Author: V. Sudarshan
Publication: Outlook
Date: November 26, 2001
Introduction: Musharraf may have
scored the PR points, but it was Vajpayee who came back with major concessions.
This, despite a poor showing in the media.
Q: Will the United States try to
get involved in a settlement of Kashmir?
US Secretary of State Colin Powell:
The two sides have to settle that and there needs to be a dialogue between
Pakistan and India. To the extent the US can be helpful in fostering
their dialogue, fine. But we cannot become the mediator, the arbitor, or
the intermediary between them. (Interview on NBC's meet the press programme,
November 11.)
President Bush and President Musharraf
agreed that India and Pakistan should resolve the Kashmir issue through
diplomacy and dialogue in mutually acceptable ways that takes into account
the wishes of the people of Kashmir. -Bush-Musharraf joint statement, New
York, November 12.
As Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf
swung through Teheran, Paris, London en route to his dinner meeting with
President George W. Bush, it did not appear as though he was a pariah in
the international community. He was the toast of the West. Nobody was talking
about his dictatorial ways. And everybody was listening carefully to what
he had to say. He preened before TV cameras, his chest swelled up,
mostly talking about "state terrorism" and Jammu and Kashmir.
In contrast, Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee's political journey to New York, via Moscow and Washington,
was barely mentioned in the world media. His interview to The Washington
Post illustrated vividly his problems in communication skills. Post staff
writer Alan Sipress thought "the elderly Prime Minister, who rarely grants
interviews, responded slowly and deliberately to questions, offering measured
answers, separated by long, pensive silences. He sat largely motionless,
his eyes downcast and his hands clasped in front of him." Imagine now Vajpayee
being interviewed by CNN's Larry King, whom Musharraf charmed visibly on
the eponymous show.
This is the grist that feeds the
media mill. But diplomats say Vajpayee's lack of dynamism didn't become
an impediment in managing concrete results from his Washington trip, where
he lunched with Bush. They say it would be erroneous to assume that Vajpayee's
trip to the US was about Pakistan. In fact, in the interactions between
India and the US in Washington, three words that found little mention were
Pakistan, Musharraf and Kashmir.
This shows India's relationship
with the US is no longer influenced by the old zero-sum considerations
and that the broad-gauge relationship envisaged in the Vision Statement,
released during President Clinton's visit to India last year, is developing
satisfactorily. Diplomats dismiss any pressure on starting a dialogue with
Pakistan, claiming that Washington is making the politically right noises
only to ease the mounting domestic pressure on Musharraf.
As George Perkovich, of the W. Alton
Jones Foundation, told Outlook: "Talks are tricky, as Agra showed. Either
India or Pakistan is tempted to use talks for unilateral advantage, in
which case relations worsen instead of improve. Today, talks without a
positive outcome would be worse than no talks."
New Delhi and Washington were in
agreement on four key issues:
* Both sides acknowledged "an active
role for India in consultations on the political and economic future of
Afghanistan". In this regard, Richard Haass, Washington's pointsman on
Afghanistan, is expected to visit India soon. The foreign secretary had
a separate round of meetings with him.
* Both agreed to expand cooperation
on preventing proliferation of sensitive technologies with weapons of mass
destruction applications, including provision of additional training programmes
and equipment.
* They agreed to discuss ways of
stimulating bilateral high-technology commerce, including dual-use technology.
The Vajpayee-Bush joint statement says the two sides should begin a dialogue
"with a view towards evaluating the processes by which we transfer dual-use
and military items, with a view towards greater transparency and efficiency".
* Expand space cooperation in civilian
and scientific fields. Sources say this is a marked change from the days
when the US drew a firm line on discussing space cooperation or dual-use
technology issues.
Interestingly, during the Vajpayee-Bush
conversation, China came up as a talking point. Bush said the days were
over when US presidents went all the way to Asia and didn't bother visiting
Japan, Korea and India. He remarked, in a lighter vein, that his recent
trip to Shanghai had left him no wiser about the Chinese. It was at this
point that the Indian side asked how the US could have space cooperation
with China, but not with India. Bush, diplomats say, is comfortable in
engaging with India in ways previous presidents hadn't. The "free-wheeling"
sharing of views on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and on Russia, Afghanistan
and China showed that a welcome comfort factor has crept into the political
relationship.
The joint statement released during
the trip says that "India's interest in purchasing arms from the US would
be discussed at the Defence Policy Group meetings in December 2001". Sources
say an initial wishlist of such arms was in fact discussed during this
trip, adding that in the 10 months of the Bush administration, the maximum
progress has been in defence cooperation. When foreign minister Jaswant
Singh was wearing the hat of defence minister, US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld had written to him emphasising that the two countries should have
long-term military-to-military cooperation. As a sign of this, prior to
Vajpayee's Washington trip, the US had made specific requests relating
to Operation Enduring Freedom. India didn't reject them.
One notable outcome of the visit
is the decision to separate the energy sector from environment in any future
discussions. This is expected to significantly widen the scope and mandate
on both the subjects, and also develop a regulatory framework for commercial
projects in India in the power sector, including in hydrocarbon, non-conventional
power, third-country projects, and particularly in energy security.
The US also agreed to resume three
safety-related projects involving technical information exchanges on emergency
procedures with respect to ageing reactors that are already under full-scope
IAEA safeguards.
Diplomats who followed Musharraf's
political journey to New York find it bereft of similar content. They point
out that all he got out of the trip was a billion-dollar loan, part of
which had already been announced by US State Department spokesman Richard
Boucher on October 29. Musharraf did not get any public assurances on F-16s
and he was probably also lectured on the need to restore democracy. This
is clear from the joint statement of the Bush-Musharraf meet: "Both underscored
the importance of Pakistan to have a successful transition to democracy
in 2002." In other words, the PR victory may have been Pakistan's, but
India managed to get the concessions earlier US administrations were reluctant
to provide.
