NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/ Dr Richard J Cohen

'India and US, they are a good, terrific match'

A s New Delhi dusts its red carpets to welcome United States President Bill Clinton, Indian and US leaders are preparing meticulously, the significant items that will figure on the Indo-American agenda in the new millennium.

Many believe the Clinton visit will usher in a new, positive and forward-looking Indo-US relationship. But sceptics say the first visit by a US president in 22 years will not considerably improve Indo-US ties, thanks to contentious issues like the NPT and CTBT.

One institute that has been closely monitoring and studying the Indo-American relationship is the Hyderabad-based Indo-American Centre for International Studies. The IACIS is a unique resource for the study of the United States. It is the largest library and research centre on American Studies in Asia or Africa, and one of the biggest such centres outside the United States.

In an exclusive interview to George Iype, IACIA Executive Director Dr Richard J Cohen explains how the Clinton visit can help smoothen the wrong edges of Indo-American relationship and help solve contentious issues.

Dr Cohen, do you think the India visit by Clinton, whose term will end in a few months, is of any significance?

Yes. I think there is going to be a lot of potential for the Clinton visit to be significant. The relationship between India and the United States is experiencing a sea-change. I do not think all the major issues between India and America will be solved on this five-day tour.

The visit represents a new beginning and clearly puts the relationship on a new level to prepare us both to work on solving the issues, smoothening out the wrong edges and proceeding forward. I don't expect a lot in terms of treaty signing and agreements settled in five days. But it will certainly set the tone for an unprecedented change in the relationship.

But many believe the Clinton visit is a mere social event without much consequence.

Good results can always come out of social visits also. I am not arguing that a great deal will come out of the visit in a substantive way. But certainly it will not dampen the chances for real progress in relationship.

How do you differentiate Clinton's India journey from President Jimmy Carter's visit 22 years back?

I was in India when President Carter came over. I do remember it had been a sort of a goodwill type of visit by President Carter. In those days, the relationship between India and US was not all that smooth. Morarji Desai, the then prime minister was like a breath of fresh air after the long spell of rule by the Nehru family. Although Desai was quite senior by then, he was still thought of as a leader with a new vision for India and represented another school of thought with respect to India's relationship with the United States.

But even Moraji Desai was not able to distance himself from the foreign policy which India had been following with the US. Carter came and went. Carter himself was weakened as a president and therefore it was much of a courtesy visit. Carter's mother served in India as a peace campaigner. Therefore he visited Carterpuri. I also read recently some Indian media reports that Clinton should also visit the place.

But I don't think Clinton should visit Carterpuri just because Carter went there. Because India is a completely different world now. Asia is a different world now. The long break between Carter's visit to the Clinton visit teaches us a lesson about how to manage relationship between two countries, or in fact, not managing in this case.

Do you think President Clinton's decision to go to Pakistan is a diplomatic defeat for India?

No. I would not want to characterise it as a diplomatic defeat for India. It does not really have to be decided on that way. Especially when India is going to play a major role in geo-politics, it has to understand and respect the American right to visit any country.

If Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wants to visit Cuba on his way to the US, we Americans might make some remarks about it. But I don't really think it will be a disgrace to the US because the Indian prime minister is visiting Cuba.

Do you think Clinton's visit to Pakistan means he accepts the military coup there?

Absolutely not. In other words, if Clinton had not chosen to visit Pakistan, it would have been sent out a negative message... that he accepts the military coup. But persuasion has a lot of specific role to play in foreign policy. The US President is not going to Islamabad to pat the military and General Musharraf on their back, but to actually persuade them about many things.

What kind of a message do you expect Clinton to give Gen Musharraf?

Well, it will be a waste of time for Clinton if he does not tell Musharraf two things in very strict terms. First, restore democracy and have elections. Second, Clinton will air his concerns about Pakistan's relationship with India in the context of the increasing hostilities between the countries on Kashmir, especially on the Line of Control.

There has been some talk about Clinton requesting a pardon for Sharief. I don't know whether that will be part of Clinton's Pakistan agenda. But Kashmir and cross-border terrorism will be certainly issues that Clinton will take up with Pakistan. I think the President will try to bring that to the attention of both countries. This is not a game that you are playing, it is really serious. I think Clinton will warn both India and Pakistan on their mobilising armed forces across the border. I think probably he will offer his services as mediator and mention his concern about the nuclearisation of South Asia.

Do you think President Clinton will actually take up the Kashmir issue with India and Pakistan?

He might take up the issue with both the leaders during his one-to-one meeting with them. Well, I think the American interest in Kashmir should be seen in the context of the military build-up between India and Pakistan on the Line of Control.

I think that everyone relishes to see the Kashmir issue solved because it will be a different world, then, for everyone. India and Pakistan could then focus on other problems that they have. India could especially benefit because she does not have any internal political problems like Pakistan. India could then divert the resources from building up military to solve the country's real problems and also for the development process. Just think of the money that could be saved and diverted for village and industry development programmes.

The US understands that India would be tremendously strengthened by not having to cope with this difficult Kashmir problem. India will be a stronger ally for us, a better trading partner.

Recently, President Clinton called Kashmir the most dangerous place on earth. Do you think in the context of this statement, he will in fact try to mediate for a permanent solution?

For many years now India has been publicly stating that it considers Kashmir issue an internal matter. When nations use this kind of a phrase, it means 'do not push your nose into this affair'. Therefore, to be seen publicly engaged in discussing the issue with the US will jeopardise all those political decisions that India has been taking. Therefore, the ball is in India's court. As of now, the Kashmir is not and can not be on the table of official agenda of the Clinton visit.

In the context of Kashmir, what will be Clinton's message to India and Pakistan? Do you expect a strong message coming in?

Well, there already exists an agreement -- the Lahore agreement -- which clearly states that both sides will respect each other. Clinton will in all likelihood tell the countries to follow the Lahore process that they set for themselves. The Lahore agreement was such a gigantic step in the India-Pakistan relationship. If there is one agreement that has been blatantly violated, it is the Lahore treaty.

Probably, the fault for this lies with Pakistani because the political situation there fell apart quickly. Nawaz Sharief was unable to build a consensus on Lahore agreement. There was confusion when Kargil was opened and it appears that Sharief was not actually as involved in it as he must have been. In fact, the military was taking the decision. Musharraf has already demonstrated his inclination. Musharraf claims to be a soldier of conscience. Then I would say as far as the India- Pakistan relationship is concerned, he should show his conscience on cross-broader terrorism and on the Line of Control.

The American establishment, especially the Pentagon and the CIA, has been considered traditional friends of Pakistan. Do you think the Clinton visit to India might change all that?

These American organisations are at the service of the people who analyse world problems. They are also rightly analysing the problems in Pakistan. It is no more in the American interest to support Pakistan. There is no kind of favouritism from Pentagon and CIA towards Pakistan at this point of time. One might think that these agencies are in fact still aiding Pakistan because of the long-standing support they gave them in the past. But that is the same way America behaved in Vietnam.

For years, people were criticising our support to the South Vietnamese government. Then the analysts in defence department and the CIA were convinced that they have to do something in Vietnam in order to draw a line over which the communists could not trespass. But it turned out be a flawed decision. The decision did not have much political support.

I don't see any indication now that in the US, the people of America, the defence ministry or the CIA think that we should risk our relationship with India in order to support Pakistan. You know the old reasons and arguments have gone.

Do you think the Clinton visit will usher in economic and trade gains for India?

I think the record suggests that even without a presidential visit, the amount of trade that developed between the two countries in the last eight years has been doubling. In three to four years, I think it went from US $ 4 billion to 8 billion. That is just the beginning. I am sure the US will lift some more sanctions towards India. As soon as some more sanctions are lifted, the sky is the limit. Trade will now increase to 12 billion very quickly and go up from there. To a large extent, it was all due to India's initiative. I think America has been waiting and watching for a very long time. After the Indian economy opened up, America has seen tremendous trade potential with India.

You agree that a brand new relationship is building up between the two countries. How do you define that relationship?

I think America has strategic and political interests in India because you are a main power in South Asia. On the political front, we want to club our efforts with India to be a watchdog for peace for the South Asian sector. Then strategically, military interaction with India has been lacking. Still there are sanctions restricting sale of military hardware to India. But I think things will change soon.

Strategically, India and the US should engage in some kind of exercises together which is always the message that countries give when they are in the game together. I expect sooner than later a government to government agreement for military intelligence sharing and military planning between the two countries.

America is a business nation that thrives on free enterprise. I would expect that private sector America sees India as a major partner in the future. Aiding all these efforts is the Indian American community in the US. Indian business and infotech success stories in the US are increasing day by day at a rapid rate. No other immigrant community in the US has occupied such rarefied heights that Indian entrepreneurs are occupying in the Silicon valley. India and US, they are a good, terrific match.

But do you think India and America should sustain this new relationship?

The relationship between the two countries has been fraught with events that seem to have upset the apple-cart from time to time. We have to figure out a way to defuse those roadblocks in the relationship. There will be challenges all the way.

On the India side, the political situation in India is very fluid and voices will always rise as to whether or not India should have a cosy relationship with the US. These political questions are based on the memories of the fears of the past. Therefore, we have to set up some kind of a mechanism -- even a hotline between the American President and the Indian Prime Minister -- to ensure that it can be used by both the sides to quickly explain and understand issues and problems.

Don't you think one issue that can virtually kill the new relationship between the US and India is the CTBT and nuclear non-proliferation?

I think Americans have to back down on the issue to a certain extent. Why? Because, they themselves have not abided by the treaty. In theory it is a great idea. I don't think we are willing to risk our long-time relationship with India on CTBT and NPT.

I believe that the way the issue will be treated during Clinton's talks with the Indian leaders will indicate it. I don't think the US will allow our relationship with India to collapse under the weight of CTBT.

Personally, I think India is not using the treaty to its advantage. India is aware of it, but is not using it to its advantage. A nation can sign the treaty and then renounce it when there is a good reason, when India's national interests are at stake or in jeopardy. One can walk away from the treaty. It is written in it. So it is a win-win situation.

Nations do need to take a stand against nuclear proliferation and that is India's weak point. India is not really producing enough rhetoric on nuclear proliferation. What India is doing is mere lip service.

Do you think the CTBT and NPT will be taken up by Clinton and Vajpayee especially in the light of the eight rounds of talks between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott?

Presumably, both Clinton and Vajpayee allowed Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott to meet many times on this issue in an effort to come to an agreement on the CTBT. All that energy was not wasted and probably Clinton will privately talk to Vajpayee in a relaxed manner.

But when you put two politicians in front of a microphone and camera, they will behave differently. I think reason prevails when politicians meet privately. Let us hope that reason will prevail will when Clinton and Vajpayee meet.

CLINTON VISIT:The complete coverage

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview