needs to take preemptive action against terrorism. And we all stood up and applauded. But if that same principal were applied by India, we'd have real trouble in south Asia and perhaps the threat of a nuclear war.

I think the United States has kind of boxed itself in. The administration has boxed itself in with its rhetoric. We need to be much more careful and much more diplomatic and much more proactive on both conflicts if we're going to come to a resolution of either of them.

PHILLIPS: Mark Perry, you talk about the threat of a nuclear war. Marc Ginsberg, nuclear weapons, this is exactly what terrorists want to get their hands on, right?

GINSBERG: Well, exactly and that's what the underlying danger is here, Kyra, because remember when Afghanistan was the subject of the takeover by the Taliban and the al Qaeda, which have now moved over or at least the remnants including the leadership into Pakistan, there have been attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda and the Taliban against western interests in Pakistan in recent months. And it is clear that if there's a conventional war that is waged by India against Pakistan, in the absence of any nuclear exchange and let's just suppose Pakistan loses that conflict, Musharraf's status and standing may in effect dissipate. He could be possibly overthrown by more radical elements. And al Qaeda and the remnants of Taliban want to get control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons. That was bin Laden's major objective in Pakistan and that's why the stakes for American are so high with respect to the conflict in Kashmir.

PHILLIPS: Mark Perry, I see you agreeing.

PERRY: I do agree. But once again, I return to the rhetoric. Here -- let's take a look at the rhetoric the Bush administration has used in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We've criticized the Palestinians for not being a democracy, for a being an authoritarian dictatorship. We followed Israel's lead on that. We've asked them for reforms. We've required that they clamp down on terrorism.

Now look at our ally in South Asia, Pakistan, a military dictatorship much more so than the Palestinians, a very corruptive leadership, much more so than the Palestinians and one that hasn't clamped down on militants that are invading Kashmir. And this is India's point-of-view. So we are, again, trapped by our rhetoric and it's going to -- it's going to take some real sophisticated and talented diplomacy to get us out of this box. PHILLIPS: All right. We're talking about the leader of the United States. Let's take a look at the other two leaders here, kind of a correlation that I saw. You got Sharon who won't deal with Arafat. Then you have Musharraf who says that, to Tom Mintier in an exclusive interview yesterday, "Well, I never really thought about calling Vajpayee." It seems like the two of these leaders kind of went to the same leadership school. Let's analyze the situation that both leaders are in with their countries and sort of the similar attitude that they are taking and where they are right now.

GINSBERG: Well, in some respects, Kyra, I would shift to the bit and suggest that Mr. Sharon and Prime Minister Vajpayee probably are the ones who are acting more similarly than Mr. Musharraf and Mr. Sharon.

Prime Minister Vajpayee has essentially said that he will not deal with Mr. -- with President Musharraf until President Musharraf brings in the Islamic militants that are attacking across the line of control in Kashmir. At the same time, Prime Minister Sharon has said that he will not deal with Mr. Arafat unless Mr. Arafat clamps down on terrorists. So you essentially have both leaders acting similarly over Islamic militants. What do we do about that?

The biggest problem that we have here once again is that while we may be sending Mr. Tenet out to try to deal with Mr. Arafat's security apparatus and Assistant Secretary of State Burns is now in the Middle East to try to see if there's a way of building up some momentum towards a peace process and President Mubarak is coming here from Egypt to try to see whether or not there's going to be an international conference in the Middle East that he can help orchestrate and has been doing quite effective work behind the scenes in recent days.

In South Asia, however, the only thing that we have is foreign minister -- or Foreign Secretary Straw who's trying to keep the Indians and Pakistanis from going to war. We have now Mr. Rumsfeld to meet with the Indians and Pakistanis. But while in the Middle East -- let me get to the final point here -- in the Middle East, we seem to slowly be edging towards engagement in diplomatic activity. We have not done that in South Asia. We seem to only be dealing with the very topical issues of a potential nuclear war, but not dealing with the underlying problems in Kashmir.

We have got to deal both with the Palestinian problem more effectively by getting to the root causes of the conflict and that is how do we get to self-determination for the Palestinians. The same holds true, how do we get to self-determination for Kashmir?

PHILLIPS: Well, don't Kashmiris even decide which side they want to be a part of? Mark -- I want you both to comment on that one. Go ahead, Marc Ginsberg and then Mark Perry.

GINSBERG: Very quickly, there was a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for a referendum by the people of Kashmir to determine their fate. The Indians have said that that U.N. resolution has long ago expired. We need to essentially create an international border along the line of control and have it policed, I think, by U.N. forces and may -- that may in effect be what we have to maybe do between the Israelis and Palestinians eventually.

PHILLIPS: Mark Perry, do you want to wrap this up for us?

PERRY: I sure will. There was an important editorial in the "Washington Post" this morning that basically said -- and it was a pretty harsh editorial for all of its diplomatic tone. It basically said the United States is engaged in what I call diplomacy by press release. This is very thin diplomacy in both regions, both in South Asia and between the Israelis and Palestinians. What needs to happen is for this administration to lower the rhetoric and increase the substance of the diplomatic talks and lay out a peace plan for the Israelis and Palestinians and really, really jaw bone both of them to the table and do the same thing, I think, in South Asia or we'll be facing more bombs in Israel and the potential for a real war in South Asia.

PHILLIPS: Yeah. And we have U.S. troops in both regions. Mark Perry, Marc Ginsberg, always a pleasure, gentlemen. Thanks so much.

GINSBERG: Sure, Kyra.

PERRY: Sure, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com