From left, Sunil Jain, Minister at the Indian Embassy; Raj S. Dave; Tom Phillips, Chief Justice of Texas Supreme Court; and Dr. K. Dwivedi at the Burton Award Ceremony at the Library of Congress, in Washington, D.C, on June 14. (Photo: Courtesy, Raj S. Dave)

Washington : Initial concerns over the future of India-U.S. relations after a change of guard in New Delhi dissipated following “positive” statements from the Congress Party-led coalition, said participants at the Washington Leadership Program’s ‘2004 Summer Speaker Series’ here on June 29.

The topic of discussion was ‘U.S.-India Relations,’ and the participants included Karl Inderfurth, former assistant secretary for South Asia; David Good, director for the South Asia Bureau Office of India, Nepal and Sri Lanka at the State Department; Vikram Misri, counselor (political), Embassy of India; and Kapil Sharma of Madison Government Affairs and a consultant with Indian American Center for Political Awareness (IACPA) who moderated the discussion.

All the speakers said U.S.-India ties, elevated to a new heights during the Clinton administration, were on the verge of an unprecedented convergence of worldviews when the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led government was replaced, triggering some speculation in Washington on the future of the relations.

Good said in the six years of the BJP-led government, the U.S. attained a “comfort level” in dealing with its leaders. It became a bit skeptical with the new set of leaders, but he noted that after generating some initial doubts about its foreign policy, the new government has now cleared the air and has set the stage for an early and enhanced movement in the bilateral ties.

He said what really helped to set at rest all doubts about the new leadership was the early “personal” contacts that were established between the two governments. President George Bush spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while Secretary of State Colin Powell talked to the External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and Condoleezza Rice spoke to her counterpart J.N. Dixit.

Inderfurth, who is now a professor at the Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University, said the continuity in relations between India and the U.S. during the Democratic and Republican administrations indicated how it has grown beyond partisan considerations.

He noted the India-Pakistan dialogue that had progressed well on nuclear issues and he especially welcomed the reaffirming of confidence building measures, the moratorium on nuclear tests, and the staffing of the embassies in India and Pakistan.

Referring to the changes in the Pakistan government, Inderfurth said Shaukat Aziz, the man picked by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to succeed as the new Prime Minister, was a technocrat who had considerable experience.

“And so is India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, another technocrat. I am sure both of them will have a lot to talk about. These are very positive developments,” he added.



Questions From The Floor

Q: Would a Kerry administration bode better for U.S.-Indo relations or would staying with the Bush administration be better?

Karl inderfurth : A speech by Senator Kerry that he gave shortly after the earthquake in Gujarat is very good –– albeit a little bit dated but not in the fundamentals. It discusses that there has been a change, and it goes back to the Clinton visit, which Brajesh Mishra himself called the turning point in the relationship. At that point, it was very early in the new Administration, and he was urging the new administration to pick up this ball and run with it, which it has. I hope there will be more statements from him as the campaign unfolds. I think we do see policy continuity in terms of the fundamentals. I think the fundamentals are sound and solid.

I do see a few things in foreign policy where there are differences in the Kerry and Bush administrations. Unilateral action and the role of the UN, most specifically. I think those things will come into play. It is very clear that Kerry is more multilateralist.

Additionally, Kerry has been very opposed to the administration’s desire to create new types of nuclear weapons, the bunker busters, etc., which would require new testing. If new testing occurred, and of course the administration is very opposed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I think that could rethe whole genie of further nuclear testing. I was very pleased in these talks a week ago between India and Pakistan that they reaffirmed their moratorium on further nuclear testing. It is very clear that India is looking carefully at what it calls its security environment in the region –– China and Pakistan. I would hate to see the U.S. become the instigator of regional nuclear testing.

Q: Can you talk a little about international and U.S. development aid to India. And how it is going be affected by the change in government, if at all.

VIKRAM MISRI : Let me start off with one fact that may or may not be well known. The U.S. is not a very large provider of aid to India. Additionally, the BJP government announced about a year ago that once the current bilateral aid programs run their course, India would not accept any more bilateral foreign aid. The only kind of aid that would come into India would be multilateral –– IMF, World Bank, ADB, etc. I don’t think there has been an IMF program in India in many years. In fact, India recently became a net lender to the program.

I really don’t think that foreign aid played a role at all in the recent elections, in BJP thinking or Congress. Additionally, I don’t think that the policies will change drastically under the new government, much of this will carry over.

DAVID GOOD : Let me add that there is an interesting debate going on right now that is centered on whether or not we should be giving more aid to India. The reason is, the purpose of aid is to allow a country to graduate from needing assistance. India is very much on the edge of being able to do that. As Vikram says, India has changed its philosophy on aid. In fact, India has become, if not a net donor as yet, a major provider of foreign aid. It has given large programs to Afghanistan, aid to Iraq, assistance to other countries in South Asia. We continue to give very specified types of aid where we have a certain expertise, where we can provide to India that they tell us they need. It is no longer us going in and saying “these poor starving people,” rather it is us going in now and helping India analyze and improve the professionalism of the securities and exchange industry in India. That is a true story that happened a few years ago.

