New
Delhi, 27
June
2004
We continue to look at the great
election game being played out in the USA. During the last week our
colleague came across some writings on the views of Senator John
Kerry the Democratic presidential candidate concerning India. His
report.
In the week gone by the latest
craze in USA was Bill Clinton’s book, "My Life", as it
covered USA’s fortunes over time, his Presidency, his personal
life and escapades, including the time he spent counselling with
his family and religious ministers. The other hot topics were the
release of memos by the Pentagon on the Iraq Interrogations and the
culpability of Rumsfeld and senior officers in Iraq. The hottest
issue was naturally the Presidential Election due in November.
President Bush was in full cry but Democrat John Kerry was not far
behind.
Senator John Kerry, the presumptive
Democrat Presidential candidate, had made an important speech
on "The Future of
Indo-American Relations” on the floor of the
Senate on February 7, 2001. Though more than three years old
and its content somewhat outdated in parts,, it was an
authoritative sketch of the Democratic presidential candidate's
thinking on India and US–India relations.
It's clear that the Senator's heart
is in the right place so far as US-India relations are
concerned.
The
last four of the excerpts below, summarise the Senator's thinking
on India and the nuclear issue as it stood three years ago. It
looks as if there is scope for adequate refinement and fine
tuning of the Senator's views on this subject taking into account
current realities.
The important thing is that
the Senator MUST drop the requirement that India sign the Treaty
on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), apparently
without being recognised as a nuclear power in its own right,
in order to win American support for admission as a permanent member
of the UN Security Council. This was something he had mentioned a
few months ago in answer to a question from an Indian American
organisation following the announcement of his
candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
Therefore, friends of India,
including Indian Americans and supporters of the Democratic Party,
have an important role to play in persuading the Senator to
take a second look at (to use his own words of three years ago), ’what is realistic to expect from India’ as
a nuclear power in a troubled region and as an emerging close friend
of the United States.
Excerpts:
-
India is the largest democracy
in Asia and a potentially important partner in our efforts to
promote regional stability, economic growth and more open
political systems in surrounding countries
-
All of India's political
parties have accepted the need to continue India's economic
modernization. Undoubtedly there will be disagreements over how
to do it but continuation of the process holds out the prospects
of increased economic interaction with the United States
-
The potential exists for the
US and India to have a strong cooperative relationship across a
broad range of issues
-
A constant source of
irritation for Indians has been the inability or unwillingness
of the United States to differentiate between India and
Pakistan. From their perspective, India's commitment to
democracy and economic reform dictate that the United States
have a different relationship with India than with Pakistan,
which has a military regime that supports terrorism. I agree
that a distinction must be drawn. That the United States lumps
them together or even worse is soft on Pakistan is clearly
unacceptable from the Indian point of view. To a certain extent,
they have a point. To a certain extent, they have made their
point accurately.
-
India and the United States
have an enormous amount to offer each other. We both can
benefit, in my judgment, from a more cooperative and friendly
working relationship.
-
Indian officials have made it
clear that there would be no roll back of India's nuclear
program and that India intends to have a credible minimum
nuclear deterrent which means nuclear weapons and delivery
systems. They believe that the United States is
under-emphasizing India's security needs and over emphasizing
non-proliferation objectives. I believe there is a happy medium
between these two.
-
We need to understand the
fears that are driving India's sense of security and insecurity.
We need to ask ourselves what is realistic to expect from India
in light of those fears.
-
For their part, the Indians
must understand that much can be gained in the relationship with
the United States and with progress on these issues. Arms
control and regional stability are inextricably linked, and
global security is inextricably linked to our resolution of
these issues.
-
I believe we can make progress
on these difficult issues if both parties are prepared to tackle
them and to be sensitive to understanding the other's security
concerns.
The full text of Senator
Kerry's speech on the Senate Floor is reproduced below:
U.S.
SENATE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
February
7, 2001
Statement by John Kerry on "The Future of Indo-American
Relations"
Mr. President, the powerful
earthquake which recently devastated India's densely populated
western state of Gujarat has focused our attention, once again, on
India. Gujarat officials estimate that 28,000 to 30,000 people have
died. Thousands more have been injured and hundreds of thousands
have been displaced.
In response to India's dire need
for help, USAID has sent blankets, generators, water containers,
plastic sheeting, food and other relief supplies -- all part of our
official commitment to provide some $10 million in emergency
humanitarian aid. But in my view this is not enough. We can and
should do more. In the initial phase of this disaster when India
particularly needed search and rescue teams and medical assistance,
the United States was conspicuous in its absence. The Russians, the
Brits, the Swiss and others were engaged in pulling people out of
the rubble. We were not. At least half a dozen countries, including
Denmark, Israel and Sweden, sent field hospitals, doctors and
medical personnel. We did not. Given our slow start, it is
especially important for the United States to be particularly
generous when it comes to reconstruction.
Indian Americans, on the other
hand, have moved quickly to mobilize their own relief effort --
collecting sizable donations and medical supplies as well as
assembling teams of doctors. Reflecting the depth of concern among
Americans for the tragedy that has struck India, President Bush,
last week made a condolence call to Indian Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee. I commend the President for making this call, not
only because it was the right thing to do under the circumstances,
but also because it was an important gesture by the new
administration toward a country in the region that the United States
tends to ignore, except in times of crisis.
Regrettably the Clinton
Administration paid little attention to developments in South Asia
until May 1998, when India broke its 25 year moratorium on nuclear
testing with five underground tests. Taken by surprise, the
administration tried -- to no avail -- to persuade Pakistan not to
test in response. Confronted with escalating tensions not only in
the nuclear realm but on the ground over Kashmir, the administration
was forced to focus on growing instability in the subcontinent.
Belatedly the administration picked
up the pace of its diplomacy in the region, opening a high level of
dialogue with India and Pakistan on nuclear issues, interceding to
reduce tensions over Kashmir, and arranging a presidential visit
last March to India, with a brief stop in Pakistan. President
Clinton's trip to India -- the first by a US president in 22 years
-- was an effort, in his words, to "rekindle the
relationship" between the United States and India. It was a
welcome initiative.
I was in India in December 1999, a
few months before President Clinton's visit, to participate in the
World Economic Forum's India Economic Summit. While there, I had an
opportunity to meet with a number of Indian officials including the
Prime Minister, his National Security Advisor and the Defense
Minister. During the course of these meetings, it became very clear
to me that India wanted a better relationship with the United
States. In many respects this was predictable because from India's
perspective, the neighborhood in which it lives has become less
friendly and more threatening, and its historical ally, the Soviet
Union, no longer exists.
Pakistan is under the control of a
military regime rather than a democratically elected government -- a
regime which New Delhi views as illegitimate and threatening. In the
months before the Clinton visit tensions with Pakistan had
intensified not only over Kashmir but also over Pakistani support
for terrorists. Although tensions have subsided since then, Kashmir
continues to be a volatile issue that could provoke another war
between India and Pakistan both armed with nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, like India, has declared its intention to be in the
nuclear game.
Pakistan
clearly poses a security problem for India but not of the magnitude
of China.
As one Indian told me
during my visit, "Pakistan is a nuisance but not a threat --
China is a threat."
The biggest and from the Indian
viewpoint most menacing power in the neighborhood is China -- a
country with which India has had longstanding tensions over border
and territorial issues. China's past assistance to Pakistan's
nuclear program and its ongoing efforts to build influence with
other smaller countries in the region, particularly those on India's
border such as Burma, are proof at least in the minds of Indians
that China is trying to encircle India. Whereas most of the
countries in Southeast Asia see Chinese aspirations as limited to
that of a regional power that wants recognition and respect, India
is wary of China's aspirations both in the region and globally.
The Indian fear of China seems to
me to be larger than reality but it is real nonetheless, and it is a
major reason why India has been seeking improved relations with the
United States. The Clinton administration, recognizing that improved
relations would be in America's interest as well as India's, wisely
took advantage of this opportunity. India
is the largest democracy in Asia and a potentially important partner
in our efforts to promote regional stability, economic growth and
more open political systems in surrounding countries.
It is a fledgling nuclear power with the potential to affect the
nuclear balance in South Asia as well as our non-proliferation goals
on a global level. It is involved in a longstanding conflict with
Pakistan which could erupt into another war possibly at the nuclear
level. It is a player in a region dominated by China with whom the
US has mutual interests but also major differences.
While the United States and India
have differences over serious issues related to the development of
India's nuclear program, labor and the environment, Cold War
politics and alliances no longer stand in the way of improved
relations. In fact, as many of my Indian hosts suggested, the United
States and India are "natural allies". Both are vibrant
democracies; Indian American family ties are strong and extensive.
As India has begun to open and liberalize its economy over the past
decade, American business and investment in India has grown,
particularly in the high tech region of Bangalore, and America has
become India's largest trading partner and a source of foreign
investment. And on the flip side, Indians
are playing a major role in the growth of our high tech industry in
California, Massachusetts, New York and elsewhere. Together with the
Taiwanese, Indians own more than 25% of the firms and supply more
than 25% of the labor in this country in this technology fields. All
of India's political parties have accepted the need to continue
India's economic modernization. Undoubtedly there will be
disagreements over how to do it but continuation of the process
holds out the prospects of increased economic interaction with the
United States.
The
potential exists for the US and India to have a strong cooperative
relationship across a broad range of issues. President Clinton's visit to India
was an important step in laying the foundation for this new
relationship. Working groups were set up on trade, clean energy and
environment, and science and technology. A broad range of
environmental, social and health agreements were signed. To
strengthen economic ties, $2 billion in Eximbank support for US
exports to India was announced; US firms signed some $4 billion in
agreements with Indian firms. The effort to institutionalize
dialogue was capped by an agreement between President Clinton and
Prime Minister Vajpayee for regular bilateral summits between the
leaders of both countries. An invitation was extended to the Prime
Minister to visit Washington, which he did last September. During
that visit the two leaders agreed to expand cooperation in the areas
of arms control, terrorism and AIDS.
The seeds have been sown for a new
Indo-American relationship. It is up to the Bush Administration to
nurture them. The administration must devote time and attention to
the relationship -- and to developments in the region -- on a
consistent basis, not on a crisis only basis. President Clinton and
Prime Minister Vajpayee set out to regularize bilateral contacts not
only at the working level but also at the highest levels. President
Bush should continue this process. Personal diplomacy at the highest
levels, particularly when dealing with Asian countries, is an
essential element of relationship building. I also believe that the
time is long overdue for the United States to distinguish, once and
for all, between India and Pakistan and to treat each differently
and according to the demands of those bilateral relationships.
A
constant source of irritation for Indians has been the inability or
unwillingness of the United States to differentiate between India
and Pakistan. From their perspective, India's commitment to
democracy and economic reform dictate that the United States have a
different relationship with India than with Pakistan, which has a
military regime that supports terrorism. I agree that a distinction
must be drawn. That the United States lumps them together or even
worse is soft on Pakistan is clearly unacceptable from the Indian
point of view. To a certain extent, they have a point. To a certain
extent, they have made their point accurately.
Just as the passing of the Cold War
has improved the atmosphere for an improvement in Indo-American
relations, it has also removed the need for the United States to
ignore Pakistan's transgressions both within and outside of its
borders. The United States no longer needs to tilt toward Pakistan
in pursuit of larger strategic objectives. We should look at our
relationships with India and Pakistan separately, analyzing each in
terms of mutual interests and differences and being more candid in
defining areas of agreement and disagreement. President Clinton
attempted to find a new balance during his trip last year, by
spending several days in India and only a few hours in Islamabad.
But more needs to be done.
In my view we can advance our
interests and strengthen our relationship with India by immediately
terminating the sanction on loans to India from international
financial institutions (IFIs).
Although President Clinton waived
most of the sanctions imposed on India after it tested in 1998, he
chose not to exercise the waiver for IFI loans to India amounting to
some $1.7 billion or for FMF (Foreign Military Financing) for India.
I believe that we should lift the IFI sanction at this time. The
release of these funds would send an important signal to India of
our ongoing commitment to improved relations while also encouraging
the government of India to continue its economic modernization.
The sanction on FMF needs
discussion in hopes of finding further progress regarding India's
position on nuclear issues. At
the moment, Indian officials have made it clear that there would be
no roll back of India's nuclear program and that India intends to
have a credible minimum nuclear deterrent which means nuclear
weapons and delivery systems. They believe that the United States is
under-emphasizing India's security needs and over emphasizing
non-proliferation objectives. I believe there is a happy medium
between these two. Although there has been ongoing
dialogue between Indian and American officials on the Clinton
administration's four non-proliferation benchmarks set after the
1998 tests -- signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT), halting fissile material production, refraining from
deploying or testing missiles or nuclear weapons, and instituting
export controls on sensitive goods and technology.
Despite the fact that we set up
these benchmarks, the truth is there has been little progress made
with respect to them.
We must be frank and acknowledge at
the same time, as we see and measure the progress, that we have to
be honest about our own status, if you will. That requires us to
acknowledge that our failure in the Senate to approve the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has undermined our ability to
influence India and many other countries. And Pakistan, obviously,
is in the same equation.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that
the dialogue continue because too much is at stake in terms of
regional stability and non-proliferation to allow it to wither. We
need to understand the fears that are driving India's sense of
security and insecurity. We need to ask ourselves what is realistic
to expect from India in light of those fears.
For their
part, the Indians must understand that much can be gained in the
relationship with the United States and with progress on these
issues. Arms control and regional stability are inextricably linked,
and global security is inextricably linked to our resolution of
these issues.
I am very hopeful we can quickly
reach a mutual understanding to permit the FMF sanctions to also be
lifted. I believe we can
make progress on these difficult issues if both parties are prepared
to tackle them and to be sensitive to understanding the other's
security concerns.
India and the United States have
begun to build a new cooperative relationship that reflects our
common ties and our common interests. A process has begun, and the
administration needs to continue that progress with commitment and
with zeal.
India and
the United States have an enormous amount to offer each other. We
both can benefit, in my judgment, from a more cooperative and
friendly working relationship. I think the groundwork has been laid. I hope this
administration can move rapidly to lift the current sanctions, to
enter into the talks, and to move forward in this most critical
relationship.
Disclaimer Copyright |