|
|
|
Map of Asia |
Email this citationCIAO DATE: 11/00
New Directions in Indo-U.S. Relatons: President Clinton's Visit to India
Bruce Riedel *
CASI Occasional Paper Number 11
February 21, 2000
Introductory Remarks by Francine Frankel, Director, CASI
History of the Last Three Years
India's Influence in the 21st Century
Reaching a New Level of U.S.-India Understanding
Addendum
Introductory Remarks by Francine Frankel, Director, CASI
I want to thank you all for coming to this very important event. Many of you will know the Center from other programs here. We are the only academic institution in the U.S. that specifically focuses on modern and contemporary India. We do this through programs of collaborative research, conferences, symposia, special lectures of the kind that we are having today and publications. From the outset, we have emphasized the importance of Indo-American dialogue on common interests ranging across political, economic, security and environmental issues. The decisions that are being made by leaders of both countries right now will define the paths for the future. We have anticipated and we have helped to contribute, I hope, to the growing recognition that the U.S.-India relationship will be important to the U.S. on virtually all issues of global concern.
If Bruce Riedel had not opted for a career in government, I think it would be fair to say that he might now be an outstanding scholar either of the Middle East, or South Asia, or both of these very complex areas. After he completed his B.A. at Brown University, he received a Masters Degree in Diplomatic History from Harvard in 1976. He chose to use his formidable analytical abilities as a career intelligence analyst. He has held overseas assignments in the Middle East and was Deputy Chief of the Persian Gulf Task Force. His work during that period won him the Intelligence Medal of Merit for his key contributions to CIA analysis during the war. From the mid-1990's, Mr. Riedel served almost five years in the White House in two very demanding positions. During 1995-97 he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Near East and South Asian Affairs and Principal Advisor to Secretaries of Defense Perry and Cohen on the Middle East and South Asia. In January 1997, Secretary Perry awarded Mr. Riedel the Secretary of Defense Medal for meritorious civilian service for his work on missile defense and other issues. Subsequently, Mr. Riedel was appointed to his current position of Special Secretary to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs of the National Security Council. While being continuously engaged with the Middle East peace process, he has also played a leading role in the administering of South Asian policy and in preparations for the President's forthcoming visit to India. It is a great privilege to welcome Mr. Bruce Riedel to the University of Pennsylvania and to CASI.
Opening Remarks
Thank you very much. It's a tremendous pleasure to be here in Philadelphia today. What I would like to talk about is the President's forthcoming trip to India and a new beginning in Indo-U.S. relations. Let me first say what a pleasure it is to have several old friends here to be with me today—Ambassador Srinivasan, whom I've had the pleasure of working with now for several years, and Shirin Tahir-Kheli, who was one of my predecessors in the National Security Council. I am particularly happy that Francine was here to invite me. Francine has been a not infrequent visitor to the White House in this administration advising us on her thoughts about India and the future of South Asia—thoughts which I know the President, Sandy Berger and myself have benefited from greatly. It's also particularly appropriate to be speaking here today at this Center because it is the only center in the U.S. devoted exclusively to the study of contemporary India.
This trip is very much about a trip to India, not a trip to South Asia. It is about a trip to one of the most important countries in the world in the 21st century. It is fitting to be here on President's Day as well, since today we are celebrating the history of the American presidency and President Bill Clinton will soon be the first President in almost a quarter century to go to India. And what I'd like to do today is explain to you how we got where we are in this administration, why we're going where we're going, what it is we hope to accomplish and speak to you briefly about the President and his Administration's long term vision of a different kind of relationship between the United States and India and a different kind of South Asia as well.
History of the Last Three Years
This has been one of the longest Presidential trips in gestation period I am sure in any of the 41 presidencies we have had since the White House left Philadelphia.
| It was the President's feeling that this part of the world had been neglected for too long, and that India, in particular, was going to be one of the key emerging countries of the 21st century... |
At the start of his second term, President Clinton asked his national security team to do a comprehensive review of American policy towards South Asia. It was the President's feeling that this part of the world had been neglected for too long, and that India, in particular, was going to be one of the key emerging countries of the 21st Century and needed a quantum leap in its relationship with the United States. U.S. policy towards South Asia had been framed largely in Cold War terms and our relationship with India was very much, I think, a victim of the Cold War. The President asked us to come up with a different vision. And so in mid-1997, we concluded that policy review.
The fundamental conclusion of that review was that American policy with India had to be broken from the constraints of a one-issue problem — that India was just too important to be viewed solely through the prism of American non-proliferation policy.
| ...American policy with India had to be broken from the constraints of a one-issue problem — that India was just too important to be viewed solely through the prism of American non-proliferation policy. |
The election of the BJP government in 1998 opened a new era in Indian politics and a new era in the way India looked at the world. Some voices were raised in academia and in the press, both here and in India, about the direction the BJP government would take, and whether or not a dialogue could be conducted with a government perceived to be supporting something called Hindu nationalism. The President and his team decided that the important thing was to engage and to find out the nature of the new leadership in India. In early 1998, the President sent then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and briefly Afghanistan on a mission to lay out our new vision on how this part of the world and the United States would work together in the 21st century. It seemed to be a very promising start. Among other things, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee nominated one of his closest advisors, Jaswant Singh, to be a special channel to work with the United States.
May of 1998, of course, brought India's decisions to conduct nuclear tests and the new beginning in U.S.-India relations suffered a blow. We spent much of the next month trying to persuade Pakistan not to follow suit, but it chose to do so as well. The President had no option under the law but to impose Congressionally mandated sanctions on India and Pakistan, known as the Glenn Amendment sanctions. The relationship was back to one issue—proliferation and arms control. There was as well quickly an international consensus that supported sanctions and asked of India strong assurances about its future policy towards tests and the development of a nuclear program. The G8, the G9, the P5, virtually every alphabet soup of international relations stood together. The President decided that our relationship with India was too important to languish, however, and that it was critical to find a way to overcome differences, even as large as the ones that emerged in the Spring of 1998.
| ...a much improved atmosphere has emerged in Indo-US relations and a much improved understanding about where each of us is coming from and the common road that both of us want to go on in the 21st century. |
A new effort was undertaken by Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, to see if we could find a common understanding, a common dialogue, and a common language with the Government of India. And I am very happy to say that I have been a member of Strobe Talbott's negotiating team over the course of the last two years because I think it is one of the most remarkable efforts in Indo-U.S. negotiations and dialogue that has ever occurred. We have had many long rounds of discussions with our Indian counterparts, led now by Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. We have met in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, India, Washington, New York— virtually everywhere. And from those discussions, I think, a much improved atmosphere has emerged in Indo-U.S. relations and a much improved understanding about where each of us is coming from and the common road that both of us want to go on in the 21st century. We have ceased talking past each other and around each other and we have talked to each other. We have laid out our strategic concerns on both sides in ways, which in my experience at least, are unprecedented in U.S.-Indian dialogue.
At the same time, Prime Minister Vajpayee embarked upon a process that would take him to Lahore and dialogue with India's neighbor to the west, a dialogue that promised to bring much in terms of regional peace and stability. We strongly supported that effort. We saw in it the kind of brave diplomacy that is needed as the world enters the new millennium. The President sent messages of support privately and messages of congratulation publicly to both Prime Ministers. I recall that the President met with Prime Minister Sharif in Amman, Jordan, just before the visit to Lahore, to encourage him to grasp this opportunity. Unfortunately events intervened again to disrupt this very promising start. Lahore led not to dialogue, but to Kargil and to a war in the Himalayas, a war that ended only when the President met with Prime Minister Sharif at an extraordinary summit at Blair house on the fourth of July, 1999. Through a long weekend of negotiations directly with Prime Minister Sharif and on the phone with Prime Minister Vajpayee, we were able to play some role in helping these countries walk back from a conflict that was very dangerous. Kargil had a silver lining in retrospect. From it emerged the new sense of confidence between Indian leaders and American leaders, particularly between the leaders at the top, the Prime Minister and the President, the National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and his Indian counterpart Brajesh Mishra, Foreign Minister Singh, and Secretary of State Albright and Deputy Secretary of State Talbot.
