President Clinton's visit to South Asia

03 Apr, 2000    ·   345

Report of IPCS Seminar held on 31 March 2000
Speaker: Prof. Muchkund Dubey

 

 

Former Foreign Secretary, Government of India

 

 

Prof. Dubey:

 

 

President Bill Clinton’s visit to South Asia was positive from India ’s point of view. There was obviously a difference in his approach to India and Pakistan . He sought to explore the parameters of broad-based relations with India while Pakistan was clearly informed of its duties as a responsible nation. The visit was extremely well planned appreciating the posse of over 2,000 businessmen that accompanied the President. The media coverage of the visit enabled American audiences to be informed about India , which is an advantage. 

 

 

While Clinton ’s effusive praise of India ’s rate of growth and its progress in information technology has to be viewed dispassionately, there is no doubt that there has been “a significant push to the bilateral relationship.” The institutional architecture for building a substantive relationship has been put in place by a provision for regular summits, the proposed frequent interaction between the External Affairs Minister and the Deputy Secretary of State and the Joint Statement on Cooperation in Energy and Environment. The invitation to India to join the proposed international Community of Democracies is laudable and India has done well to join it. The decision to set up an Asian Center for Democracy in New Delhi is also significant. 

 

 

There is a perceptible shift in the American approach to Kashmir , but this does not change its substantive understanding of the conflict. India will be pleased with Clinton ’s re-emphasis on respecting the LoC, and his strong statement on the massacre of innocents. India should not take umbrage at his concern for the Kashmiris when he was forced to talk about the referendum by ABC’s Peter Jennings. The reference to the divisive elements in the Pakistan Army and his clarification on the contours of possible mediation by the US should be heartening for India . 

 

 

Clinton was quite firm on nuclear issues. His rhetorical questions on the subject contain their answers in a way, since they refer to the worsening security situation despite procuring the bomb, which will add to the financial burden if a nuclear weapons program is to be sustained. He confined himself to the benchmarks outlined by Strobe Talbott and stressed “moderation in expansion.” There was no explicit reference to the NPT nor did he harp on non-weaponization. On the sanctions front, the situation has not changed dramatically. Commerce Secretary William Daley said the Entities list should shrink further; however all the sanctions cannot be lifted until India signed the CTBT. Prof. Dubey felt consequently that the restrictions on dual use technologies would continue indefinitely. 

 

 

India , on its part, had conceded little of note going by the Prime Minister’s answers during the press conference and his remarks in Parliament. It continued to define its foreign relations within the structure of non-alignment, and reaffirmed the values of independence of action and judgment. A lot of follow-up work beckons Indian diplomacy. It should get over the hyperbole of perceiving itself as a great power and act quickly on the reigning premise that no country can hope to be a great power without being a partner of the US. India should consolidate the dialogue framework forged during the visit before Clinton leaves office, though particulars of the Vision Statement would outlive his Presidency.  India should join the US in strengthening nonproliferation as its deterrence capability enables it to play that role as a full-fledged nuclear weapon power. 

 

 

There is little India can do on Kashmir bilaterally given the implacable hostility of the Pakistan army. The American leverage over Pakistan is not strong at the moment and there is little chance that Pakistan will turn to India for peace even at the risk of economic collapse. However, the Indian government needs to engage in a wider dialogue with its Kashmiris with an offer to discuss far-reaching and wide-ranging autonomy. 

 

 

Comments and Questions:

 

 

How aware are the Americans about the Chinese threat to India and do they wish to court India as a countervailing power? What are Pakistan ’s strategic options now that the US has demonstrably moved in India ’s direction?

 

 

Response:

 

 

The era of balance of power, which was crucial to the security of Europe during the Cold War, has now been transformed, if not superseded. Nations now deal with each other in terms of potentialities and mutual stability and not always on the basis of geopolitical calculations. In any case, China ’s nuclear capability pales in comparison to the US , which has no need to form alliances against China . The proposed three-way strategic alliance between Russia , India and China is meaningless since none of them can be expected to take an adversarial view of the US in the near future. However, there can be an issue-based cooperation between them to deal with the consequences of insensitive American hegemony. There is much potential in deepening bilateral relations between India , Russia and China , but a security-oriented concert between them is far-fetched. 

 

 

Pakistan ’s regime is fast obtaining an isolationist reputation like that of Franco and Salazar. But the international community will not allow a state as significant as Pakistan to fail. The only viable option before it is to revive itself economically. 

 

 

Comment:

 

 

The American engagement in India is linked to its economic interests and the pursuit of capitalist gain. The enduring image of the visit is the clamor of the Indian members of Parliament to greet Clinton in Parliament, which corresponds with India ’s eagerness to integrate into the global capitalist economy. The Indian urge to be co-opted into the American dream is quite astonishing. Amidst the brouhaha of the visit one must recall Clinton ’s message during his visit to Beijing where he indicated that China could become the overseer of Asia ’s security, a statement he did not retract in New Delhi . The small satisfaction that can be derived from the visit is that South Asia now appears able to play its legitimate role in global affairs. 

 

 

Pakistan has always been a country sustained by the West’s coffers. Its role as a sheet anchor for American policy in the Middle East , in the absence of good relations with Iran , remains important. Clinton ’s visit has not changed that strategic calculation but has served to underline India ’s paramountcy in South Asia . 

 

 

Question:

 

 

What is the impact of the visit on India ’s neighbors, besides Pakistan ?

 

 

Did Clinton ’s visit have a message for Islamic fundamentalists across the world?

 

 

What was the reaction of the Kashmiris while the rest of India basked in American attention?

 

 

Response:

 

 

There was not much of an impact on the rest of South Asia . Other countries realize that they have to abide by the principles that Clinton spelled out to India concerning good governance etc. This visit will not necessarily see the rise in the esteem of India in the region. This is evident in Bangladesh and President Hasina’s reckoning that the time was not ripe to export natural gas to India , a deal the Americans were eager to clinch. 

 

 

Greater concerted pressure on the militants can be expected following the visit. Cooperation with the US on terrorism holds promise, but the Americans are not likely to take on Islamic fundamentalism as a matter of policy. In fact the term is entirely absent from American policy declamations. It is not wise on India ’s part to take a stand against Islamic fundamentalism either, its better to tackle it under the rubric of terrorism. 

 

 

The average Kashmiri is too distraught to have an opinion on the Clinton visit. The Hurriyat has responded negatively to the outcome of the visit, and despite scholarly disquisitions to the contrary, the internal situation in Kashmir is very grave. 

 

 

Comment:

 

 

Amidst the Indian euphoria, it is unclear how the visit influenced the average American. Only a content analysis of American newspapers can reveal that. The consensus among Indian analysts is that India seems to have discovered the error of its ways concerning America , but there is no indication that the Americans have changed their perspective of India . 

 

 

The promising bilateral agreements need to be translated into reality. In 1984 India and the US agreed to have regular consultations on military cooperation which came to naught. Intense negotiations are required to bring that goal to fruition. Which side can be expected to relinquish extant positions to square the circle?

 

 

Response:

 

 

It is difficult to assess who will make concessions on tough negotiations dealing with WTO issues or export control matters. Indian negotiators will need to be as tough, alert and clear-headed regarding the nation’s interests as the Americans are. For instance the language of the text of the forum on environment envisages reducing India ’s pollution levels without any corresponding commitment from the US . However, this should not become an excuse not to engage the US . India must realize and exploit the fact that the US remains the most open market in the world. 

 

 

Comment:

 

 

Clinton ’s view of South Asia is a part of the American recognition that global order rest on four pillars:

 

 

1. The 1975 Helsinki Agreement which recognizes the sanctity of borders in Europe

 

 

2. The NPT which legitimizes a hierarchy of power in international relations.

 

 

3. Belief in an open economy.

 

 

4. Belief in political democracy. 

 

 

The level of affirmation to these principles by other nations determines America foreign policy approaches. During the 1990s, the Americans ignored these principles in South Asia . India ’s nuclear status was validated to an extent since Clinton did not ask for a stop to missile testing. India efforts to block Clinton ’s visit to Pakistan were a sign of its lack of self-confidence. 

 

 

Clinton had insisted on the right to directly address the Pakistani people as a price for visiting Islamabad . In his speech he succeeded in driving a wedge between the “ National Security State of Pakistan and its people.” The people appreciated this; for that matter there was not one demonstration against Clinton in Pakistan . 

 

 

Disagreeing with Prof. Dubey’s impressions on Kashmir , the participant said that scores of orphanages have mushroomed since 1995-96. They are run by the Jamaat-I-Islami but funded by Saudi Arabia . A recent newspaper report by Muzamil Jaleel says that around 900 teenagers, aged 15-16 years, and primarily inspired by militant Islam, have infiltrated the valley. Domestic insurgency does not exist in Kashmir . The real interest for India in crossing the LoC and destroy terrorist camps is to safeguard whatever goodwill it has left in the Valley. 

 

 

Question:

 

 

If the US President has had a change of heart concerning India , can the American bureaucracy be expected to follow suit and treat India on par with Pakistan ?

 

 

Response:

 

 

The change in American perceptions has to do with the changes in international politics, India ’s economic promise and regional instability, and not by any personal considerations. Therefore, the bureaucracy is bound to fall in line with the Administration. However Indian diplomatic skills leave a lot be desired as compared to their American, Japanese or German counterparts, who are not only well-prepared, but quick witted and coordinated at all levels of policy. 

 

 

Indian negotiators are often handicapped by the lack of an “absolute fall back position” which is not indicated to them by the government. The one exception was the delegation to the WTO meet in Seattle . The usual propensity of Indians to go overboard on liberalization was missing, since the delegation was exceptionally well-prepared. The Geneva office of the Trade Advisory Board had also identified 150-200 examples of trade agreements that could be amended. 

 

 

Comment:

 

 

India needs to reconsider the strategic realities in the world like a new President in Russia and its new security doctrine, and the impending Japan-India security dialogue. It should not lose sight of the balance of power in the Asia Pacific even though it has lost its relevance in Europe and the Middle East . The China-Pakistan axis is a serious threat, and India should build an alliance with the US to counter it. 

 

 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES