a new quality in indo-us relations - themenplattform ez 40 rue montoyer, 1000 bruxelles / tel: +32 2...

FEPS, 40 Rue Montoyer, 1000 Bruxelles / Tel: +32 2 234 69 02 / Fax: +32 2 280 03 83 / www.feps-europe.eu

FEPS

Rue Montoyer 40 | 1000 Brussels (Belgium)

A New Quality in Indo-US

Relations:

Hillary Clinton’s visit to India

A study by Klaus Julian VOLL

for the Foundation for European Progressive Studies

September 2009

2


INTRODUCTION

I SHORT BACKGROUND: IS INDIA LOSING IMPORTANCE?

II POLITICAL DIMENSIONS WITH A NEW QUALITY AND REGIONAL

CONFIGURATIONS

III AMERICAN AND INDIAN ECONOMIC INTERESTS

IV CONTROVERSIAL POSITIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

V PERSPECTIVES

ENDNOTES

Dr. Klaus Julian Voll, a former diplomat at the German Embassy in New Delhi, heads

India-Europe-Consultancy. He edited “Rising India – Europe’s Partner? Foreign and

Security Policy, Politics, Economics, Human Rights and Social Issues, Media, Civil

Society and Intercultural Dimensions.” (Berlin, 2006)

3


INTRODUCTION

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed global, regional and bilateral issues in her

interactions with prominent representatives of India’s political, economic and civil society

leadership.i The widening of the Indo-US strategic partnership and the pursuit of mutual

economic, military and scientific interests dominated the interactions. But Clinton also made

climate change her first priority. Certainly, India does not carry the same political and

economic weight as China, but it is also a major partner in the Asia policy of the Obama

administration, as demonstrated again during this visit. Since 2000 there has been a

continuous improvement in relations between India and the United States of America.

I SHORT BACKGROUND: IS INDIA LOSING IMPORTANCE?

Until the end of the 20th century, the United States of America – often targeted as the

ominous foreign hand in Indian politics - has been viewed with awe and suspicion by large

sections of India’s political class across party lines. The path-breaking visit of President Bill

Clinton in 2000 initiated a veritable paradigm shift. Such interactions reached an even higher

quality during the Bush presidency, culminating in the Indo-American Civilian Nuclear Deal

and the acceptance of India’s status as a responsible nuclear power. According to Nicholas

Burnsii, the period since 2000 has been “the most dynamic period of growth in relations

between India and the US.”iii

Yet Robert Blackwill, a former US Ambassador to India, insinuated in May 2009 in New

Delhiiv, that the Obama administration – “with a very limited knowledge about India” - might

pursue a different political orientation toward India, putting Beijing on a higher diplomatic

level than New Delhi. Considering the situation in Pakistan as the most serious issue

between the US and India - particularly since India is profoundly connected with the future

of Pakistan - Blackwill did not rule out “a growing US interest in the Kashmir dispute and a

possible pressure on New Delhi.” Irrespective of India’s good image in Afghanistan with a

tremendous and cost-efficient developmental engagement, India, according to Blackwill,

does not figure in the US calculations in Afghanistan.

4


Given “the danger of a systematic deterioration in Indo-US relations”, Blackwill advocated

talks between the US and India with regard to Pakistan due to “India’s synthetic

understanding of the region” - and above all “the requirement of an Indian diplomatic

offensive vis-à-vis Washington (“crazy Americans”), since American behaviour affects India

more than vice versa.”

Therefore, parts of the Indian political class and strategic community expressed their

concerns before the Clinton visit, “that India could be perhaps down-graded as a strategic

partner,” as hypothetically stated by Lalit Mansingh, former Foreign Secretary and Indian

Ambassador in Washington. But Nicholas Burns maintains that the need for stronger

relations with India is not an issue of controversy between the Democrats and the

Republicans.