The reelection of the BJP government, in 1999, finally paved the way to move forward on this much-delayed presidential trip. The question is why in the last year of his presidency should Mr. Clinton go to India? The answer may seem obvious to the people in this room, but it is not necessarily obvious to the mass of Americans, so let me spend a few minutes explaining why we think it is so important that the President go there.
India's Influence in the 21st Century
| Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers' report to the President was that with the right economic reforms, India could achieve sustained growth in the area of 10 per cent annually in this decade, which would make it not only one of the world's largest economies, but one of the world's fastest growing and most vibrant economies. |
Secondly, India is an increasingly important part of the world economy. By almost any measure, it is already one of the world's largest economies. And it has one of the world's largest middle classes. Estimates vary, but most seem to approach somewhere around 200 million. Its information technology economy is at the cutting edge of world developments. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Gates. He opened up his second office outside the United States in India. And others are following into the silicon valleys of South India. Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers visited India last month. His report to the President was that with the right economic reforms, India could achieve sustained growth in the area of 10 per cent annually in this decade, which would make it not only one of the world's largest economies, but one of the world's fastest growing and most vibrant economies.
Third, even the weaknesses of the Indian economy—its poverty—are important to the entire world. India has more than a quarter of the malnourished children of this world. With its neighbors, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, it has 500 million people under the poverty level, one in every 12 people on this planet. How those people develop, how they are brought out of poverty, will affect everyone else on this planet, because how India feeds those children, how it ends poverty, will have an immense impact on the prospects for world energy use, climate change, the global environment, and the future of public health issues like polio and AIDS. What happens in terms of Indian decision-making on these issues, will affect everyone else around the world. Fourth, India is important because it will increasingly be a player in the balance of power, not just in its own neighborhood of South Asia, but throughout Asia, and throughout the world. It is already becoming an increasingly pivotal player with China, with Central Asia, with the Persian Gulf, and with Southeast Asia.
The United States and India have common interests in many of these parts of the world. We have a common interest in the stability of Asia and the stability of its sub-regions. We have a common interest in the control of terrorism and fighting the war against terrorists. We have a common interest in fighting narcotics and preventing the spread of organized criminal gangs selling narcotics. And we have a particularly important interest in the unimpeded flow of energy resources through the Indian Ocean, not just to India, but to the world.
Unfortunately, for most of the last 50 years, the United States has put India at the back end of our foreign policy. The Cold War played the critical role. Our relationship was scratchy through many eras. We talked past each other—we did not talk to each other. One example is President Bush's period in the White House, which most would acknowledge was one of the busiest periods in American foreign policy. India, according to the index of his autobiography, is mentioned once. Those days have to end. It made some sense to put India at the back end of our foreign policy in the Cold War, it makes no sense in the 21st century. It is time to recognize India as the global power and the great power and the great civilization that it is, freed from the paradigms of matching it either to Pakistan or to China. It should be seen in its own right as a center of a major global civilization and a major global player.
Reaching a New Level of U.S.-India Understanding
As I noted earlier, the President has been looking forward to this trip since the end of his first term.
| We are looking for ways now with our Indian partners to figure out how to institutionalize a closer relationship and to ensure that it is not another quarter century before another president visits India, and that the Indian Prime Minister come to the United States hopefully within the year. |
We can and we should build on the good will created after last year's Kargil crisis when India saw that the United States would take positions on issues crucial to India on their substantive merits and could help deliver important changes that favored Indian interests. In the last six months, Secretaries Richardson and Summers, as well as Deputy Secretary Talbott, and the Pacific Commander in Chief, Admiral Danny Blair, have had extremely productive visits to New Delhi and have pushed the process of Indo-U.S. dialogue along. The State Department's Special Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, Mike Sheehan, has also had an especially successful visit and has set up a joint counter terrorism committee to work together. We feel it is now time to put our quarterback on the field, the President.
After this trip, of course, we will need to find ways to follow up. This cannot be a one-trip relationship. We are looking for ways now with our Indian partners to figure out how to institutionalize a closer relationship and to ensure that it is not another quarter century before another president visits India, and that the Indian Prime Minister come to the United States hopefully within the year. Energy cooperation, in particular, and enhanced economic ties, in general, will need to be an especially important part of this new relationship. And we are looking for ways to institutionalize that and to strengthen it. Bill Richardson in his new hat will have the leading role in making that happen. Most of all, we will need our two governments to jointly lay out a vision of the future of our relationship. There will need to be a road map of how our two countries plan to work together in Asia, and in the world as a whole. Secretary Albright and Deputy Secretary Talbott have been tasked by the President with developing such a roadmap.
But great countries also have differences and this visit will also have to be to discuss those things that divide India and the United States. There still are serious differences between our countries on important issues and the most important issue on which we continue to disagree is the issue of non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament. We believe India's nuclear tests in May 1998 were a mistake. We said that then and we continue to believe it now. We do not believe India's national security was enhanced by those tests, rather, it suffered. I think those who look back on what has happened since those tests would generally tend to agree. But as I said earlier, since those tests, we have had the closest and most serious strategic dialogue in our country's bilateral history with the possible exception of 1962 during the Chinese invasion. We still have areas of disagreement. We still have areas to work on. But we have stopped talking past each other and we have reached an agreement on a road map on how to proceed.
We hope this Indian government will soon sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, not as a favor to the United States, not as a favor for the President coming, but because it is in India's national interest, and we take heart that more and more Indian leaders say that, not just in private, but in public. Polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Indians do not want to embark on a major nuclear weapons buildup. While they support the decision to test, they do not support the decision to waste billions and billions on nuclear arms. Our Senate of course made a decision to vote not to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last year, but I am pleased that in our discussions with Indian leaders, they have told us that that decision does not affect their own calculus. Their calculus will be made on the basis of what is good for India, as it should be. The best way for India and the United States to manage their differences on this and other issues is dialogue and engagement. Engagement must in the end be top down to be effective and that is why the President is going to India a month from yesterday.
We of course also have a strong interest in talking to India about engaging on regional issues in the subcontinent and we cannot neglect those. The Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate this month that last summer we came perilously close to a full-scale war in South Asia that could have led to the first nuclear exchange since 1945.
Unfortunately, events since last summer, since Kargil, the coup in Islamabad, and the Christmas hijacking by terrorists of an Indian airliner have made worse a situation already bad. The stakes here could not be higher for American foreign policy. Here again, we believe engagement is absolutely critical. We do not seek and we do not offer to mediate between India and Pakistan. We do not consider them to be Siamese twins that require identical treatment and need to be equated and lumped together endlessly. We have important but very different interests in each case. But we do have a vision of a better future for South Asia and indeed all Asia. It is a vision that lies at the heart of what Prime Minister Gujral advocated and what Prime Minister Vajpayee was trying to start when he went to Lahore. It is a vision of eased regional tensions and greater people-to-people exchanges among South Asians. We urgently need to find ways to help get back to that vision, back to the hopes and dreams that existed in Lahore, not just for India and Pakistan, but for India and all of its neighbors. For example, greater cooperation in energy development between Bangladesh's newly found large natural gas resources and eastern India could be critical to bringing the economic miracle of India from the west to the east of the country, where so far, it has not developed.
The subcontinent as a whole needs greater people-to-people exchanges, academic interactions, trade and commerce between its peoples. It needs stronger regional organizations, more open borders, and more dialogue. The President will do what he can and we know there are limits, grave limits to what we can do, to encourage that process when he goes to India and Bangladesh next month. In the end, we in the United States can only do so much. It is ultimately up to Indians and India's neighbors to carry the heavy load and to make the tough political decisions. But we can offer our good offices and nurture the kind of confidence that worked effectively at Blair House eight months ago.
Let me close with just a few words about Bangladesh because why we're going to Bangladesh is important. Bangladesh was born into the world almost a quarter century ago through an extremely violent and dangerous war. Tens of thousands died, tens of thousands lost their homes. Since then, this small country, with horrible poverty, has grabbed itself by its bootstraps and pulled itself up. It has developed with fits and starts but has today a democratic government, with a legislature that works and a judiciary that works and probably the world's most vibrant press corps. This is an important development in a large Muslim country and one the United States wants to be associated with. Bangladesh does not support terrorism. It does not seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It is not developing long-range ballistic missiles. It makes no claims against its neighbor's territories and it seeks to be a recognized part of the world community. It is today a member of the United Nations Security Council where it plays an important role in trying to make that system work. The United States has a heavy investment in Bangladesh. We are the world's largest foreign investor there and we are developing their natural gas resources which offer the hope of a much different future for this country than its past. For that reason, because this is a country which offers a symbol in the Muslim world, I am pleased to say that the President will start his official visit in South Asia a month from yesterday in visiting Dacca and will be the first American president to go to Bangladesh.
Question and Answer Section
Fielded by Bruce Riedel. Questioners identified when possible.
| Q. | I am Trudy Rubin from the Philadelphia Inquirer and I think you mentioned Pakistan. Is President Clinton visiting Pakistan, and is it possible to make any progress on the regional issues that you are talking about without going to Pakistan? |
| A. | The simple answer to your question is that we have not made that decision yet—this extraordinarily difficult decision. It is safe to say that the President would like to go to Pakistan. Pakistan has long been a country with a close relationship with the United States. And the Pakistani people are a people for whom we have great affection and great bonds of history. We have literally fought together in some of the toughest moments of the Cold War. But we cannot concur in what has happened in Pakistan in the last several months. The United States is committed above all else to the advancement of democracy and democratic institutions and we cannot have business as usual with a government that took power through a military coup. There are many areas in which the U.S. and Pakistan need to work and cooperate together—including terrorism, non-proliferation, economic reforms, trade, fighting drug smuggling, the future of Afghanistan, and of course, the future of South Asia. We very much intend to engage with Pakistan on these issues. But whether it is appropriate at this time for the President to go there is a decision that we are still evaluating and still looking at. Obviously, Pakistan has to be part of the engagement process in South Asia, but as I said earlier, there is only so much that the United States can and should do. Ultimately, it is up to the leaders and governments of South Asia to figure out how they are going to engage with each other and to build the bonds of confidence and trust that make engagement work successfully. Here again, any observer would note, that the bonds of confidence and trust between Islamabad and New Delhi have been dealt some shattering blows in the last year. We would like to see getting back to the process at Lahore. In the end, our good offices can only carry that so far. This visit, whether or not the President goes to Pakistan, will be primarily a visit about the United States' relationship with the world's largest democracy, India. If he goes to Pakistan, it will be for the purpose of trying to encourage Pakistan to get back on the path of democracy and to get Pakistan to be as helpful a partner as we can in the process of building a better South Asia. |
| Q. | Dr. Vijay Chandru, IIM, Bangalore and Visiting Graduate Scholar, SEAS, University of Pennsylvania. While your conversation today has been mostly about the geopolitical atmosphere between the United States and India, you did mention very briefly economic issues of great importance to me, and that is the IT revolution. This is so important to India and is now becoming so important to the United States, as you mentioned with Bill Gates opening up his second office in India. One of the questions I have is whether the United States is going to consider opening up H1 visas to encourage more cross border use of our personnel, our very high tech personnel. |
| A. | The good news is that there already are great exchanges of personnel between Indian and American experts in information technology. The other great news about information technology, which those of you in the business know far better than I, is that you don't actually have to travel in order to e-mail and Internet with each other. That may be the best news the State Department's visa policy has ever had. We are looking at that. Visa restrictions are a difficult and time-consuming process. I know there are complaints out there but if you look at the overall picture, the exchange of expertise and people with expertise between our countries, is remarkable. More Indian scientists and technicians are studying in this country than any other place in the world and they go home, they go back to India, and they have contributed to this enormous development in information technology, where a problem can be worked on in our Silicon valley during daylight hours in the United States and then e-mailed to Hyderabad or Bangalore and be worked on in their daylight hours and then sent back here. For me, a person whose skills in computers are tested every time I have to turn one on, it's a remarkable development and it speaks to the fact, that while our economies are very different, the U.S. and India are probably the world's two leading powers in information technology and digital trade. You have to put it in context though. I think as of next week, India will exceed its H1 visas for the entire year. That's kind of a shame when you put it in the global context. We need their expertise and we can't access it the way we should. We are trying to look at ways for making possible for multiple entry visas. It is ultimately a decision that the Secretary of State has to make, but it is an area we recognize we need to do more on. But there are so many people coming that they use up what they have in one sixth of the year. |
