LALIT MANSINGH
a former foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the US
New Delhi
6 November 2010India's point of view on Pakistan and Afghanistan has not been much appreciated by the
US, according to LALIT MANSINGH, a former foreign secretary and a former Indian
ambassador to the US. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he talks about the
"huge gaps" in perception and understanding on regional issues such as Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iran and China.
In your view what stage of India-US relations are we at now?
The strategic partnership started it in 2001 with George W Bush, so it is less than 10
years old. Bill Clinton came to India in 2000, after 22 years, and his was a pathbreaking
visit. Bush's visit to India in 2006 was a deal-making visit; there was only one issue --
nuclear deal. Obama's visit is a visit of consolidation. This is actually where the
strategic partnership starts working. We are at that stage where there no big-ticket items,
no big obstruction on the way, so we are dealing with a whole range of issues that is
reflective of the depth and width of the strategic partnership.
What do you believe will be key areas of discussion between the two sides?
From the Indian side there is a laundry list. Topping the issues of concern is
outsourcing. IT industry is the most pro-US industry lobby in India; so if you are hitting
them, you are hitting your best friends. Other big concern is technology sanctions. The
US argument is inconsistent because they call India a strategic partner and yet they
make us a target of their technology sanctions. Obama can use executive powers to
remove as many restrictions as possible but his interview to PTI was a disappointment.
If he says it is difficult then I don't know who will say it is easy? On the US side, nuclear
liability law will be raised. The US industry is grumbling but I don't think India can give
in. The government can't change the law. The discussions will be on explaining the law,
about how American fears are exaggerated. India is not a 100 per cent open economy;
there are some sectors of interest to the US such as retail and insurance that are
restricted in terms of caps on investment. So the demand that India raise FDI caps will
need to be discussed. There are some pending defence agreements. The US has made it
a condition that if we want to get the highest technology from them, then we must sign
LSA, CISMOA and BECA. Then there are regional and global issues, including but not
limited to the defence of global commons.
What can be key points of disagreement?
There are huge gaps in our perceptions and understanding on Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Iran and China. Also, there is climate change, Doha negotiations and misgivings about
nonproliferation as defined by the US. Will India be made a member of NSG, MTCR,
Australia Group and Wassenaar Arrangement? There is a need to take India fully inside
the tent. Then there are issues such as CTBT and FMCT on which both sides need a
clear understanding on where we stand.
Terrorism in the context of Pakistan and Afghanistan will obviously figure in a major way.
How much capacity does the US have to be helpful to India while it gives billions of
dollars to the Pakistan military every six months?
We have a point of view which is not appreciated by the US. We know that Pakistan is
playing a duplicitous role in the war on terror, it is going against India and the US
interests in Afghanistan and orchestrating terrorist attacks in India. I think the US can
give a stronger message. Obama has asked for speedy trial of the Mumbai terrorists but
I don't think they are putting real pressure because you may say what you want, but if
you are quietly handing out money to Pakistan generals to buy arms to be used against
India, then that is not doing very much for our relationship. India also has objection to
Pakistan's role in Afghanistan. India defines our role in Afghanistan as what is good for
Afghanistan and Afghan people. But Pakistan defines its role in terms of what is not good
for India in Afghanistan. And surely that can't be a criterion by which you try to help a
neighbour. There are other deep misgivings about Pakistan in Afghanistan. Pakistan is
patronising the Haqqani network and it is telling the US that the Haqqanis should be part
of a coalition with Afghan President Hamid Karzai after the US troops pull out. We need
to be reassured on how the Americans are approaching this.
Should India discuss a post-NATO Afghanistan with president Obama with a view to
seeking American understanding in view of the Pakistan factor?
We would want Obama to explore an idea that he had suggested when he was a
candidate. He had called for a regional solution. So what we are suggesting is, involve
India in the political settlement, give us a role in it. Our ultimate goal should be
Afghanistan whose territorial integrity is guaranteed and there should be a pledge by
Afghanistan's neighbours that they will not interfere in the Afghanistan's internal affairs.
That I think is the best scenario for Afghanistan and we must persuade the Americans to
work towards that scenario.
China is a creditor of America. Does that constrain America's relations toward India,
given India-China ties are not smooth although they are not belligerent?
India and the US both follow the policy of hedging, they're not saying China is a threat,
they're saying we want to collaborate with China but deep down China is a threat to India
and the US too has had recent experiences of Chinese belligerence. I think it is time that
we discussed and kept a continuous look on China.
After the setback in the mid-term election, will president Obama be well placed to pay
attention to India's larger concerns like UN reforms?
He has throw a lot of cold water on UN reforms, which is a matter of great surprise and
disappointment. The surprise is, Obama with his multilateralism was expected to focus
on the UN and if Obama now says this is going to be difficult and complicated, it is
disappointing because for a president whose slogan was 'yes we can' he is now
sounding defeatist by saying 'no we can't'. Therefore, it makes me think that UN reform
is now no longer a priority of the Obama administration. And that knocks off a lot of his
internationalist and multilateralist diplomacy. For India it is disappointing. We already
have the endorsement of three permanent members but nothing can happen unless the
US says yes. So if the US had said yes right now, the process would have started. It was
a cost-free gift for India because he was only going to sign a post-dated cheque. If he
declares support today, maybe sometime in the future India might find a seat there. But
if he says no now, that process might never take place.
No comments:
Post a Comment