II POLITICAL DIMENSIONS WITH A NEW QUALITY AND REGIONAL

CONFIGURATIONS

Hillary Clinton proudly remembered that the “modern relationship” between India and the

US started in 2000 during the Presidency of her husband. But she also gave credit to George

Bush, saying that he focused so decisively on India. Clinton wants India to play an active role

in regional and global forums. On the eve of her visit, she stated: "We are delighted that our

two countries will be engaging in a very broad, comprehensive dialogue. It is the most wide-

ranging that I think has ever been put on the table between India and the US.”

Both sides unveiled a new strategic dialogue architecture, which is intended to bring Indo-US

relations to a higher level in the now third phase of their strategic partnership. The whole

range of issues covers strategic cooperation, climate change, education, healthcare,

agriculture, economic growth, nuclear non-proliferation and counter-terrorism. Therefore,

India-US relations are becoming increasingly multi-facetted.

In Mumbai, Hillary Clinton stayed in the iconic Taj Mahal Hotel, which had been badly

damaged and saw many people killed during the attacks by Pakistani terrorists on 26

November 2008. But besides this symbolism, she treated Pakistan “…with kid gloves, careful

that nothing harsh was said against Islamabad,”v although she maintained that “the

5


syndicate of terrorist groups in Pakistan is of concern to us” and that “it is in Pakistan’s own

interest, to act against Hafeez Saeed”. He is one of the main suspects accused by India, and

the alleged mastermind of the attacks.

But Clinton reminded her hosts also about the “historic instability of Pakistan’s democracy

and governance”, insinuating that a strengthening of the democratic forces there would be

also in India’s own interest.

Yet the relationship between India and the US will go “beyond regional geopolitics”vi,

although senior Indian defence analysts allege, that Pakistan is playing “a double-game with

the US.” India opposes talks with the Taliban and questions how far US-aid to Pakistan is

diverted towards actions against India.

According to Clinton – who as a Senator was the co-chair of the influential India Caucus - the

relationship between the US and India stands on its own merits and is not connected with

other relations. She envisages an “unlimited potential.” But India’s close cooperation with

the United States of America will not inhibit the pursuit of its own national interests. “India

can be a partner but not a NATO ally.”vii It will also not be willing to figure in the so-called

“containment”-strategies against China’s growing regional influence in Asia. But in the

emerging multi-polar world, India could be part of a process, not to contain but to engage

China in a productive manner, in order to make China’s rise peaceful.viii

There are, for instance, clear differences with regard to Iran, with whom Delhi has re-

established constructive and positive relations since the early 1990s. Indeed Clinton has said

that she wants “to understand the long-standing relations between India and Iran.”

India’s traditional influence in Afghanistan suffered a major set-back, when it did not

condemn the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. With regard to the wider issues in West Asia,

“India wants an answer from Clinton on where it figures in the AfPak policy.”ix In American

and European perceptions, India is not regarded as a very relevant player in Afghanistanx,

despite the fact that four thousand Indians are working in Afghanistan on important

projects. Nowadays, the Taliban also poses - together with Al Qaeda and The Islamic Front,

founded by Osama bin Laden - a serious threat to India.

6


Several countries including China have varying stakes in Afghanistan. India welcomes

Obama’s moves to involve the Russians. According to Indian defence analysts, a de facto

division of Afghanistan would enjoy the backing of countries like Iran, Russia and Central

Asian republics.

III AMERICAN AND INDIAN ECONOMIC INTERESTS

Both sides are guided by major business interests.xi Out-sourcing is one of the critical issues,

as Barrack Obama’s controversial statement “Say No to Bangalore and Yes to Buffalo”

demonstrated. Clinton described out-sourcing as a “genuine issue of concern”, refuting

allegations of protectionism, and spoke of a “friendly competition.”xii

As one of the results of the nuclear deal, American companies have been assigned two sites

for nuclear power plants in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat during this visit. The

Indian government, not confronted with a politically influential anti-nuclear movement, is

very much in favour of nuclear energy, also developing partnerships with Russia, France,

England and Japan in this regard.

The following agreements have been signed by Hillary Clinton and her Indian counter-part S.

