B.RAMAN
India has had six Presidential visits from the US----those of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush and now Barack Obama.
Obama was accompanied by his wife Michelle. His predecessors, except Jimmy Carter, were not accompanied by their wives. Presumably because their wives were not interested in India. Or because, the Presidential aides thought it was not necessary
There have been instances of First Ladies visiting India on their own even though their husbands did not consider it necessary to make a Presidential visit to India. An example that comes to mind is that of Jaqueline Kennedy, who came with her sister.
There have also been instances of Presidential offspring coming to India----noticed or unnoticed. Example : Chelsea, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
There have been many instances of visiting Heads of State or Government from other countries being accompanied by their First Ladies.
The visit of Michelle stood apart from all other visits of First Ladies in the past.
This was not only because of her grace and natural charm. The other First Ladies were also gracious and charming.
The way Michelle won the heart of India, no other First Lady had won in the past.
The other First Ladies restricted themselves to mingling with India's social elite--- ex-maharajas, ex-maharanis, Bollywood actors, fashion-designers etc.
Jacqueline Kennedy was mostly in the company of the ex-Maharani of Jaipur and other ex-princes of Rajasthan.
Michelle was the first First Lady to have mingled with the Aam Admi---the common man. And woman.
She did mingle with the political and social elite at the two formal banquets hosted for her husband.
The rest of the time----whether in Mumbai or in Delhi--- she was mostly in the company of the ordinary people of India---children and adults.
A totally captivated country watched her chatting, joking, singing and dancing with India's Aam Admi. Very naturally.
Those were not put up or orchestrated shows for the photo. What one saw was her natural joy and exuberance in the company of ordinary people.
She won hundreds of thousands of new friends for the US----in the old as well as the new generation.
Her contribution to the success of the President's visit was immense.
Whereas her husband was the toast of the Indian elite, she became the toast of the Aam Admi.
Whoever thought of enabling her to mingle freely with the Aam Admi instead of keeping her confined to the company of the social elite has to be a genius.
It is a pity the President and Michelle came to India after the mid-term elections to the US Congress were over.
If they had come during the election campaign, the people-friendly images of Michelle beamed to the US might have won some extra seats for the Democrats in the elections. (12-11-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, November 11, 2010
COMMENTS ON OBAMA'S VISIT: PART V & LAST-- UNWARRANTED REMARKS ON INDIA'S MYANMAR POLICY
B.RAMAN
President Barack Obama's support for India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC) was not direct and unconditional. It was indirect and conditional on an agreement being reached in the UN General Assembly on a reformed UNSC that will include India as a permanent member. This is the meaning of what he said in his address to the Parliament on November 8,2010. He said: " As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security —- especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."
2. A reformed UNSC with India as a permanent member is a long way off. China is not prepared to support a reformed UNSC which includes Japan as a permanent member. The US is unlikely to support any reforms which exclude Japan. The Islamic world, at the prompting of Pakistan, has been canvasing for a reformed UNSC which would include at least one Islamic nation as a permanent member----either Indonesia or Saudi Arabia. If this idea is accepted and the US prevails in having Japan included, there will be two new members from Asia and there will be no place for a third new permanent member. India would be automatically excluded. China has been firm that the new permanent members should not have the right of veto---- a condition which would not be acceptable to India.It is going to take years before these issues are sorted out. Public and media euphoria in India over the statement of Obama was, therefore, not called for.
3. In the context of India's aspiration to become a permanent member of the UNSC, Obama made critical references to India's support to the military regime in Myanmar in a language which was unwarranted and injected a jarring note in an otherwise cordial and friendly visit.He said: "Now, let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India —- and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership -— to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented, that sanctions are enforced; that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all individuals. This includes our responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.....Now, we all understand every country will follow its own path. No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another. But when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed —- as they have been in Burma, for example -- then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protestors and incarcerate political prisoners decade after decade. It is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of bankrupt regimes. It is unacceptable to steal elections, as the regime in Burma has done again for all the world to see. Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community —- especially leaders like the United States and India —- to condemn it. And if I can be frank, in international fora, India has often shied away from some of these issues. But speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. It’s not violating the rights of sovereign nations. It is staying true to our democratic principles. It is giving meaning to the human rights that we say are universal. And it sustains the progress that in Asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security in the world."
4. It would have been impolite and inappropriate for our leaders to have replied to Obama immediately after his speech. He was our honoured guest. Now that his visit is over and he has left the country, it is important for our Prime Minister to point out that Obama at his Town Hall meeting at Mumbai on November 7 had sought to justify the US reluctance to condemn Pakistan on the terrorism issue on the ground that Pakistan is strategically important to the US. Washington DC has been silent on the suppression of the rights of the Balochs, the Sindhis, the Mohajirs,the Pashtuns and the people of Gilgit-Baltistan by successive regimes in Pakistan. It has kept quiet on the frequent massacre of the Shias by the Sunni extremists and the failure of the Government to protect them. It has not taken any action for stopping the use of terrorism by the State of Pakistan and for the interrogation of A.Q.Khan, the nuclear scientist, on his clandestine proliferation of military nuclear technology and equipment to North Korea, Iran and Libya.After 9/11, the US, which was dependent on Pakistan for its war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, kept quiet on the suppression of democracy by Gen.Pervez Musharraf. In spite of all the transgressions of the military regime and its successor, it has been pouring money into Pakistan by way of economic and military assistance. For nearly three decades, the US closed its eyes to the suppression of the human rights of the Indonesian people by the Suharto-led military regime.Obama's remarks on India's relations with Myanmar were totally unjustified. Myanmar is strategically as important to India as Pakistan is to the US. (11-11-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
President Barack Obama's support for India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC) was not direct and unconditional. It was indirect and conditional on an agreement being reached in the UN General Assembly on a reformed UNSC that will include India as a permanent member. This is the meaning of what he said in his address to the Parliament on November 8,2010. He said: " As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security —- especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."
2. A reformed UNSC with India as a permanent member is a long way off. China is not prepared to support a reformed UNSC which includes Japan as a permanent member. The US is unlikely to support any reforms which exclude Japan. The Islamic world, at the prompting of Pakistan, has been canvasing for a reformed UNSC which would include at least one Islamic nation as a permanent member----either Indonesia or Saudi Arabia. If this idea is accepted and the US prevails in having Japan included, there will be two new members from Asia and there will be no place for a third new permanent member. India would be automatically excluded. China has been firm that the new permanent members should not have the right of veto---- a condition which would not be acceptable to India.It is going to take years before these issues are sorted out. Public and media euphoria in India over the statement of Obama was, therefore, not called for.
3. In the context of India's aspiration to become a permanent member of the UNSC, Obama made critical references to India's support to the military regime in Myanmar in a language which was unwarranted and injected a jarring note in an otherwise cordial and friendly visit.He said: "Now, let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India —- and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership -— to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented, that sanctions are enforced; that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all individuals. This includes our responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.....Now, we all understand every country will follow its own path. No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another. But when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed —- as they have been in Burma, for example -- then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protestors and incarcerate political prisoners decade after decade. It is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of bankrupt regimes. It is unacceptable to steal elections, as the regime in Burma has done again for all the world to see. Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community —- especially leaders like the United States and India —- to condemn it. And if I can be frank, in international fora, India has often shied away from some of these issues. But speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. It’s not violating the rights of sovereign nations. It is staying true to our democratic principles. It is giving meaning to the human rights that we say are universal. And it sustains the progress that in Asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security in the world."
4. It would have been impolite and inappropriate for our leaders to have replied to Obama immediately after his speech. He was our honoured guest. Now that his visit is over and he has left the country, it is important for our Prime Minister to point out that Obama at his Town Hall meeting at Mumbai on November 7 had sought to justify the US reluctance to condemn Pakistan on the terrorism issue on the ground that Pakistan is strategically important to the US. Washington DC has been silent on the suppression of the rights of the Balochs, the Sindhis, the Mohajirs,the Pashtuns and the people of Gilgit-Baltistan by successive regimes in Pakistan. It has kept quiet on the frequent massacre of the Shias by the Sunni extremists and the failure of the Government to protect them. It has not taken any action for stopping the use of terrorism by the State of Pakistan and for the interrogation of A.Q.Khan, the nuclear scientist, on his clandestine proliferation of military nuclear technology and equipment to North Korea, Iran and Libya.After 9/11, the US, which was dependent on Pakistan for its war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, kept quiet on the suppression of democracy by Gen.Pervez Musharraf. In spite of all the transgressions of the military regime and its successor, it has been pouring money into Pakistan by way of economic and military assistance. For nearly three decades, the US closed its eyes to the suppression of the human rights of the Indonesian people by the Suharto-led military regime.Obama's remarks on India's relations with Myanmar were totally unjustified. Myanmar is strategically as important to India as Pakistan is to the US. (11-11-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
COMMENTS ON OBAMA'S VISIT: PART IV-- US, INDIA & CHINA
B.RAMAN
On his way to China in November,2009, President Barack Obama had made his first halt in Japan to underline the importance attached by him to the USA’s relations with Japan, with which it has a security relationship. There were detailed references to China in his speeches and comments in Tokyo. In one of his speeches, he said: "The United States does not seek to contain China, nor does a deeper relationship with China mean a weakening of our bilateral alliances. On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations. And so in Beijing and beyond, we will work to deepen our Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and improve communication between our militaries. We will not agree on every issue, and the United States will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear – and that includes respect for the religion and cultures of all people. Because support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America. But we can move these discussions forward in a spirit of partnership rather than rancor."
2. After his visit to India from November 6 to 8,2010, he proceeded to Indonesia. There were detailed references to China in his remarks at Jakarta. Addressing the media after his arrival in Jakarta from New Delhi on November 9, he reportedly said that the US will not seek to contain China. He added: "We want China to succeed and prosper. China's continuous development is good for the US.” He also said that the US regards China as "a huge, expanding market, where Americans can sell goods and services", and treats China's prosperity and security as "a positive".
3. As compared to his readiness to speak openly and in detail about China at Tokyo last year and at Jakarta now, he was economical in his references to China during his stay in India. However, in his address to the Indian Parliament on November 8, he spoke of his policy of deepening co-operation with India and China in two different contexts. He spoke of his policy of comprehensive engagement with the world based on mutual interest and mutual respect. He then added: “And a central pillar of this engagement is forging deeper cooperation with 21st century centers of influence -— and that must necessarily include India.”
4. Subsequently, he referred to the US again playing a leadership role in Asia and, in this context, he said: “More broadly, India and the United States can partner in Asia. Today, the United States is once again playing a leadership role in Asia —- strengthening old alliances; deepening relationships, as we are doing with China; and we’re reengaging with regional organizations like ASEAN and joining the East Asia summit —- organizations in which India is also a partner. Like your neighbors in Southeast Asia, we want India not only to “look East,” we want India to “engage East” —- because it will increase the security and prosperity of all our nations.”
5. After his visit to China in November,2009, there were concerns in India that he was giving greater priority to the USA’s relations with China. There were also concerns over the following formulation in the Joint Statement issued by him and President Hu Jintao: “The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.”
6.In the weeks preceding Obama’s visit to India, there was an attempt by the Obama Administration to remove the impression in the Indian mind that his administration was giving greater priority to China and was encouraging a strategic role for China in South Asia in the context of Afghanistan and Indo-Pakistani relations. The US policy was clarified by Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, in a speech at the East-West Centre at Honolulu on October 28. She said: "The relationship between China and the United States is complex and of enormous consequence but we are committed to getting it right. There are some in both countries who believe that China's interests and ours are fundamentally at odds. They apply a zero-sum calculation to our relationship, so whenever one of us succeeds, the other must fail. But that is not our view. In the 21st century, it is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries. In a crowded field of highly dynamic, increasingly influential emerging nations, two stand out: India and China. Their simultaneous rise is reshaping the world and our ability to cooperate effectively with these countries will be a critical test of our leadership."
7. The policy of co-operating effectively with both India and China was also underlined by Obama’s White House aides in their interactions with the media before his visit. This policy of equality of strategic relationship with both India and China without favouring one to the detriment of the other is reflected in the references to India’s engagement with the East in Obama’s address to the Indian Parliament and in the following formulation in the Joint Statement issued by him and Manmohan Singh: “The two leaders have a shared vision for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, the Indian Ocean region and the Pacific region and committed to work together, and with others in the region, for the evolution of an open, balanced and inclusive architecture in the region. In this context, the leaders reaffirmed their support for the East Asia Summit and committed to regular consultations in this regard. The United States welcomes, in particular, India's leadership in expanding prosperity and security across the region. The two leaders agreed to deepen existing regular strategic consultations on developments in East Asia, and decided to expand and intensify their strategic consultations to cover regional and global issues of mutual interest, including Central and West Asia. In an increasingly inter-dependent world, the stability of, and access to, the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is vital for the security and economic prosperity of nations. Acknowledging their commitment to openness and responsible international conduct, and on the basis of their shared values, India and the United States have launched a dialogue to explore ways to work together, as well as with other countries, to develop a shared vision for these critical domains to promote peace, security and development. The leaders reaffirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation, in accordance with relevant universally agreed principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and peaceful settlement of maritime disputes.”
8. Thus according to him, just as China has a useful role to play in South Asia as stated in his Joint Statement with Hu, India has a useful role to play in South-East and East Asia. It is evident that the US will not like to get involved in matters relating to the Sino-Indian border dispute. Recent remarks by Mrs. Clinton and other US officials have indicated that the US will not be averse to playing a role in the search for a mutually satisfactory solution to the maritime disputes involving China with Japan in the East China Sea and with some ASEAN countries in the South China Sea. But, it does not envisage a role for itself in the territorial disputes between India and China. This suits India too which prefers sorting out bilateral issues----whether with Pakistan or China--- at the bilateral level without the involvement of third parties.
9. What India would want is that just as it would prefer the US continuing its effective presence in Afghanistan to act as a check on Pakistan, it would prefer the US continuing its effective presence in South-East and East Asia to act as a check on China without itself getting involved in any relationship with the US which might be interpreted by Beijing as directed against it.
10. What does Obama mean by saying that India and the US can partner in Asia? What will be the objectives of such partnership? How would India react to the proposal? Answers to these questions are not available. As part of the policy of re-asserting the US leadership in Asia, there has recently been a surge in US diplomatic activity in South-East and East Asia and Australia. Mrs.Clinton and Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, had visited separately a number of countries in the region. They had also visited jointly South Korea and Australia.
11. From their statements and comments and from those of Obama, it would appear that what Obama probably has in mind is not the revival of the idea of his predecessor George Bush of a four-cornered strategic relationship involving the US, India, Japan and Australia, but parallel strategic partnerships of the US with each of these countries in order to strengthen peace and security in the region without giving it the shape of an alliance. Where would the USA’s relations with China----which Obama wants to deepen simultaneously--- fall in this parallel arrangement? It is not clear. Obama’s new Asian policy is still taking shape and not much thought seems to have been given by his advisers to the various implications of it.
12. This may please be read in continuation of my following articles:
(a). OBAMA: HOW TO COOPERATE EFFECTIVELY WITH BOTH INDIA & CHINA of October 29,2010, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers42%5Cpaper4135.html
(b). The Return of the US to Asia: Core Interests Vs Mutual Interests of November 3,2010, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers42%5Cpaper4142.html ( 11-11-10) ---To be continued
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
On his way to China in November,2009, President Barack Obama had made his first halt in Japan to underline the importance attached by him to the USA’s relations with Japan, with which it has a security relationship. There were detailed references to China in his speeches and comments in Tokyo. In one of his speeches, he said: "The United States does not seek to contain China, nor does a deeper relationship with China mean a weakening of our bilateral alliances. On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations. And so in Beijing and beyond, we will work to deepen our Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and improve communication between our militaries. We will not agree on every issue, and the United States will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear – and that includes respect for the religion and cultures of all people. Because support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America. But we can move these discussions forward in a spirit of partnership rather than rancor."
