THE five-day visit of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from July 17 was her first official one to India after the Obama administration was sworn in six months ago. She had visited India many times while serving as the Senator of New York. Hillary is counted among the closest friends of India in Washington. Her bid for the presidency was well funded by the Indian-American lobby in the U.S.
It was during her husband Bill Clintons presidency that the U.S.-India strategic ties began. The view from Islamabad at the time was that the U.S. policy in South Asia had acquired a pronounced pro-India tilt. During her own campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she vowed to work with India to make our strong friendship even stronger. So much so that when she was appointed to her new post, some media commentators in the U.S. raised doubts about her ability to serve as a neutral broker between India and Pakistan.
But ever since taking up her high-profile job, Hillary Clinton has been careful to give the impression of being even-handed in her approach to the emotive issues that have divided the two South Asian neighbours. Before coming to India, Hillary delivered her first comprehensive speech outlining U.S. foreign policy goals at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington. The Obama administration, she said, would strive for a multipartner, instead of a multipolar, world. She added that the U.S. would reinvigorate bedrock alliances and that the special emphasis would be on encouraging major and emerging global powers. Among the few emerging global powers she mentioned was India.
Hillary also departed from the Bush administrations unilateralist foreign policy in clear-cut terms. So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that theyre either with us or against us. In todays world, that is global malpractice, she said. She emphasised that Washington and New Delhi will have to confront and transcend the mistrust that has hampered our cooperation in the past and address the lingering uncertainties.
U.S. lawmakers have been urging Hillary to promote stability and nuclear security by convincing India to reduce tensions with Pakistan. The Obama administrations focus these days is almost exclusively devoted to the war in Afghanistan. Washington wants its strategic partners to help the U.S. forces defeat the Taliban.
In early June, U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns handed over a letter from President Obama to the Indian government. It is believed that the letter, Obamas first official communication since the new government took office in India, urged the resumption of the dialogue process with Pakistan. Speaking to the Washington press corps in mid-June, Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said the Obama administration believed that what happened in the two countries was of vital interest to the national security of the U.S.
In a newspaper column that appeared before her arrival in India, Hillary wrote that we should encourage Pakistan as that nation confronts the challenge of violent extremism. One of the major goals of the Obama administration is to make New Delhi start talking seriously to Islamabad on Kashmir and related issues. Washington feels that an easing of tensions between the two neighbours will persuade the Pakistani military to shift its attention almost exclusively to its border with Afghanistan.
The joint statement between India and Pakistan at Sharm-el-Sheikh on July 16, many observers feel, was a result of the behind-the-scenes diplomatic manoeuvring by the U.S. State Department. Though the joint statement may not lead to an early resumption of bilateral talks, it has already led to an easing of tensions between the two countries.
In an interview to an Indian television channel, Hillary said Indias help in our fight against the extremists in Afghanistan and in support of what Pakistan is now doing will be very welcome and important. She told the interviewer that the U.S. expected Pakistan to carry out a thorough investigation of the Mumbai terror attacks and mete out exemplary punishment to those behind it. On the Kashmir issue, she stuck to the old U.S. position of not to be involved other than to support the process that India and Pakistan may decide to enter into. Her words were meant to assuage New Delhi, which has been always apprehensive of U.S. interference in Kashmir.
Hillary on several occasions praised the Pakistani governments contribution to the American-sponsored war on terror and opined that Pakistans nuclear arsenal was safe and secure. These views are contrary to those held by the Indian establishment. The constant refrain from New Delhi is that terror training camps continue to exist and that there is a plausible threat to Pakistans nuclear arsenal from Islamists fighting the Pakistani state.
Other major topics of discussion during her visit included climate change, trade and nuclear non-proliferation. There was a lot of unease in India on the decision of the G-8 countries to restrict the spread of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies. Though Hillary tried to gloss over the issue, U.S. disarmament experts such as Michael Krepon and Samuel Black claim that enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies cannot be transferred to India. They say that the India-U.S. nuclear agreement is clear that ENR technologies are not part of the deal approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Indian officials are of the view that the G-8 communique this year only targets countries such as Iran and North Korea, which are labelled as rogue nations by the U.S.
Krepon and Black point out that the G-8 communique is nothing new. In 2004, the G-8 had issued a similar communique stating that enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency inspections had to be a precondition for ENR transfers. Krepon and Black also observed that that the pursuit of ENR technologies by India came at an awkward time when the U.S. was trying to roll back the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programmes.
Obama administration officials have been pointing out that India is among the few countries that are yet to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and one among the few states that are expanding its nuclear arsenal. Signs are that the Obama administration seems determined to bring the U.S.-India nuclear deal within the ambit of the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In all his major foreign policy speeches so far, including the one in Cairo on June 4, Obama talked about the urgent need to strengthen the NPT regime.
These differences did not prevent India and the U.S. from signing some key pacts. The most controversial has been the end-use monitoring agreement (EUMA), which clears the way for the sale of U.S. military equipment to India. The agreement, required under the U.S. laws for arms sales, allows the U.S. to verify whether India is using the weapons for the stated purpose and to ensure that New Delhi does not pass on U.S. military technology to a third country.
Many opposition party leaders have alleged that the EUMA will give the U.S. access to military technologies India has obtained from other countries too and provide a pretext for its inspectors to visit sensitive military installations.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, in a 2008 report, had described the EUMA as restrictive. No other country from which Indian buys weapons imposes such a restrictive and intrusive condition before signing big-ticket arms deals.
During the Hillary visit, India formally approved two sites for the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors. American officials have estimated that the construction of the two reactors will generate business exceeding $10 billion for General Electric Company and Westinghouse Electric Company.
However, Hillary was not successful in convincing the Indian side to play a more active role in fighting global climate change. India, like most developing countries, argues that its economy will suffer if it is forced to accede to cuts in carbon emissions. On June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a clean energy Bill imposing trade penalties on countries that reject emission caps. If such penalties appear in the final legislation, the U.S. will be on a collision course with India.
John CherianCOMMents
COMMents
SHARE