M. Krishna:

An End-User Monitoring Agreement (EMUA) – a standardized text to guarantee

against the danger of dual use - will bolster high-end arms sales from the US to India

(with its high demand for defence equipment) of about $ 40 billion until 2012. For

instance India wants to buy 126 multi-role fighters. The US (Lockheed Martin Corp.

and Boeing) will increasingly compete with Russia – India’s oldest defence ally -, but

also with Israel and France, who are India’s other traditional and leading arms-

suppliers.

The parliamentary opposition of the Right and Left alleged that this agreement compromises

India’s sovereignty, whereas the proponents argue: “The inspections will be carried out at a

date, place and time of India’s choice and not at the forward bases where the equipment

7


may be deployed.”xiii A Congress Party spokesman called this agreement “a great concession

to India.”

Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA), which is a type of end user agreement in

the space sector, so that U.S. components can be used in Indian satellites.

“India will not yet be able to enter the lucrative market for the launch of U.S. commercial

satellites or third country commercial satellites with U.S. components till a separate

Commercial Space Launch Agreement (CSLA) is signed.”xiv

The Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement, which envisages an

endowment fund.

India’s agriculture is crucial for the overall economic performance of what is still one of the

world’s fastest growing economies. But many Indians show high rates of starvation and

malnutrition, sometimes even worse than in Sub-Saharan Africa. India accounts for 17% of

the world’s population, and relies on 3 % of the worldwide agricultural acreage, which is pre-

dominantly rain-fed and depends on the performance of the monsoonxv, to adequately feed

its population. Clinton, visiting the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, stressed the

promotion of research for higher yields, although genetically modified seeds are a

contentious issuexvi in India, which has till now only permitted BT Cotton.

Lessons for Europeans: The US addresses India with a coherent political and economic

approach, in contrast to European countries, whose highest common denominator vis-à-vis

India is in the field of sensitive human rights issues.xvii Otherwise, if it comes to hard business

interests, top politicians from various EU member states act in India not truly as Europeans

but literally as sales-men and sales-women for their national companies, as in the example

of nuclear reactors being built in India.

IV CONTROVERSIAL POSITIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Hillary Clinton highlighted the issue of climate change and appealed to find low carbon

solutions, whereas Dr. Jairam Ramesh, a very competent Minister of State for Environment

8


and Forests (independent charge), categorically stated, that India is not in a position to

accept legally binding emissions reductions. Jairam Ramesh, who graduated from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said to Clinton: “There is simply no case for the

pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce

emissions. As if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our

exports to countries such as yours. - It is possible for us to have an international agreement

that recognises common but differentiated responsibilities, and which also involves credible

actions by countries like India and China to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions in

future,"”xviii

India currently contributes only four per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,

compared to twenty per cent from the US. With only 1.8 tons of emissions per person,

compared to 22 tons per person in the US, India’s absolute emission levels are nevertheless

high and it is already the fifth largest emitter in the world after China, the US, the EU and

Russia. But this situation could drastically change. Given its current population of 1.2 billion

and further growth in the decades to comexix, per capita emissions of 6 tons for India would

translate into more than 6,000 million tons of emissions per year, thereby approaching or

even exceeding the current US emissions.

Hillary Clinton constructively declared, “We understand the differences each of our countries

face in trying to deal with climate change. So now let us see if we can find some creative

solution. - I am very confident the US and India can devise a plan that will dramatically

change the way we produce, consume and conserve energy and in the process spark an

explosion of new investment and millions of jobs," xx

India listed three areas of cooperation with the US on climate change:

Research through an Indo-US Foundation for Climate Change

Collaboration in environmental planning, regulation and management

Building institutional capacity for continuing research on the subject

“Ramesh said India wanted to engage the US in areas like development of solar energy,

biomass, clean coal, high voltage power transmission, smart grids and wastewater

utilization.”xxi

9


V PERSPECTIVES

“The Foreign Minister-level interaction touched on evolving a new dialogue architecture for

furthering the Indo-U.S. strategic relationship, the situation in the region, completing all

elements of the civil nuclear agreement, strengthening the goal of non-proliferation,

“pragmatic” approach to tackling climate change, fighting terrorism jointly and evolving fair

global trading rules.”xxii Given the commitment to further strengthen this broad-based

strategic dialogue, both sides, aware of “different perspectives” on several issues, will “work

through” them, according to Hillary Clinton, who also advocated a “problem solving”

approach to further improve the relationship between the two countries. One notes that

this approach truly deserves the name “strategic dialogue” in contrast with similar efforts

between India and some European countries.

