|
|
|
The Indian Government has rehired two Washington lobbying firms just in time to
face the annual Congressional attack from the Kashmiri and Khalistani separatist
lobbies in the United States, supported by lawmakers intent on punishing India for
its human rights and UN voting record by denying it foreign aid.
The firms, the Washington Group (a new name for the old firm of Rafaelli and
Supringer) and the American Continental Group, have been offered fresh contracts
after the old agreements expired last year. Things had been in limbo since
because of the political uncertainty in India.
The firms are expected to straight away battle the legislative pinpricks that are
expected to surface on the Hill soon, besides imparting some momentum to Indo-US
ties which has been flagging of late.
The immediate crisis they have to tackle is an upcoming amendment in the foreign
aid authorisation bill which may seek to cut aid to India for voting against US at
the UN.
The Washington Group has represented India for more than two years in its avatar
as Rafaelli, Supringer, Spees and Smith and is ' known to have good Democratic
contacts. The American Continental Group was briefly last year on a three-month
basis because of its sound Republican connections.
However, unlike in the past, the Washington Group has been offered a limited
contract only till the end of this year.
The fee has also been significantly reduced from the $ 650,000-a-year the
government pointed up on previous annual contracts. ACG on the other hand should
have no quarrel since the deal is better than the one it had.
The new deal has caused some heartburn in the Washington Group and the firm has
been talking about "reducing the scope of its work because of the reduced fee."
The firm is yet to file its documents before the justice department, as lobbyists
are obliged to, suggesting there is still some negotiations going on. Both the
embassy and the firm declined to comment on the subject. The two firms were
initially offered a six-month contract starting July 1, but the dates were
advanced and the contract offer validated with immediate effect following an
unexpected crisis on the Hill that has ambushed the Indian government.
Apparently, a foreign authorisation bill currently under consideration of the
House contained an amendment seeking to cut foreign aid to countries which have
voted with the United States at the UN less than 25 per cent of the time in
crucial votes.
Surprisingly, the five countries that surfaced in this list were Cuba, North
Korea, Syria, Iraq - and India. How India came to figure in this "rogue list" is
a bit of a surprise, considering countries like Iraq and Libya - the usual
suspects - are not in it.
But Indian officials at the UN say Washington has a distorted view of the UN
voting procedure. If one takes into consideration some 250 annual votes, nearly a
third are by consensus - which means India agrees with the US on these issues. it
is only issues that come before the UN First Committee - mainly disarmament
subjects - that come to a roll call vote on the floor. And here India has voted
consistently against the us.
"Naturally, we don't agree with the US on many disarmament issues. We have a
principled position and can't be expected to vote along with the US views.
Besides, it is not as if we are voting for or against the US, we vote on the
issue," argued Prakash Shah, India's Permanent Representative to the UN.
The House International Relations Committee apparently took this argument into
consideration and voted down the amendment 19-17 in the committee itself. But GOP
Congressmen Goodling of Pennsylvania reportedly took ob. jection to this and
promised to bring it up for vote again on the floor of the House.
India also has to worry at this time about the annual tamasha involving Republican
Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana who will move a separate amendment to the
foreign appropriations bill seeking to cut aid to India because of its alleged
human rights abuses towards his wards and patrons, the Kashmiri and Khalistani
separatists.
The amendment has been defeated for several years in a row, but the whole process
and the accompanying spotlight put a tremendous strain in Indian diplomats. Last
year, Burton's amendment was routed by a 296-127 margin. The Indians are keen to
better the margin this time and the pressure is on the lobbyists to deliver the
goods.
Total US aid to India is a pittance - in the region of $ 150 million - and this
year there was serious thought given to simply rejecting the aid package instead
of suffering the "indignity" of having to fight for it. But the idea was shot
down by the more dominant section m New Delhi which felt it was not so much the
money, but the principle which was at stake. A vote against the amendments would
mean the majority of the US House endorsed the human rights situation in India, it
was felt.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