2. After his visit to India from November 6 to 8,2010, he proceeded to Indonesia. There were detailed references to China in his remarks at Jakarta. Addressing the media after his arrival in Jakarta from New Delhi on November 9, he reportedly said that the US will not seek to contain China. He added: "We want China to succeed and prosper. China's continuous development is good for the US.” He also said that the US regards China as "a huge, expanding market, where Americans can sell goods and services", and treats China's prosperity and security as "a positive".
3. As compared to his readiness to speak openly and in detail about China at Tokyo last year and at Jakarta now, he was economical in his references to China during his stay in India. However, in his address to the Indian Parliament on November 8, he spoke of his policy of deepening co-operation with India and China in two different contexts. He spoke of his policy of comprehensive engagement with the world based on mutual interest and mutual respect. He then added: “And a central pillar of this engagement is forging deeper cooperation with 21st century centers of influence -— and that must necessarily include India.”
4. Subsequently, he referred to the US again playing a leadership role in Asia and, in this context, he said: “More broadly, India and the United States can partner in Asia. Today, the United States is once again playing a leadership role in Asia —- strengthening old alliances; deepening relationships, as we are doing with China; and we’re reengaging with regional organizations like ASEAN and joining the East Asia summit —- organizations in which India is also a partner. Like your neighbors in Southeast Asia, we want India not only to “look East,” we want India to “engage East” —- because it will increase the security and prosperity of all our nations.”
5. After his visit to China in November,2009, there were concerns in India that he was giving greater priority to the USA’s relations with China. There were also concerns over the following formulation in the Joint Statement issued by him and President Hu Jintao: “The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.”
6.In the weeks preceding Obama’s visit to India, there was an attempt by the Obama Administration to remove the impression in the Indian mind that his administration was giving greater priority to China and was encouraging a strategic role for China in South Asia in the context of Afghanistan and Indo-Pakistani relations. The US policy was clarified by Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, in a speech at the East-West Centre at Honolulu on October 28. She said: "The relationship between China and the United States is complex and of enormous consequence but we are committed to getting it right. There are some in both countries who believe that China's interests and ours are fundamentally at odds. They apply a zero-sum calculation to our relationship, so whenever one of us succeeds, the other must fail. But that is not our view. In the 21st century, it is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries. In a crowded field of highly dynamic, increasingly influential emerging nations, two stand out: India and China. Their simultaneous rise is reshaping the world and our ability to cooperate effectively with these countries will be a critical test of our leadership."
7. The policy of co-operating effectively with both India and China was also underlined by Obama’s White House aides in their interactions with the media before his visit. This policy of equality of strategic relationship with both India and China without favouring one to the detriment of the other is reflected in the references to India’s engagement with the East in Obama’s address to the Indian Parliament and in the following formulation in the Joint Statement issued by him and Manmohan Singh: “The two leaders have a shared vision for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, the Indian Ocean region and the Pacific region and committed to work together, and with others in the region, for the evolution of an open, balanced and inclusive architecture in the region. In this context, the leaders reaffirmed their support for the East Asia Summit and committed to regular consultations in this regard. The United States welcomes, in particular, India's leadership in expanding prosperity and security across the region. The two leaders agreed to deepen existing regular strategic consultations on developments in East Asia, and decided to expand and intensify their strategic consultations to cover regional and global issues of mutual interest, including Central and West Asia. In an increasingly inter-dependent world, the stability of, and access to, the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is vital for the security and economic prosperity of nations. Acknowledging their commitment to openness and responsible international conduct, and on the basis of their shared values, India and the United States have launched a dialogue to explore ways to work together, as well as with other countries, to develop a shared vision for these critical domains to promote peace, security and development. The leaders reaffirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation, in accordance with relevant universally agreed principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and peaceful settlement of maritime disputes.”
8. Thus according to him, just as China has a useful role to play in South Asia as stated in his Joint Statement with Hu, India has a useful role to play in South-East and East Asia. It is evident that the US will not like to get involved in matters relating to the Sino-Indian border dispute. Recent remarks by Mrs. Clinton and other US officials have indicated that the US will not be averse to playing a role in the search for a mutually satisfactory solution to the maritime disputes involving China with Japan in the East China Sea and with some ASEAN countries in the South China Sea. But, it does not envisage a role for itself in the territorial disputes between India and China. This suits India too which prefers sorting out bilateral issues----whether with Pakistan or China--- at the bilateral level without the involvement of third parties.
9. What India would want is that just as it would prefer the US continuing its effective presence in Afghanistan to act as a check on Pakistan, it would prefer the US continuing its effective presence in South-East and East Asia to act as a check on China without itself getting involved in any relationship with the US which might be interpreted by Beijing as directed against it.
10. What does Obama mean by saying that India and the US can partner in Asia? What will be the objectives of such partnership? How would India react to the proposal? Answers to these questions are not available. As part of the policy of re-asserting the US leadership in Asia, there has recently been a surge in US diplomatic activity in South-East and East Asia and Australia. Mrs.Clinton and Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, had visited separately a number of countries in the region. They had also visited jointly South Korea and Australia.
11. From their statements and comments and from those of Obama, it would appear that what Obama probably has in mind is not the revival of the idea of his predecessor George Bush of a four-cornered strategic relationship involving the US, India, Japan and Australia, but parallel strategic partnerships of the US with each of these countries in order to strengthen peace and security in the region without giving it the shape of an alliance. Where would the USA’s relations with China----which Obama wants to deepen simultaneously--- fall in this parallel arrangement? It is not clear. Obama’s new Asian policy is still taking shape and not much thought seems to have been given by his advisers to the various implications of it.
12. This may please be read in continuation of my following articles:
(a). OBAMA: HOW TO COOPERATE EFFECTIVELY WITH BOTH INDIA & CHINA of October 29,2010, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers42%5Cpaper4135.html
(b). The Return of the US to Asia: Core Interests Vs Mutual Interests of November 3,2010, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers42%5Cpaper4142.html ( 11-11-10) ---To be continued
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
COMMENTS ON OBAMA'S VISIT: PART III---COUNTER-TERRORISM: NEXT STEP FORWARD
B.RAMAN
During the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington DC in November,2009, there was considerable hype regarding the agreement on a Counter-Terrorism Initiative reached during the visit. It was projected as a major achievement of the visit. This was followed by a Memorandum of Understanding on the subject reached by the officials of the two countries in July last.
2. Since then, there has been a certain disenchantment on this subject in the Indian security community due to its dissatisfaction over the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to keep it informed of the visits to India by David Coleman Headley of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET). His visits were meant to collect operational intelligence for the LET to facilitate its 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai.
3. This disenchantment is still lingering. As a result, there was a noticeable lack of hype during the visit of Obama on the subject of counter-terrorism co-operation. There were only brief and passing references to the subject by Obama at the joint press conference with the Prime Minister on the conclusion of the formal talks on November 8,2010, and in the Joint Statement issued at the end of the visit later that day.
4.Obama said at the press conference: “ To ensure the safety of our citizens, we’re deepening our efforts to prevent terrorism. Cooperation between our countries’ intelligence and law enforcement communities has already reached unprecedented levels. And today, we’re taking another step -- a new effort between our Department of Homeland Security and the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs to improve security at our ports, our airports, and our borders.”