Yet in a realistic manner, Dr. Manoj Joshi, Deputy Editor of Mail Today, expressed the still

uneven relationship: “Notwithstanding all this, India has to realize that there are finite limits

to its ties with the US. Adding the tag “strategic” does little justice to the relationship

between the world’s richest country and biggest military power and a third world country

which is also the host of the largest number of poor and unhealthy.” xxiii

Issues like cyber security, greater cooperation in anti-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean

and an institutionalized dialogue between India and the US on counter-terrorism in South

Asia (particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as proposed by K. Subrahmanyam, the doyen

of India’s security policy) could be additional topics. “If, as Clinton claimed, the India-US

partnership is not to be influenced by the US’s relationship with Pakistan and if both are to

have a mutually agreed-upon strategy to face a common threat, there is need for a

continuing structured bilateral consultative mechanism to deal with terrorism in the region.

This has to be over and above the annual strategic dialogue announced by Clinton.”xxiv

The US view India as a natural ally and as one of the key partners in shaping the 21st century,

irrespective of existing differences such as climate change, which will certainly remain a

slightly divisive issue in the bilateral relations. Experts recommend some kind of “green

partnership” with the transfer of technology and joint business ventures, similar to the

understanding between China and the US.

American pressure can be expected with regard to non-proliferation, since India, together

with Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

10


”…At the bilateral level, the “operationalization” of the iconic Indo-US civilian nuclear

agreement”xxv will be a significant litmus test for the new quality of bi-lateral relations.

At the same time, India will also be in close consultation with China on questions of climate

changexxvi, the Doha round of trade talks and the global financial crisis, as Foreign Minister S.

M. Krishna emphasized after talks with his Chinese counterpart (Hillary Clinton had just left

for Thailand at this point).

Nicholas Burns maintains that “the Indian Ocean will be in the 21st century what Europe was

in the 20th century for America”, and that therefore the US would recognize India’s regional

importance (“dominance”) not only in South Asia but also its role vis-à-vis the Middle East

(West Asia).xxvii India, “the only stable democracy in the region”, should therefore be an

important player for “more mature political relations at the global level, with the G 20 slowly

replacing the G 8.”

Manoj Joshi argues, that “the American relationship is an important component of New

Delhi’s world view and, indeed, self-esteem, and therefore there is need for their frequent

endorsement on the part of the US.”xxviii Others see in Clinton’s visit an additional example

for a new engagement by the United States in Asia as a whole, which had been neglected by

the previous administration.

Contrary to the fears of down-grading the Indo-US relationship, Hillary Clinton’s visit seems

to have added a new quality to the bi-lateral balance-sheet. “This (strategic dialogue) would

also enhance India’s role in the region and globally and would go a long way in India’s desire

to become a “pole” of significance in the emerging multi-polar world. New Delhi has only

itself to blame if it does not take advantage of this opportunity”xxix

As an important next step in the Indo-US relationship, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh

will be the first state visitor of President Barack Obama’s administration on November 24,

2009.

11


ENDNOTES

i US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mumbai and Delhi between the 17th and 22nd of July 2009. Interactions with socially committed top business leaders, NGO-Representatives, students and academicians in Universities and Colleges as well as extensive TV interviews supplemented her high-level talks with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna, Minister of State with Independent Charge for Environment and Forests Dr. Jairam Ramesh and a number of top politicians, including Opposition Leader L. K. Advani from the Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress President Sonia Gandhi. - On the eve of her visit, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan signed a joint statement in Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt, in which the de-linking from terrorism for a resumption of talks between both neighbours and, for a first time, Balochistan (with alleged Indian involvement, so Pakistan) have been mentioned. This led to sharp reactions by the combined opposition parties – the Communists alleged “American pressure” - and parts of the media, describing the statement as a “diplomatic blunder” by the Indian Prime Minister.

ii Nicholas Burns is currently Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He was a former Under Secretary of Political Affairs, US Department of State, during the Bush Presidency.

iii Nicholas Burns: Future Challenges for the United States and India, Speech at the ASPEN Institute and Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), New Delhi, 21. 8. 2009

iv Talk by Robert Blackwill on the 5th of May 2009 on “Indo-US relations”, organized by the Confederation of Indian Industries and the ASPEN institute.

v Mail Today, 20. 7. 2009, p. 1

vi India must make most of Clinton’s visit. Mail Today, 19. 7. 2009, p. 10

vii G. Parthasaraty, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi and a former Indian Ambassador to Pakistan, on TV in Headlines Today, 19. 7. 2009

viii According to Nicholas Burns

ix Mail Today, 20. 7. 2009, p. 18 – Nicholas Burns stressed a growing Indo-US partnership after 9/11 in South Asia, especially with regard to Sri Lanka, Nepal but also Afghanistan.

x Although historically the erstwhile Mughal and British rulers in Delhi had a world-view which encompassed the whole sub-continental region and its periphery.

xi According to Nicholas Burns, the business communities in the US and India have been ahead of both governments in their close interactions (A high-tech bridge).

xii Interview with Bharka Dutt on NDTV, 19. 7. 2009

xiii Ajay Bannerjee: Defence deal with US: Indian concerns will remain. The Tribune, 22. 7. 2009 (on-line)

xiv Space agreement to help launch ‘India-US 3.0’. The Hindu, 20. 7. 2009 (on-line)

xv The dismal Monsoon in 2009 led to a severe drought in many districts across the country with high agricultural prices and a looming possibility of famine.

xvi See the Website of Gene Campaign in India, headed by Dr. Suman Sahai: http-www.genecampaign.org

12


xvii There are certainly a number of issues, see for instance Syed Nazakat “India’s secret torture chambers” The Week, July 12, July, 2009, p. 27 - 34

xviii Dipanjan Chaudhury: No Green Light to Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Mail Today, 20. 7. 2009, p. 23

xix Around the middle of the 21st century India will be the most populous country on earth with about 1.5 billion inhabitants or even more, ahead of China.

xx Meanwhile Jairam Ramesh announced “…voluntary and unilateral mitigation by India in the transportation and energy sector, without compromising development targets.” (New Delhi, 7. 9. 2009)

xxi Dipanjan Chaudhury, op. cit.

xxii Sandeep Dikshit: India, U. S. firm up 3 high-tech pacts. The Hindu, 21. 7. 2009 (on-line)

xxiii Manoj Joshi: Holding Hands In New Delhi. India gets some reassurance from a new administration. Mail Today, 23. 7. 2009, p 10. Manoj Joshi is also a foreign- and security policy expert.

xxiv K. Subrahmanyam: Strength In Unity. US, India need to be on the same page to tackle terror. The Times of India, 23. 7. 2009, p. 16

xxv Arundhati Ghose: A revival of the nuclear issue? Mint, 20. 7. 2009, p. 23

xxvi Dr. Jairam Ramesh concluded at the end of August 2009 a visit to Delhi, where he emphasized the close international cooperation between India and China with regard to climate change.

xxvii Hans-Eberhard Dingels/Klaus Voll: Relationship without impact? India and Germany in the Turbulent 21st Century. In: Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (2005): India & Germany shaping the future. New Delhi, P. 213 – 216, (ISBN 81-902345-2-8) This article reflects possibilities of an increasing foreign policy and security cooperation between Europe and India with regard to the regions located between them.

xxviii Manoj Joshi, ibid., p. 10

xxix W. Pal Sidhu: Indo-US strategic ties seen at a higher plane. Mint, 20. 7. 2009, p. 04 The author is Vice-President of programmes at the East West Institute, New York.

a new quality in indo-us relations - themenplattform ez 40 rue montoyer, 1000 bruxelles / tel: +32 2...

Documents