KARL INDERFURTH : The future, I think, will be cooperative ventures, rather than donor ventures of the past. For instance, the space, when President Bush announced a renewed focus on going to space, I thought that India would be the perfect partner for this program. Another cooperative venture is the issue of HIV/AIDS. We’re both afflicted by the disease, and there is a lot that we can do with our pharmaceutical industries, etc.

Q: We have this sort of “zero sum game” between India and Pakistan. You cannot do one thing with one country without getting an earful from the other side. Is there anything that we can do with India with eliciting a response from the other side? And are we turning to Israel now as a conduit for arms sales to India without having Pakistan get angry?

DAVID GOOD : On the “zero sum game” I don’t really think that this is really such a strong part of the relationship as it was in the past, and as some people tend to think of it. It’s inevitable that two countries, which such a long history between them, would be affected by the interactions of their neighbor. However, in the past few years, we’ve reached a relationship with India and Pakistan where each nation understands what we are trying to accomplish with the other side in the bilateral relationships. I wouldn’t say it’s disappeared altogether, but it has become much less of a problem in the relationship.

Q: Recently, Britain suggested that India be made a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Do you foresee this happening, and what do you see as India’s future relationship with the UN?

DAVID GOOD : I think our position now would be similar to the position taken during the Clinton administration –– we think the UN needs to be reformed. However, what shape those reforms take and who’s going to benefit are still to be seen.

KARL INDERFURTH : I cannot imagine that it is possible to expand the Security Council without India. In fact, it has been the position of the Clinton administration and now the Bush Administration that the UN Security Council needs reform and expansion. The expanded council should reflect the world of the 21st century as opposed to 1935. It needs to take India into account –– how do you ignore a country that will soon be the largest nations in the world, with a vibrant democracy, one of the largest economies, with a great history of participation in the UN? All the trend lines are going up. The fact is, it is going to be very difficult to reform the UN, but again, I’ve reached the conclusion that it is impossible to see the council expanded without India.

Q: What do you think of the U.S. involvement in the Kashmir issue –– has it helped or hurt the process?

KARL INDERFURTH : I think the role of the United States should be as former PM Vajpayee stated –– the U.S. should play a facilitator role. I think you all know that words have certain meanings, some words are more sensitive than others. The idea that the U.S. should be a “mediator” is wrong –– that will not take place. The U.S. has long stated that we are a facilitator, not a mediator. The question of Kashmir must be decided by the parties involved, taking into account everyone’s point of view, as well as that of the Kashmiri people. I think the U.S. can play an encouraging role, and anything we can do to assist that, including economic assistance to Kashmir, we should do. We can also play a part in the question of monitoring incursions across the Line of Control –– we have technology that can place sensors to help watch the Line. I think a number of countries, including the U.S., can play a supporting role. I’d like to see China use its quiet, positive influence on Pakistan.

VIKRAM MISRI : I agree. I think in recent years there has been an evolution in U.S. policy on this. I say policy because we have seen this evolve in the previous Democratic administration and has now been carried into the new Republican administration. The realization has dawned that the U.S. role should be “less is more.” The more furtive the role is, the greater the impact.

There also needs to be more and continued transparency between India and Pakistan when the U.S. leaves.

Q: Do you see economic relations, and conflicts, as a driving force in U.S.-India relations or a hindrance?

DAVID GOOD : I think its both –– we have common interests as well as common concerns. Obviously India is becoming a major economic power, the U.S. is a major economic power. Both countries see a very strong advantage to a closer economic relationship with one another. But at the same time, there are specific issues that are going to continue to be a thorn in the relationship –– one of them is this WTO agricultural subsidies issue.

The agricultural issue is not going to be resolved anytime soon. The new government in India has seen itself as being given a certain mandate to pay more attention to the agricultural sector. My personal opinion is, that being the case, they are going to be more reluctant in making concessions at WTO.

Outsourcing is a political question that has simmered down now. It certainly isn’t the same issue it was several months ago –– both sides have seen the issue in more of a calm manner.

A closer economic relationship is definitely something that both nations would want to have. It will create the ties for the two countries that will make it harder for them find political reasons to go off track.

VIKRAM MISRI : The issue of trade has the potential as much to bring India and the United States together as to cause problems in the relationship. If you talk of Indo-U.S. trade in terms of U.S. exports, there had been a concern for a number of years that U.S. exports to India were not doing as well as in other markets. In fact, former Ambassador Blackwill is famously on record as saying U.S.-India trade relations are as flat as a chapatti. In fact, according to U.S. trade statistics, U.S. exports to India rose 22 percent in 2003 –– the second fastest growth with any country, behind China. That’s a great sign."





DOWNLOAD WASHINGTON LEADERSHIP PROGRAM APPLICATION