5. The Joint Statement said: “Building upon the Counter Terrorism Initiative signed in July 2010, the two leaders announced a new Homeland Security Dialogue between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security and agreed to further deepen operational cooperation, counter-terrorism technology transfers and capacity building. The two leaders also emphasized the importance of close cooperation in combating terrorist financing and in protecting the international financial system.”
6. The idea of a Homeland Security Dialogue between the USA’s Department of Homeland Security and India’s Ministry of Home Affairs was born following the visit of P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister, to Washington DC in June during which he had detailed discussions on how the DHS functions. While intelligence-sharing between the agencies of the two countries is still unsatisfactory, there has been considerable improvement in US assistance for capacity building to strengthen our physical security. Even before Obama’s visit there was intense interaction between the physical security agencies of the two countries in matters like megacity policing, security of urban transport , security against terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction material, cyber security etc.
7.This co-operation is now expected to be enhanced under the proposed Homeland Security Dialogue. Obama mentioned specifically improving security at ports, airports and borders as an objective of the proposed Dialogue. Even in the past, there had been interactions between the security experts of the two countries on strengthening security at airports and ports. What will be new is interaction on strengthening security measures on the border to prevent infiltrations by terrorists. This indicates a willingness by the US to help India in strengthening anti-infiltration security measures which could be applied to the Pakistan as well as Bangladesh borders.
8. Another interesting idea is “further deepening operational co-operation”. In the past, Indian intelligence and security agencies had been reluctant to agree to operational co-operation in the form of joint operations with their Western counterparts. Joint operations involve a quid pro quo, which could be politically embarrassing. Examples of possible quid pro quos are: India helping the US in its operations against Al Qaeda in return for US help in Indian operations against the LET, US assistance for India in meeting threats from Pakistan in return for Indian assistance to the US in meeting threats from countries of concern to the US etc. Have the Indian agencies got over their mental reservations on joint operations with their US counterparts? It seems to be so.
9. Counter-terrorism technology transfers is another unexplored area so far. So is the idea of co-operation in the research and development of counter-terrorism and homeland security technologies. These are areas which offer considerable scope for co-operation between the security agencies of the two countries. ( 10-11-2010) --- To be continued
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
During the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington DC in November,2009, there was considerable hype regarding the agreement on a Counter-Terrorism Initiative reached during the visit. It was projected as a major achievement of the visit. This was followed by a Memorandum of Understanding on the subject reached by the officials of the two countries in July last.
2. Since then, there has been a certain disenchantment on this subject in the Indian security community due to its dissatisfaction over the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to keep it informed of the visits to India by David Coleman Headley of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET). His visits were meant to collect operational intelligence for the LET to facilitate its 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai.
3. This disenchantment is still lingering. As a result, there was a noticeable lack of hype during the visit of Obama on the subject of counter-terrorism co-operation. There were only brief and passing references to the subject by Obama at the joint press conference with the Prime Minister on the conclusion of the formal talks on November 8,2010, and in the Joint Statement issued at the end of the visit later that day.
4.Obama said at the press conference: “ To ensure the safety of our citizens, we’re deepening our efforts to prevent terrorism. Cooperation between our countries’ intelligence and law enforcement communities has already reached unprecedented levels. And today, we’re taking another step -- a new effort between our Department of Homeland Security and the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs to improve security at our ports, our airports, and our borders.”
5. The Joint Statement said: “Building upon the Counter Terrorism Initiative signed in July 2010, the two leaders announced a new Homeland Security Dialogue between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security and agreed to further deepen operational cooperation, counter-terrorism technology transfers and capacity building. The two leaders also emphasized the importance of close cooperation in combating terrorist financing and in protecting the international financial system.”
6. The idea of a Homeland Security Dialogue between the USA’s Department of Homeland Security and India’s Ministry of Home Affairs was born following the visit of P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister, to Washington DC in June during which he had detailed discussions on how the DHS functions. While intelligence-sharing between the agencies of the two countries is still unsatisfactory, there has been considerable improvement in US assistance for capacity building to strengthen our physical security. Even before Obama’s visit there was intense interaction between the physical security agencies of the two countries in matters like megacity policing, security of urban transport , security against terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction material, cyber security etc.
7.This co-operation is now expected to be enhanced under the proposed Homeland Security Dialogue. Obama mentioned specifically improving security at ports, airports and borders as an objective of the proposed Dialogue. Even in the past, there had been interactions between the security experts of the two countries on strengthening security at airports and ports. What will be new is interaction on strengthening security measures on the border to prevent infiltrations by terrorists. This indicates a willingness by the US to help India in strengthening anti-infiltration security measures which could be applied to the Pakistan as well as Bangladesh borders.
8. Another interesting idea is “further deepening operational co-operation”. In the past, Indian intelligence and security agencies had been reluctant to agree to operational co-operation in the form of joint operations with their Western counterparts. Joint operations involve a quid pro quo, which could be politically embarrassing. Examples of possible quid pro quos are: India helping the US in its operations against Al Qaeda in return for US help in Indian operations against the LET, US assistance for India in meeting threats from Pakistan in return for Indian assistance to the US in meeting threats from countries of concern to the US etc. Have the Indian agencies got over their mental reservations on joint operations with their US counterparts? It seems to be so.
9. Counter-terrorism technology transfers is another unexplored area so far. So is the idea of co-operation in the research and development of counter-terrorism and homeland security technologies. These are areas which offer considerable scope for co-operation between the security agencies of the two countries. ( 10-11-2010) --- To be continued
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
COMMENTS ON OBAMA’S VISIT: PART II----FOCUS ON PAKISTAN
B.RAMAN
During the entire three-day visit of President Barack Obama to India from November 6 to 8,2010, the Indian public focus remained disproportionately on what he had to say on Pakistan’s continued use of terrorism against India. The Indian public opinion expected him to condemn Pakistan in public if he was sincere in his professions of friendship for India.
2.It was, therefore, disappointed when he said nothing about Pakistan’s role in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai in his address to the relatives of the victims of the terrorist attacks at the Taj Mahal Hotel immediately after his arrival on November 6,2010.
3. This disappointment turned to indignation the next morning when he projected Pakistan in what the Indian public opinion regarded as positive terms while answering a question from a student at a Town Hall meeting in Mumbai, who asked him why the US is not declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. In his reply, Obama described Pakistan as an enormous State with enormous potential and as a State which is strategically important not only for the US, but for the world. He expressed his view that a stable Pakistan would be in the interest of India. Indian public opinion was shocked when he described extremism as not uniquely confined to Pakistan, highlighted the casualties being suffered by Pakistan itself at the hands of extremists and explained the difficulties being faced by Pakistan in dealing with the extremists. His reply created an impression that he did not believe that the Pakistani State had any role in the activities of the terrorists.
4.The widespread indignation over his reply apparently caused concern in Government of India circles that the visit may end on a negative note if corrective pronouncements, which would reassure the Indian public, were not made. These circles started leaking to the media that the Joint Statement to be issued at the end of the visit would contain strong references against the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET). They also suggested that one should not prematurely judge Obama and that one should wait to hear his address to the Parliament and read the Joint Statement before coming to any conclusions.
5.The Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh was apparently concerned over the negative public reactions to Obama’s observations at the Town Hall meeting. His concern was reflected in his unusually strong observations while replying to a question at a joint press conference with Obama at New Delhi on November 8 on the conclusion of the formal talks. He said: “You cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine is as active as ever before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we will be very happy to engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues.” By emphasizing the role of the “terror-induced coercion” of the terror machine, he made it clear that in India’s view the Pakistani State was responsible for the acts of terrorism in Indian territory. His observations were intended to reassure the Indian public opinion and make it clear to Obama that the Government of India did not agree with the manner in which Obama projected the problem at the Town Hall meeting.
