HVK Archives: 'A strong India is good for the US'
'A strong India is good for the US' - The Telegraph
Seema Sirohi
()
5 August 1997
Title: 'A strong India is good for the US'
Author: Seema Sirohi
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: August 5, 1997
The former United States ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, made his final
pitch to the Bill Clinton administration and the US congress last week,
arguing for a more intense relationship with India based on dialogue. In
an interview with Seema Sirohi, he pointed to a future full of
possibilities for the world's two largest democracies.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q: You recently ended your tenure in New Delhi. Where do you see Indo-US
relations going?
A: I left New Delhi with some optimism about the relationship. I believe.
that-much of the acrimony that has persisted over the years is dissipated
and both countries have new imperatives. In the present age, the US needs
strong partnerships around the world if peace and stability are to be
maintained and if the US is to pursue its interests and guarantee the
prosperity of its citizens. I think India too, as she looks at the world
today, particularly the post-Cold War period and peace in Asia, has to take
the US into account. We can be a very important factor,
Equally, India has moved into a new economic age and is headed towards
reliance on free market systems. In this circumstance and because India
has glob - al political ambitions as well, a partnership or a strong
relationship with the US is necessary. This relationship can continue to
evolve, I think progress has been made. But that does not mean all the
differences have been resolved. As we resolve those, probably others will
appear. That's normal. But the intensity of the dialogue is likely to
quicken in its pace. The next six months will be particularly busy. In my
consultations for the past two weeks, as I travel both on Capitol Hill and
the executive offices in the White House and the state department, I find
that there is going to be quite a stream of visitors coming to India. And
we are expecting a number of our Indian friends here.
I think we are looking at the US being India's most important point of
contact overseas and as we look at Asia, India is going to be one of our
most important points of contact as
Q: What particular areas are the most promising in your view, the areas to
watch?
A: The economic dimension will continue to be one of particular promise.
Despite the political uncertainties at the Centre in India, I think the
economy will continue to perform adequately. Growth, particularly in
infrastructure, is certain to take place providing a lot of opportunity for
American investors and exporters. India's trading regime is changing,
tariffs are coming down. I suspect the current impasse over the balance of
payments will be resolved. We will see a very sparky trade relationship
emerging.
But I also believe that the relationship cannot and should not exist solely
on an economic basis because it would not be adequate. I keep my eye on the
political dimension as well. I think we have to give fresh thought on both
sides to how to handle critical national security issues, notably the
nuclear and missile question. I think we have to think about how we
exchange views with one another over major international security and
political questions whether China, whether Russia whether peace along the
Asian littoral whether the middle east.
The reform of the United Nations system will be important. Then there is
the evolving nature of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum where I
assume that India will wish to pursue its membership and be part of this
booming economic region. These are areas we have to talk about. Finally,
I think we ought to talk about two very important issues - defence and
global issues like the environment and population.
Q: What can realistically be achieve in these areas?
A: Keeping some sense of proportion and not overestimating the
possibilities because India is a democracy and so is the US, political
constituencies have to be convinced that there is value in new departures.
There is a heavy job of persuasion that has to follow and if we are patient
and purposeful, we can move forward.
Q: Do you see a change in attitude towards India from the last administration?
A: I do. I detect in this second Clinton administration a real desire to
take a fresh look at some basic assumptions. Some of the initial meetings
with India's representatives minister of state for external affairs, Mr
Salim Sherwani, or the foreign secretary provided a super opportunity to
begin to take a new look at things. The cabinet secretary's visit was very
important as well. It had the advantage of bringing key secretaries from
different ministries to hear American ideas. We too hear India's plans and
look for ways to harmonize ideas.
I think there is a willingness to look very hard and continue building. I
must caution against a sense that we could snap our fingers and wave magic
wands. Real realities are built on patient discussion and explanation of
positions.
Q: Do you think an understanding could be reached on the nuclear question?
A: I don't rule anything out. At the heart of it all, the US and India
have some parallel objectives. Both of us need to maintain national
security and we both need to respect the other's requirement. We both
realize that the end game will hopefully be the elimination of nuclear
weapons, to get them off the world stage. We took some time coming to that
opinion. It is going to take a long time, from our point of view, to get
there. We believe that could be best done step by step. India has always
been active in international fora seeking disarmament or arms control
objectives, as have we. India has a special need. It wants her position
understood. I think that it should give American some pause and we have to
think along those terms as well.
I found a considerable willingness in Washington to debate, discuss this
pact and to try again to think if there are ways in which we and India can
work together. I think there is a chance for some real engagement, serious
and purposeful engagement on this subject.
Q: That would be despite India's objection to signing the comprehensive
test ban treaty?
A: India's objection to signing the CTBT is part of India's overall view of
the nuclear problem. So one has to talk about the whole problem, one
cannot just talk about a piece of it like the CTBT in abstraction. We would
have loved for India to have signed the CTBT but India did not. And
therefore it is incumbent to go back to basic facts and re-examine
assumptions on all sides.
Q: The US decision to put Indian companies on the export watch list has
caused a lot of heartache. It seems that one day the Americans say "be our
friends" and the next day close the door in India's face. Why?
A: I do not think that is the way I would describe it. The export control
system is a system in place for many, many years. In the early Nineties,
we passed a whole lot of new legislation, laws designed to make certain
that the world would be a less dangerous place. What is going on today are
things set in train for some years. But this isn't to say that Indian
firms that find themselves on this watch list, if they have problems, do
not have a real reason to deal with the problems. I think it makes sense,
in the case of Bharat Electronics Limited for example, for that company, if
it has a point of view which I am sure it does, to put that down and make a
case. They are not going to find unreasonable people here. On the
contrary they will find people quite prepared to listen to their case. If
it makes sense, we will modify it.
Q: What do you think about the whole Prithvi episode, the leak, the
implications and the Indian reaction?
A: I am rather sickened by leaks. I am certain that whoever decided that it
was in his or her self-interest had some motive in doing so. I think leaks
in general are very destructive and this case was no exception. The real
question though is not the leak in the end. What matters to the US is what
the prime minister said and the assurance he gave that India is trying to
pursue a relationship of peace and trust with Pakistan.
Q: You mentioned visits by senior US officials. But there is political
uncertainty in New Delhi. Can anything substantive be achieved?
A: In 1995, we began to intensify our contacts with India then we both went
through election cycles. Now the American election cycle is over and the
second administration has largely formed itself including the naming of the
new ambassador to New Delhi. So the time is ripe to resume that very high
level of interaction. Whether India's own political situation will allow
her to get full advantage, I would argue that you need to look at this
differently.
You need to look at Americans coming at senior levels and understanding
India's dynamic, her direction and meeting a broad range of India's
political leaders, proceeding as if we are two great nations with important
national agendas and that the management of these agendas will change from
time to time without changing the basic thrust.
Q: The US increasingly sees India as a player, as a large and important
democracy but it still does not appear on the US radar screen.
A: I think India can be a global player but it is not for the US to decide
that. India must will it herself. It must organize for that purpose, it
must direct its energies and talents by strengthening her diplomacy with
Asia. India has become just in the last 12 months an observer in the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations group. It is a member of the Asian
Regional Forum.
Q: What is the US view of India's desire for a permanent seat on the UN
security council?
A: I have no problem with that and I would expect India to aspire to that.
It has been active in the UN system for many years. The problem I see
today is the great difficulty in consensus emerging in New York over the
rules of expansion. It will only expand with consensus. It will not expand
by the will of one nation or another. Some people argue that the US can
snap its fingers but it simply ain't going to happen that way.
But equally, the security council is not going to be where policy is made.
Policy is made in capitals. It is the ability of capitals to define what
the issues are, to work together and then instruct their representatives in
the UN to come up with compromise positions. So India really does not need
to wait to be a member of the security council in order to have her views
impact on international security crises, on peace in Africa, on the process
in the middle east, on major global questions of terrorism and refugee
movements. These are questions on which India can express views, join
coalitions and help shape outcomes. The membership of the security council
is not going to be the decisive factor. The decisive factor is the
political will of the government.
Q: Moving to the question of Pakistani support for terrorism in Kashmir,
how do you view this problem? Why doesn't the US take a stronger view of
this?
A: I find cross border terrorism absolutely reprehensible. I do not have
any time for it at all. I do not think any valid national security
objective can be obtained by it. All terrorism can do is increase
animosity, increase the perception of injustice. It is the wrong strategy
to be pursued in south Asia. I hope that the two governments as their
dialogue moves forward, as detente between the two deepens, they must grip
this matter and get it under control. It is very important that cross
border terrorism stop. The US has no doubt about it.
Q: There is a feeling in India that despite the evidence of a very well
organized campaign from the other side, the US has chosen to be reticent.
Why?
A: I know that is the view in India, it is not a view I share. But I can
also appreciate the fact that if you are on the receiving end, you are
bristling with sensitivity on this subject and anything a third party does
is not going to be enough. The problem can most effectively be dealt with
in the context of a changing relationship between India and Pakistan. The
behaviour between two sovereign nations cannot be dictated by a third party.
Q: Finally, do you think there were any missed opportunities that the two
sides could have used to move the relationship forward?
A: I do not really cry over the past. I like to think where we can go in
the future. It is complicated with democracies. You have to get political
clocks ticking at the same time and then to agree what the issues are,
establish confidence and trust and set the issues up so they can be
resolved. I also ask that the Indians realize that the US does not have any
enmity towards India we are not trying to weaken India. On the contrary, a
strong India is good for us, a prosperous India is good for the US. We
have to make decisions that are global in nature. Not every one of those
decisions is going to be compatible with India's point of view. But that
does not mean we cannot live with each other with a certain amount of
respect and trust.
Back
Top
|
