Pak is cooperating after 26/11 attacks: US

How does Washington today regard the standoff between India and Pakistan in the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai? Karan Thapar asked this question to David Mulford, America’s ambassador to India.

Karan Thapar:Earlier this week a dossier containing the information on evidence collected by the Indian Government was given to you. What's your assessment of its content?

David Mulford: From what I've seen it involves a great deal of material which is very credible derived by Indian govt but also to some extent by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) cooperating in Mumbai with the authorities there and the package is very credible.

Karan Thapar: You used the word 'material.' Does that mean information or evidence?

David Mulford: I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not a very good person to answer that but it is information which tells very compelling facts and I am not a judge about the what the rules of evidence are in a court but it certainly is an accurate account of what happened.

Karan Thapar: And you've described the data as 'credible.' You have no doubt about the credibility whatsoever?

David Mulford: As far as the FBI is concerned, they don't deal in non-credible material. They are a serious, professional organisation supported by absolutely hi-tech quality techniques and they're going to produce stuff that is irrefutable.

Karan Thapar: So the association of the FBI with this dossier, in a sense, underwrites and underlines the credibility of…

David Mulford: I wouldn't put it that way because I don't know what actually happened at the preparation process. What I am saying is that the information that the FBI derived was shared—all of it—and the relationship was really close, so I am presuming that when they prepared the dossier, they felt they needed to use the material from FBI contribution.

Karan Thapar: You are quoted as having said that a lot of that dossier was prepared with FBI help.

David Mulford: No, I don't want to leave that impression that it was with FBI's help. The dossier was prepared by the Government of India. Materials from the FBI were available for them to use.

Karan Thapar: And it was used extensively?

David Mulford: As far as I can see, it was used extensively because much of the information is the same.

Karan Thapar: Is it true that the FBI played a critical role in retrieving details of phone calls that have been made from the burnt out or melted down cell phones that were found around the terrorists?

David Mulford: That's been reported.

Karan Thapar: And that's true?

David Mulford: As far as I know, yes.

Karan Thapar: Does it mean that some or perhaps all of the telephone intercepts the Government has were provided through the FBI?

David Mulford: I can't comment on that. I don't know the extent of it.

Karan Thapar: When you say you don't know the extent of that, is it possible that some of the intercepts have been…

David Mulford: Well, I am not in the middle of that investigation so I don't think you can really push me to be an expert on the exact composition of the data and who have what and how much and what percentage of this and that and so on.

Karan Thapar: It is also reported that the FBI have had nine hours of access to question Ajmal Kasab, the terrorist that is in the custody of the Indian police. Does that mean that the FBI have had a fairly reasonable amount of time to thoroughly question him?

David Mulford: Yes.

Karan Thapar: And what picture of Kasab emerges from the information that the FBI have got?

David Mulford: I think the picture's been presented.

Karan Thapar: So the FBI impression of Kasab accords very closely with that which the Indian Government has explained to the Indian people through the press?

PAGE_BREAK

David Mulford: I would say yes.

Karan Thapar: In other words, the FBI backs Government's version? They have no different version?

David Mulford: I don't think it's a relevant question. We're working together and I don't think there's any tension or mismatch there.

Karan Thapar: After a lot of confusion, perhaps even after some contradiction, Pakistan has accepted eventually that Kasab is a Pakistani citizen. What is your impression of the other nine terrorists? Do you or does the FBI or does the American government believe that they too are Pakistani?

David Mulford: I don't think I should comment on an on-going investigation to that level of detail because I don't have absolute knowledge on that. Let's not get too deeply into the investigation. Certain things have become very well known and are widely available and there's a lot of transparency.

Karan Thapar: When you say you shouldn't comment, is that because you're not sure about the nationality of the nine-ten terrorists or simply that it's not the right time?

David Mulford: I don't think it's appropriate for me to be the one to make a definitive in your mind on that issue because I don't honestly feel that I am in the middle of it to that extent.

Karan Thapar: On Tuesday, the Indian Prime Minister, in a public speech, said that on the basis of the investigations, including those of the agencies of some foreign countries, there is enough evidence to show that the attack must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan.

David Mulford: I only would say that what seems to be the basis is of that is what the Secretary of State and a variety of other senior people said who have been to India since Mumbai attack, and that is that this is an attack which came from Pakistani territory. It was carried out to at least some extent by Pakistani individuals.

There were handlers who were in touch with those people on the ground during the event, and those people were in Pakistan. There was training involved, which is presumed to have taken place in Pakistan because people went directly from there to the sea and down.

So that in itself is a very serious problem because this act of terrorism came from Pakistan. I don't think you need to step beyond that in some kind of definitive sense to know that you have a serious problem on your hands, to know that Pakistan has a serious problem on its hands, to know that the US, because we have a law that requires us to pursue these matters, we'll be going there, we'll be questioning people, seeking access and following leads there with a view to bringing people to book who are involved in these things.

So I don't think you need to get into the esoteric subject. If you want to, you can but I don't see that it is a highly relevant thing to be doing.

Karan Thapar: You've seen the dossier. Does the information or the material in the dossier, justify the claim that official agencies must have been involved?

David Mulford: I am not the one to make that judgement, but to me the case in the dossier for the things that I've just said is very compelling.

Karan Thapar: The reason I ask you is because you began your first answer by referring to the Secretary of State and in fact in an interview to the late edition of CNN program she said that there was no compelling evidence linking Pakistani official to what happened in Mumbai. Admittedly, that was sometime in early December. Since then five weeks have passed and you've noticed that the Prime Minister in India has said that official agencies must have been involved. So now would the US Secretary of State agree with the PM, now that five weeks have passed?

PAGE_BREAK

David Mulford: I just think that from the standpoint of the United States, the issue there is a very complex layout of players. You have a democratically elected government in place and functioning in Pakistan, you have the Army and the intelligence people.

When you say official sources or the Government of Pakistan that is a very blanket approach. I think one needs to be very, very careful about making those kinds of allegations, unless you have very concrete evidence to that degree of specificity.

United States tends to not get into that kind of specificity, unless there's some justification for it and goes along the line that I suggested earlier that there a lot of things here that tell you this is a very serious situation. You don't need to know that degree of specificity to know that you're compelled to pursue that.

Karan Thapar: I fully understand that but as you're also saying that specific allegations ought not to be made if you don't have specific evidence to back it. Given that the original language used by the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Secretary in India was to talk about elements in Pakistan. You think the Prime Minister made a mistake in specifically pointing a finger directly at the Pakistan government?

David Mulford: I have no comment to make on the Prime Minister's comment or how he put his view because that is his view, the Government of India has its views. I am the American Ambassador and I am talking about United State's view.

Karan Thapar: The US and Britain have made India aware of intelligence that suggests that there were ISI links with the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul when it happened in summer of last year. Is it therefore impossible or unlikely that there could be ISI links or similar agency links with what happened in Mumbai?

David Mulford: I'm trying to be helpful with you here but I can not, as I said before, indulge in in-depth discussion of an ongoing investigation or intelligence sources and so on so I hope you will forgive me if I don't wish to be drawn into these things.

Karan Thapar: The US State Department has described the steps taken by Pakistan as positive. Admiral (Mike) Mullen (chief of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff) even called them 'great steps.' And yet the Wall Street Journal says that money was siphoned out to the Jamaat-ud-Dawa before they were sealed. You're aware of the controversy and the contradiction over Masood Azhar and the Pakistan High Commissioner in India has said that although Hafiz Mohammad Saeed is detained, the government doesn't have any grounds to press charges against him. So how positive is all of it?

David Mulford: I think that our view would be that the Pakistani Government has responded cooperatively with us. They are very concerned about the situation.

They have made some effort early on to offer a delegation to come to India to cooperate and exchange information, which has not been accepted. And they have more recently agreed to handover information and cooperate with the government here.

The question is what the level of cooperation is going to be and how forthcoming is it? Is it enough to satisfy people here of its credibility, and so on? I don't think one should get lost in some of the detail that you just mentioned, because I think we all understand that there has to be a level of cooperation to move forward here.

Karan Thapar: You say that Pakistan government has been cooperative but one thing that I noticed is that literally within 24 hours of dossier being handed to Islamabad, the Foreign Secretary had begun to question its credibility, their Minister of State said it was insufficient and many people felt that how can you come to such a judgement in 24 hours flat. Is that cooperation?

PAGE_BREAK

David Mulford: Well, I don't think you can judge them on their first reaction or the statements of one particular individual in the government. I think it takes a little time. You have after all a situation where there is a civilian government with a very strong military and a very strong intelligence agency and a media and other players and I think you have to take the view that it's going to take a little time to percolate to see what really the outcome of these efforts is.

Karan Thapar: But many people in India suspect that perhaps Pakistan is in a state of denial. Let me give you an example, on the first of January, the official spokesperson of the Pakistan Foreign Office said there was no terrorist infrastructure on Pakistani soil. Are you ready to believe that?

David Mulford: You just said it. Somebody in denial doesn't necessarily remain in denial. It's complex and you would be mistaken to seize on a statement that is particularly irritating to you or proves a point of some kind to you, without standing back waiting, watching, seeing what the effort is achieving.

Karan Thapar: You say they need to be given a bit of time to come out of denial, encourage them rather than constantly get riled by their statements.

David Mulford: It's not just about time, although time is important because you could get into a situation where so much time passes that it makes them look uncooperative but you do have to gauge what is happening, what their own situation is and what sort of problems they are facing. Don't forget that the US is in very close touch with them itself because of its own losses.

Karan Thapar: So you are saying be more understanding of them?

David Mulford: I wouldn’t put it that way—I would say be more discriminating.

Karan Thapar: Pakistan is very keen to suggest a joint mechanism to investigate together with India the evidence emerging from the Mumbai attacks. India is extremely unenthusiastic about it.

Does America believe that at this moment, given the nature of relation between the two countries and the absence of trust, a joint mechanism makes sense or would it be a red herring?

David Mulford: I think it is a decision for the Indian government. I think up till now they have not found it a very interesting proposition.

Karan Thapar: But your National Security Advisor, in an interview to the ‘Wall Street Journal’, has come very close to suggesting that the two countries need to cooperate jointly. Is he actually endorsing the Pakistani offer of joint mechanism or is he simply making a separate comment.

David Mulford: I think it is a generic statement of the need to cooperate. Let us face it: total no cooperation isn’t a very good alternative as an indefinitive proposition. You do have to sort of take the view that if you are going to make progress, you have to have some element of cooperation. That means looking for ways to accomplish some minimal level.

Karan Thapar: So what Mr (Stephen) Hadley is saying find ways to cooperate but he is not necessarily endorsing the Pakistani offer of joint mechanism.

David Mulford: I don’t think so, because there is already a joint mechanism set up in the September of 2006 and people here regard it as not having been successful.

Karan Thapar: You spoke about the fact that Pakistan had wanted to sent a high-level delegation, which has not been accepted by India. Do you think it should have been accepted? Would that have helped break down some of the distrust, which is now almost at a feverish pitch between the two capitals?

David Mulford: That proposal was made very early. It was made with no details on who would be on the delegation and was never filled out with additional information as far as I know. So I don’t think India made a mistake to not take that up, because it wasn’t going anywhere.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: The dossier given to Pakistan; how much time should be given to Pakistan to evaluate its contents and respond before India comes to the conclusion that Pakistan is not taking the matter seriously?

David Mulford: I can’t judge that. That is a judgment for the Indian government to make.

Karan Thapar: The Pakistanis have repeatedly said they are not prepared to extradite the accused to India. Given that these people are not accused of common and garden crimes but actually as something as heinous as terrorism, is extradition justified?

David Mulford: I think a lot of people, in the United States for example, would like to think when somebody commits a crime in some other country against Americans we would like to extradite them. It doesn’t happen very often but that doesn’t change the fact that you seek to extradite or you seek to convince the country under its law to prosecute them.

Karan Thapar: Will America, which is playing such an important part in trying to ensure that the perpetrators to justice, endorse and support India’s demand for extradition?

David Mulford: I can’t answer that.

Karan Thapar: Because you don’t know the answer, or because you don’t want to?

David Mulford: We have a new administration coming in, and I simply can’t answer that question. We have not taken a position on it. There has been a reported position, in the media, but that has never been confirmed by the US.

Karan Thapar: What would happen if there is another terrorist strike, linked back like the last one to sources and people in Pakistan?

David Mulford: I think that would be very serious

Karan Thapar: Would it lead to war?

David Mulford: I don’t know but it would be a very serious matter.

Karan Thapar: Ambassador Mulford, thank you.