6. One could sense the happiness among the public over the Prime Minister’s firm observations. Even then, Obama refrained from any criticism of Pakistan at the press conference. His observations on terrorism were of a general nature and related to Indo-US co-operation in counter-terrorism. He said at the press conference: “ To ensure the safety of our citizens, we’re deepening our efforts to prevent terrorism. Cooperation between our countries’ intelligence and law enforcement communities has already reached unprecedented levels. And today, we’re taking another step -- a new effort between our Department of Homeland Security and the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs to improve security at our ports, our airports, and our borders.”
7. Apparently, Obama and his aides realized that his ambiguous references to Pakistan’s role in terrorism directed against India had given a bad start to the visit. In his address to the Parliament on the evening of November 8, Obama sought to correct the wrong impression that he was evasive on the role of Pakistan. He said: “America's fight against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates is why we persevere in Afghanistan, where major development assistance from India has improved the lives of the Afghan people. We're making progress in our mission to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan forces so they can take the lead for their security. And while I have made it clear that American forces will begin the transition to Afghan responsibility next summer, I have also made it clear that America's commitment to the Afghan people will endure. The United States will not abandon the people of Afghanistan—or the region—to the violent extremists who threaten us all. Our strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates has to succeed on both sides of the border. That is why we have worked with the Pakistani government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region. The Pakistani government increasingly recognizes that these networks are not just a threat outside of Pakistan—they are a threat to the Pakistani people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists. And we will continue to insist to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice. We must also recognize that all of us have and interest in both an Afghanistan and a Pakistan that is stable, prosperous and democratic—and none more so than India.”
8. These observations were widely greeted in India and succeeded to a considerable extent in diluting the indignation initially caused by his observations in Mumbai and by his seeming reluctance to talk negatively of Pakistan while in Indian territory. The references to the issue in the Joint Statement went even further in erasing the indignation. By the evening of November 8, Obama was the toast of India---partly due to his naming Pakistan unambiguously and partly due to his supporting ---though in guarded language--- India’s case for permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
9. The Joint Statement said as follows on terrorism : “ They (the two leaders) reiterated that success in Afghanistan and regional and global security require elimination of safe havens and infrastructure for terrorism and violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Condemning terrorism in all its forms, the two sides agreed that all terrorist networks, including Lashkar e-Tayiba, must be defeated and called for Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Building upon the Counter Terrorism Initiative signed in July 2010, the two leaders announced a new Homeland Security Dialogue between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security and agreed to further deepen operational cooperation, counter-terrorism technology transfers and capacity building. The two leaders also emphasized the importance of close cooperation in combating terrorist financing and in protecting the international financial system.”
10. The word safehaven generally used by the Americans is seen in India as referring to the sanctuaries in Pakistani territory of foreign terrorists belonging to Al Qaeda and its foreign affiliates. The Indians do not look upon it as a reference to the terrorist camps of the Pakistani jihadi organizations which pose a threat to India. Obama’s anti-safehaven policy is viewed in India as directed against Al Qaeda and its affiliates through intensified drone (pilotless plane) strikes and other means and not as directed against the terrorist camps of the anti-India Pakistani jihadi organizations which act as surrogates of the Pakistani intelligence. The specific reference in the Joint Statement to the need to “eliminate safehavens and infrastructure for terrorism” and defeat “all terrorist networks including LET” is meant to reassure Indian public opinion that the anti-safehaven policy of the US has no double standards.
11. Indian public opinion is satisfied for the moment that the US has corrected the ambiguities in its position. How long the satisfaction will endure will depend upon how effectively the US is able to make Pakistan act against the “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistani territory directed against India. One had seen in the past that US assurances to India on this subject remained unfulfilled due to the clout enjoyed by the Pakistan Army in the Pentagon and by its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the Central Intelligence Agency. Will India’s past experience of broken promises by the US be repeated in future? If that happens, the gains made during Obama’s visit will be neutralized. ( 10-11-10)---To be continued
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
During the entire three-day visit of President Barack Obama to India from November 6 to 8,2010, the Indian public focus remained disproportionately on what he had to say on Pakistan’s continued use of terrorism against India. The Indian public opinion expected him to condemn Pakistan in public if he was sincere in his professions of friendship for India.
2.It was, therefore, disappointed when he said nothing about Pakistan’s role in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai in his address to the relatives of the victims of the terrorist attacks at the Taj Mahal Hotel immediately after his arrival on November 6,2010.
3. This disappointment turned to indignation the next morning when he projected Pakistan in what the Indian public opinion regarded as positive terms while answering a question from a student at a Town Hall meeting in Mumbai, who asked him why the US is not declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. In his reply, Obama described Pakistan as an enormous State with enormous potential and as a State which is strategically important not only for the US, but for the world. He expressed his view that a stable Pakistan would be in the interest of India. Indian public opinion was shocked when he described extremism as not uniquely confined to Pakistan, highlighted the casualties being suffered by Pakistan itself at the hands of extremists and explained the difficulties being faced by Pakistan in dealing with the extremists. His reply created an impression that he did not believe that the Pakistani State had any role in the activities of the terrorists.
4.The widespread indignation over his reply apparently caused concern in Government of India circles that the visit may end on a negative note if corrective pronouncements, which would reassure the Indian public, were not made. These circles started leaking to the media that the Joint Statement to be issued at the end of the visit would contain strong references against the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET). They also suggested that one should not prematurely judge Obama and that one should wait to hear his address to the Parliament and read the Joint Statement before coming to any conclusions.
5.The Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh was apparently concerned over the negative public reactions to Obama’s observations at the Town Hall meeting. His concern was reflected in his unusually strong observations while replying to a question at a joint press conference with Obama at New Delhi on November 8 on the conclusion of the formal talks. He said: “You cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine is as active as ever before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we will be very happy to engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues.” By emphasizing the role of the “terror-induced coercion” of the terror machine, he made it clear that in India’s view the Pakistani State was responsible for the acts of terrorism in Indian territory. His observations were intended to reassure the Indian public opinion and make it clear to Obama that the Government of India did not agree with the manner in which Obama projected the problem at the Town Hall meeting.
6. One could sense the happiness among the public over the Prime Minister’s firm observations. Even then, Obama refrained from any criticism of Pakistan at the press conference. His observations on terrorism were of a general nature and related to Indo-US co-operation in counter-terrorism. He said at the press conference: “ To ensure the safety of our citizens, we’re deepening our efforts to prevent terrorism. Cooperation between our countries’ intelligence and law enforcement communities has already reached unprecedented levels. And today, we’re taking another step -- a new effort between our Department of Homeland Security and the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs to improve security at our ports, our airports, and our borders.”
7. Apparently, Obama and his aides realized that his ambiguous references to Pakistan’s role in terrorism directed against India had given a bad start to the visit. In his address to the Parliament on the evening of November 8, Obama sought to correct the wrong impression that he was evasive on the role of Pakistan. He said: “America's fight against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates is why we persevere in Afghanistan, where major development assistance from India has improved the lives of the Afghan people. We're making progress in our mission to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan forces so they can take the lead for their security. And while I have made it clear that American forces will begin the transition to Afghan responsibility next summer, I have also made it clear that America's commitment to the Afghan people will endure. The United States will not abandon the people of Afghanistan—or the region—to the violent extremists who threaten us all. Our strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates has to succeed on both sides of the border. That is why we have worked with the Pakistani government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region. The Pakistani government increasingly recognizes that these networks are not just a threat outside of Pakistan—they are a threat to the Pakistani people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists. And we will continue to insist to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice. We must also recognize that all of us have and interest in both an Afghanistan and a Pakistan that is stable, prosperous and democratic—and none more so than India.”
8. These observations were widely greeted in India and succeeded to a considerable extent in diluting the indignation initially caused by his observations in Mumbai and by his seeming reluctance to talk negatively of Pakistan while in Indian territory. The references to the issue in the Joint Statement went even further in erasing the indignation. By the evening of November 8, Obama was the toast of India---partly due to his naming Pakistan unambiguously and partly due to his supporting ---though in guarded language--- India’s case for permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
9. The Joint Statement said as follows on terrorism : “ They (the two leaders) reiterated that success in Afghanistan and regional and global security require elimination of safe havens and infrastructure for terrorism and violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Condemning terrorism in all its forms, the two sides agreed that all terrorist networks, including Lashkar e-Tayiba, must be defeated and called for Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Building upon the Counter Terrorism Initiative signed in July 2010, the two leaders announced a new Homeland Security Dialogue between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security and agreed to further deepen operational cooperation, counter-terrorism technology transfers and capacity building. The two leaders also emphasized the importance of close cooperation in combating terrorist financing and in protecting the international financial system.”
10. The word safehaven generally used by the Americans is seen in India as referring to the sanctuaries in Pakistani territory of foreign terrorists belonging to Al Qaeda and its foreign affiliates. The Indians do not look upon it as a reference to the terrorist camps of the Pakistani jihadi organizations which pose a threat to India. Obama’s anti-safehaven policy is viewed in India as directed against Al Qaeda and its affiliates through intensified drone (pilotless plane) strikes and other means and not as directed against the terrorist camps of the anti-India Pakistani jihadi organizations which act as surrogates of the Pakistani intelligence. The specific reference in the Joint Statement to the need to “eliminate safehavens and infrastructure for terrorism” and defeat “all terrorist networks including LET” is meant to reassure Indian public opinion that the anti-safehaven policy of the US has no double standards.
11. Indian public opinion is satisfied for the moment that the US has corrected the ambiguities in its position. How long the satisfaction will endure will depend upon how effectively the US is able to make Pakistan act against the “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistani territory directed against India. One had seen in the past that US assurances to India on this subject remained unfulfilled due to the clout enjoyed by the Pakistan Army in the Pentagon and by its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the Central Intelligence Agency. Will India’s past experience of broken promises by the US be repeated in future? If that happens, the gains made during Obama’s visit will be neutralized. ( 10-11-10)---To be continued
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Monday, November 8, 2010
COMMENTS ON OBAMA'S VISIT---PART I:INDIA-US ROADMAP FOR STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
B.RAMAN
A comprehensive roadmap for giving shape to the Indo-US strategic partnership has been the most important outcome of the very successful visit of President Barack Obama to India from November 6 to 8,2010. The details of this roadmap are to be found in the joint statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama on the conclusion of his visit. The basic foundation of this strategic partnership will be "the shared values and increasing convergence of interests" between the two countries. This convergence of interests relates to shared security as well as shared prosperity.
2. The joint statement said: "The two leaders reaffirmed that India-US strategic partnership is indispensable not only for their two countries but also for global stability and prosperity in the 21st century. To that end, President Obama welcomed India's emergence as a major regional and global power and affirmed his country's interest in India's rise, its economic prosperity, and its security." The joint statement and the President's well-drafted address to a joint session of the Parliament on November 8 sought to remove Indian misgivings that he had diluted the importance given by his predecessor George Bush to the Indo-US Strategic Partnership.The partnership as projected by the Bush Administration was vague in concepts and weak in details. Manmohan Singh and Obama have sought to strengthen the conceptual framework of the partnership and lay down a comprehensive architecture for the partnership.
3. The framework and architecture envisaged by them will have regional, global and bilateral dimensions. The regional dimensions will be :
* Deepening existing regular strategic consultations on developments in East Asia, and expanding and intensifying their strategic consultations to cover regional and global issues of mutual interest, including Central and West Asia.
* Intensifying consultation, cooperation and coordination to promote a stable, democratic, prosperous, and independent Afghanistan and pursuing joint development projects with the Afghan Government in capacity building, agriculture and women's empowerment. These joint projects will suplplement the individual projects of the two countries.
* In an indirect reference to regional concerns over the Chinese assertiveness in the South and East China Seas and the perceived lack of transparency in Chinese policies, the statement said: "In an increasingly inter-dependent world, the stability of, and access to, the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is vital for the security and economic prosperity of nations. Acknowledging their commitment to openness and responsible international conduct, and on the basis of their shared values, India and the United States have launched a dialogue to explore ways to work together, as well as with other countries, to develop a shared vision for these critical domains to promote peace, security and development. The leaders reaffirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation, in accordance with relevant universally agreed principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. "
4. Thus, the partnership will seek to promote peace and security across Asia in general and in East and Central Asia in particular, strengthen maritime security and work for a peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. Though China has not been named, Beijing will have reasons to be concerned over the implications of this formulation.
5. The global dimensions seek to provide an enhanced role for India as a global power. Obama emphsasised on more than one occasion that India can no longer be charactertised as an emerging power as the Bush Administration used to do, but is already a global power. India's enhanced role as a global power will be assured through the following actions with the support of the US:
* India's eventual permanent membership of the UN Security Council as part of the reforms in the UN structure. This amounts to the US agreeing in principle to India's permanent membership, but no time-line has been indicated. There is also a lack of clarity on the issue as to whether the US wants India to be a permant member with full veto rights on par with China and the other four permanent members.
* "The United States intends to support India's full membership in the four multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, and Wassenaar Arrangement) in a phased manner, and to consult with regime members to encourage the evolution of regime membership criteria, consistent with maintaining the core principles of these regimes, as the Government of India takes steps towards the full adoption of the regimes' export control requirements to reflect its prospective membership, with both processes moving forward together. In the view of the United States, India should qualify for membership in the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement according to existing requirements once it imposes export controls over all items on these regimes' control lists."
* "They agreed to work together in the G-20 to make progress on the broad range of issues on its agenda, including by encouraging actions consistent with achieving strong, balanced, and sustainable growth, strengthening financial system regulation, reforming the international financial institutions, enhancing energy security, resisting protectionism in all its forms, reducing barriers to trade and investment, and implementing the development action plans."
* "The leaders launched a US-India Open Government Dialogue that will, through public-private partnerships and use of new technologies and innovations, promote their shared goal of democratizing access to information and energizing civic engagement, support global initiatives in this area and share their expertise with other interested countries. This will build on India's impressive achievements in this area in recent years and the commitments that the President made to advance an open government agenda at the United Nations General Assembly. The President and Prime Minister also pledged to explore cooperation in support of efforts to strengthen elections organization and management in other interested countries, including through sharing their expertise in this area. Taking advantage of the global nature of their relationship, and recognizing India's vast development experience and historical research strengths, the two leaders pledged to work together, in addition to their independent programmes, to adapt shared innovations and technologies and use their expertise in capacity building to extend food security to interested countries, including in Africa, in consultation with host governments."
6. The concretisation of the first two actions relating to the UN Security Council and multilateral export control regimes is likely to take time because of the possibility of Chinese opposition, partly for their own reasons and partly at the instigation of Pakistan.The idea of joint Indo-US projects in Africa will also cause concern in China which has been very active in Africa.
7. The Joint Statement sums up the bilateral dimension as follows: "Recognizing that India and the United States should play a leadership role in promoting global nonproliferation objectives and their desire to expand high technology cooperation and trade, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama committed to work together to strengthen the global export control framework and further transform bilateral export control regulations and policies to realize the full potential of the strategic partnership between the two countries.Accordingly, the two leaders decided to take mutual steps to expand U.S.-India cooperation in civil space, defense, and other high-technology sectors. Commensurate with India's nonproliferation record and commitment to abide by multilateral export control standards, these steps include the United States removing Indian entities from the U.S. Department of Commerce's "Entity List" and realignment of India in U.S. export control regulations." There is also a counter-terrorism dimension to the joint partnership. This will be covered in the next article.
8. My over-all expectation is that while the regional and bilateral dimensions, which depend only on the two countries, can be concretised in the short and medium terms, the global dimensions will face likely hurdles from China before their concretisation. ( 9-11-10) ---To be continued)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
A comprehensive roadmap for giving shape to the Indo-US strategic partnership has been the most important outcome of the very successful visit of President Barack Obama to India from November 6 to 8,2010. The details of this roadmap are to be found in the joint statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama on the conclusion of his visit. The basic foundation of this strategic partnership will be "the shared values and increasing convergence of interests" between the two countries. This convergence of interests relates to shared security as well as shared prosperity.
2. The joint statement said: "The two leaders reaffirmed that India-US strategic partnership is indispensable not only for their two countries but also for global stability and prosperity in the 21st century. To that end, President Obama welcomed India's emergence as a major regional and global power and affirmed his country's interest in India's rise, its economic prosperity, and its security." The joint statement and the President's well-drafted address to a joint session of the Parliament on November 8 sought to remove Indian misgivings that he had diluted the importance given by his predecessor George Bush to the Indo-US Strategic Partnership.The partnership as projected by the Bush Administration was vague in concepts and weak in details. Manmohan Singh and Obama have sought to strengthen the conceptual framework of the partnership and lay down a comprehensive architecture for the partnership.
3. The framework and architecture envisaged by them will have regional, global and bilateral dimensions. The regional dimensions will be :
* Deepening existing regular strategic consultations on developments in East Asia, and expanding and intensifying their strategic consultations to cover regional and global issues of mutual interest, including Central and West Asia.
* Intensifying consultation, cooperation and coordination to promote a stable, democratic, prosperous, and independent Afghanistan and pursuing joint development projects with the Afghan Government in capacity building, agriculture and women's empowerment. These joint projects will suplplement the individual projects of the two countries.
* In an indirect reference to regional concerns over the Chinese assertiveness in the South and East China Seas and the perceived lack of transparency in Chinese policies, the statement said: "In an increasingly inter-dependent world, the stability of, and access to, the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is vital for the security and economic prosperity of nations. Acknowledging their commitment to openness and responsible international conduct, and on the basis of their shared values, India and the United States have launched a dialogue to explore ways to work together, as well as with other countries, to develop a shared vision for these critical domains to promote peace, security and development. The leaders reaffirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation, in accordance with relevant universally agreed principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. "
4. Thus, the partnership will seek to promote peace and security across Asia in general and in East and Central Asia in particular, strengthen maritime security and work for a peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. Though China has not been named, Beijing will have reasons to be concerned over the implications of this formulation.
5. The global dimensions seek to provide an enhanced role for India as a global power. Obama emphsasised on more than one occasion that India can no longer be charactertised as an emerging power as the Bush Administration used to do, but is already a global power. India's enhanced role as a global power will be assured through the following actions with the support of the US:
* India's eventual permanent membership of the UN Security Council as part of the reforms in the UN structure. This amounts to the US agreeing in principle to India's permanent membership, but no time-line has been indicated. There is also a lack of clarity on the issue as to whether the US wants India to be a permant member with full veto rights on par with China and the other four permanent members.
* "The United States intends to support India's full membership in the four multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, and Wassenaar Arrangement) in a phased manner, and to consult with regime members to encourage the evolution of regime membership criteria, consistent with maintaining the core principles of these regimes, as the Government of India takes steps towards the full adoption of the regimes' export control requirements to reflect its prospective membership, with both processes moving forward together. In the view of the United States, India should qualify for membership in the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement according to existing requirements once it imposes export controls over all items on these regimes' control lists."
* "They agreed to work together in the G-20 to make progress on the broad range of issues on its agenda, including by encouraging actions consistent with achieving strong, balanced, and sustainable growth, strengthening financial system regulation, reforming the international financial institutions, enhancing energy security, resisting protectionism in all its forms, reducing barriers to trade and investment, and implementing the development action plans."
* "The leaders launched a US-India Open Government Dialogue that will, through public-private partnerships and use of new technologies and innovations, promote their shared goal of democratizing access to information and energizing civic engagement, support global initiatives in this area and share their expertise with other interested countries. This will build on India's impressive achievements in this area in recent years and the commitments that the President made to advance an open government agenda at the United Nations General Assembly. The President and Prime Minister also pledged to explore cooperation in support of efforts to strengthen elections organization and management in other interested countries, including through sharing their expertise in this area. Taking advantage of the global nature of their relationship, and recognizing India's vast development experience and historical research strengths, the two leaders pledged to work together, in addition to their independent programmes, to adapt shared innovations and technologies and use their expertise in capacity building to extend food security to interested countries, including in Africa, in consultation with host governments."
6. The concretisation of the first two actions relating to the UN Security Council and multilateral export control regimes is likely to take time because of the possibility of Chinese opposition, partly for their own reasons and partly at the instigation of Pakistan.The idea of joint Indo-US projects in Africa will also cause concern in China which has been very active in Africa.
7. The Joint Statement sums up the bilateral dimension as follows: "Recognizing that India and the United States should play a leadership role in promoting global nonproliferation objectives and their desire to expand high technology cooperation and trade, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama committed to work together to strengthen the global export control framework and further transform bilateral export control regulations and policies to realize the full potential of the strategic partnership between the two countries.Accordingly, the two leaders decided to take mutual steps to expand U.S.-India cooperation in civil space, defense, and other high-technology sectors. Commensurate with India's nonproliferation record and commitment to abide by multilateral export control standards, these steps include the United States removing Indian entities from the U.S. Department of Commerce's "Entity List" and realignment of India in U.S. export control regulations." There is also a counter-terrorism dimension to the joint partnership. This will be covered in the next article.
8. My over-all expectation is that while the regional and bilateral dimensions, which depend only on the two countries, can be concretised in the short and medium terms, the global dimensions will face likely hurdles from China before their concretisation. ( 9-11-10) ---To be continued)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Sunday, November 7, 2010
WHAT R.N.KAO THOUGHT OF THE US, CHINA & PAKISTAN
B.RAMAN
With President Barack Obama in our midst, I thought it would be interesting to recall what R.N.Kao, the founding father of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), thought of the US, China and Pakistan in his retirement before he died in January 2002. Extracts from some of his letters to me are given below:
THE USA
'Many years ago, after meeting some of the top functionaries in the USA, I formed the opinion that they are not necessarily anti-Indian. Their priorities are different and are determined by their perception of national interests. They follow their chosen line of action with a stubborn determination. If, in the process, we get hurt, it is just too bad.' (7-10-97)
AMERICAN CULTURAL INFLUENCE ON THE INDIAN ELITE
'Pan-American culture is making our so-called elite rootless. Indeed, it is very true that in the southern hemisphere, the young upwardly mobile affluent people find themselves more at ease with West Europeans and Americans than with their own poorer nationals. For a country like India, this could lead to dangerous tensions..' (23-1-98)
INFORMATION REVOLUTION
'The question in my mind is whether, with the fast developing information technology, it would at all be feasible for any government agency to filter the avalanche of information, which is beamed towards us from different angles of the azimuth.' (4-8-97)
' The recent advances in information technology are quite dazzling, but one doubts whether an overwhelming data bank is synonymous with wisdom. Indeed, I have always felt a little uneasy at the thought that the world would become a mirror image of the US. What a dull prospect it would be, and how disastrous for the natural resources of this planet.! It has been truly said that man is the only creature of this earth who destroys the environment in which it survives.' (12-1- 98)
SINO-US RELATIONS
'China and USA have some kind of a love-hate relationship. The Chinese will feel they have arrived only if they can show to the world that they are in the same league as the USA. The latter, on their part, have, to my mind, a long-standing guilt complex so far as China is concerned. Perhaps, it flows from the long history of American Methodist missionary activity in China.' (25-11-97)
CHINA
'As a people,we sometimes get carried away by euphoria or sink into gloom. It is quite clear that, so far as China is concerned, it would be a long haul for us. I remember that, in the mid fifties, while addressing an annual conference of the intelligence chiefs of the States, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had said that while our problems with Pakistan were acute and demanded urgent solution, our problems with China would prove more intractable and continue for a long long time.' (14-12-96)
'The Chinese, too, are busy playing games, as every one else does. In 1984, when I was leaving for Beijing, my then boss (My comment: Mrs Indira Gandhi) asked me what I hoped to achieve. In reply, I had said I expected very little, but that I saw no reason why we should leave the field to Pakistan unchallenged and not make even an effort.' (23-12-96)
'I think that with economic prosperity being more evenly spread out in China, the liberalisation of the political system would be inevitable. Once the people have enough to eat and a roof over their head, all kinds of explosive ideas of individual liberties, human rights and freedom of expression begin to take shape. One only hopes that the Chinese would be able to manage this better than, apparently, the Russians have been able to handle the economic problems following their attempts at political liberalisation.' (30-1-97)
'This morning, over the AIR there was a brief commentary about the increase in China's armed might and its modernisation over the last few years. One cannot but view this with some uneasiness.' (3-3-97)
'In spite of the publicity, a large part of the functioning of the Chinese apparatus remains opaque. Therefore, one has to be very cautious in making any forecasts about that country.' (12-5-98)
PAKISTAN
'Pakistan deserves to be declared a rogue state. How I wish that geography could be changed and we should leave Pakistan alone to stew in her own juice!' (9-8-96)
'My gnawing fear is that, so long as there is an oligarchy in Pakistan of the armed forces and the senior bureaucrats, the government there would continue to maintain a posture of some hostility to us. Perhaps, they need it for their survival.' (23-5-97)
'It may sound somewhat impulsive, but I do often feel that we should leave Pakistan alone to stew in its own juice. The only thing we need to make certain is that if they start any adventurist course of action, we are able to give them a bloody nose.' (7-10-97)
''There is little doubt that China and North Korea have helped Pakistan in developing her missile capability, even if they have not handed over to them finished products. It is of extreme importance that we should know what Pakistan is doing so that we are able to maintain a posture of strength, based on our defensive and offensive capacities.' (25-4-98)
"We should not allow ourselves to be driven into a position where we have to fight simultaneously on two fronts.' (19-5-98)
THE INDIAN SCENE
'Irrespective of whatever else happens, there is no doubt that now the so-called backward and Dalit classes will wield a great deal of influence by virtue of their numbers, and it is significant that they are now acutely conscious of their strength. Therefore, one should expect major changes in politics, economics and social equity. It is a fascinating prospect.' (8-5-96)
'I suspect that though we are catching up on globalisation, the bulk of our industrialists and business tycoons are still out of date in their thinking.' (2-8-97)
'Unfortunately, the political scene in our country is presently so confused that it is difficult to say in which direction we are going. Of course, every one avows that the process of liberalisation of government controls would continue. One, however, wonders whether with megascams discovered every other day, how long we would be able to go on like this.' (12-1-98)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
With President Barack Obama in our midst, I thought it would be interesting to recall what R.N.Kao, the founding father of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), thought of the US, China and Pakistan in his retirement before he died in January 2002. Extracts from some of his letters to me are given below:
THE USA
'Many years ago, after meeting some of the top functionaries in the USA, I formed the opinion that they are not necessarily anti-Indian. Their priorities are different and are determined by their perception of national interests. They follow their chosen line of action with a stubborn determination. If, in the process, we get hurt, it is just too bad.' (7-10-97)
AMERICAN CULTURAL INFLUENCE ON THE INDIAN ELITE
'Pan-American culture is making our so-called elite rootless. Indeed, it is very true that in the southern hemisphere, the young upwardly mobile affluent people find themselves more at ease with West Europeans and Americans than with their own poorer nationals. For a country like India, this could lead to dangerous tensions..' (23-1-98)
INFORMATION REVOLUTION
'The question in my mind is whether, with the fast developing information technology, it would at all be feasible for any government agency to filter the avalanche of information, which is beamed towards us from different angles of the azimuth.' (4-8-97)
' The recent advances in information technology are quite dazzling, but one doubts whether an overwhelming data bank is synonymous with wisdom. Indeed, I have always felt a little uneasy at the thought that the world would become a mirror image of the US. What a dull prospect it would be, and how disastrous for the natural resources of this planet.! It has been truly said that man is the only creature of this earth who destroys the environment in which it survives.' (12-1- 98)
SINO-US RELATIONS
'China and USA have some kind of a love-hate relationship. The Chinese will feel they have arrived only if they can show to the world that they are in the same league as the USA. The latter, on their part, have, to my mind, a long-standing guilt complex so far as China is concerned. Perhaps, it flows from the long history of American Methodist missionary activity in China.' (25-11-97)
CHINA
'As a people,we sometimes get carried away by euphoria or sink into gloom. It is quite clear that, so far as China is concerned, it would be a long haul for us. I remember that, in the mid fifties, while addressing an annual conference of the intelligence chiefs of the States, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had said that while our problems with Pakistan were acute and demanded urgent solution, our problems with China would prove more intractable and continue for a long long time.' (14-12-96)
'The Chinese, too, are busy playing games, as every one else does. In 1984, when I was leaving for Beijing, my then boss (My comment: Mrs Indira Gandhi) asked me what I hoped to achieve. In reply, I had said I expected very little, but that I saw no reason why we should leave the field to Pakistan unchallenged and not make even an effort.' (23-12-96)
'I think that with economic prosperity being more evenly spread out in China, the liberalisation of the political system would be inevitable. Once the people have enough to eat and a roof over their head, all kinds of explosive ideas of individual liberties, human rights and freedom of expression begin to take shape. One only hopes that the Chinese would be able to manage this better than, apparently, the Russians have been able to handle the economic problems following their attempts at political liberalisation.' (30-1-97)
'This morning, over the AIR there was a brief commentary about the increase in China's armed might and its modernisation over the last few years. One cannot but view this with some uneasiness.' (3-3-97)
'In spite of the publicity, a large part of the functioning of the Chinese apparatus remains opaque. Therefore, one has to be very cautious in making any forecasts about that country.' (12-5-98)
PAKISTAN
'Pakistan deserves to be declared a rogue state. How I wish that geography could be changed and we should leave Pakistan alone to stew in her own juice!' (9-8-96)
'My gnawing fear is that, so long as there is an oligarchy in Pakistan of the armed forces and the senior bureaucrats, the government there would continue to maintain a posture of some hostility to us. Perhaps, they need it for their survival.' (23-5-97)
'It may sound somewhat impulsive, but I do often feel that we should leave Pakistan alone to stew in its own juice. The only thing we need to make certain is that if they start any adventurist course of action, we are able to give them a bloody nose.' (7-10-97)
''There is little doubt that China and North Korea have helped Pakistan in developing her missile capability, even if they have not handed over to them finished products. It is of extreme importance that we should know what Pakistan is doing so that we are able to maintain a posture of strength, based on our defensive and offensive capacities.' (25-4-98)
"We should not allow ourselves to be driven into a position where we have to fight simultaneously on two fronts.' (19-5-98)
THE INDIAN SCENE
'Irrespective of whatever else happens, there is no doubt that now the so-called backward and Dalit classes will wield a great deal of influence by virtue of their numbers, and it is significant that they are now acutely conscious of their strength. Therefore, one should expect major changes in politics, economics and social equity. It is a fascinating prospect.' (8-5-96)
'I suspect that though we are catching up on globalisation, the bulk of our industrialists and business tycoons are still out of date in their thinking.' (2-8-97)
'Unfortunately, the political scene in our country is presently so confused that it is difficult to say in which direction we are going. Of course, every one avows that the process of liberalisation of government controls would continue. One, however, wonders whether with megascams discovered every other day, how long we would be able to go on like this.' (12-1-98)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)