| Q. | Mr. Riedel, as the CEO of General Motors once said, the business of America is business. But, as reported in the Indian Press, it seems that business is going to have a back seat priority in the President's visit. Could you comment on this? |
| A. | I don't think that it will be given a back seat priority, and I hope you will agree with me by the first of April that it didn't get a back seat priority because that would be a terrible mistake. As I said, India is one of the world's largest economies. I don't want to talk here in terms of markets because that tends to reduce issues to a level that minimizes and actually marginalizes what we're talking about. The U.S.-India relationship has suffered over the last 50 years because it has lacked ballast. It is too easily blown off course by current events. The last three years are a vivid demonstration of that. In my mind, two things are essential to increasing that ballast. One is politics. And there we have a common democratic experience and as I said, we have many common interests in the world today. But real ballast comes from business. What the President hopes to do on this trip is show Americans and American entrepreneurs that India presents a lot different picture than the one they have of outdated pictures from old movies. India is at the cutting edge of information technology. India has one of the most dynamic stock markets in all of Asia. Bombay is the fifth largest city in the world, and one that prides itself on being the New York of India. It has become a much more central part of the fantastic opportunity for growth in the Indian economy, more than New York is in our own economy. And there is another part of the ballast here. That is the Indian American community, which while relatively small by the standards of ethnic communities in the United States, is remarkable for the speed with which it has succeeded. By virtually every statistical measure, the Indian American community is the most successful community in the United States—per capita income, level of education attained and other indicators. It has outdone its rivals—Japanese Americans, Taiwanese Americans, etc. That can be an extraordinary part of the ballast between our two countries, not just because they bring their personal experiences and their history, but because they are entrepreneurs and the future of U.S.-Indian business will be very much in their hands. When I was in Bombay last November, I was struck by how many of the city's leading entrepreneurs were trained in the United States, educated in the United States, have children who are being educated in the United States, but have made the decision to invest in their own country's future because they believe in it. So I think you will see we will to do what we can to try to show Americans during the four or five days that we can bring the spotlight of the White House press corps on India, that this is a country with which Americans concerned about the bottom line of their checkbook have a big future to think about. |
| Q. | Dr. Vinod Bhutani, Pennsylvania Hospital and Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. I would like to bring to attention the issue of malnutrition of children that you alluded to as the White House limelight enters India. I was hoping that it would not show only the malnutrition of India, but actually how Indians themselves are solving the problems of malnutrition, and I was wondering what was planned. |
| A. | You will understand that I am in a somewhat tricky area here in that if I tell you everything that is going to happen on this trip, what am I going to do for an encore in April? Plus the White House, and the Clinton administration in particular, does not necessarily always have a far out planning horizon and a lot of key decisions about this trip have yet to be made. But we do have in mind looking for ways that progress is being made in terms of fighting malnutrition, poverty, and communicable diseases. India is on the verge of eradicating polio. As you know better than I, that is an enormous accomplishment. And we are looking for an opportunity for the President to visibly associate himself with this triumph of the Indian public health system. India faces new challenges. It has an AIDS problem that today is fairly small but which left uncontrolled could threaten the economic future that it hopes for. The Indian government is trying to find ways to deal with this challenge. And we want to encourage that. We have some of the great scientific expertise in this problem in this country and we want to find ways that we can work together productively. In the White House, we talk about what we call the message of the day which is a way of communicating to the American public one important issue everyday and what the President and what the administration are trying to do about it. When we began looking at India and our relationship and India's importance, our conclusion was that we probably needed 30 days because we had at least 30 messages. And we're going to have to find ways to get the most important ones out and put the President in his role, what the United States can do and what India is doing, above all what India is doing about these things, front and center. We don't want to spend five days talking about geopolitical issues, which frankly bore the vast majority of human beings. We want to talk about some of these other issues—information technology, economics, public health, climate change, clean environment, clean energy use. India, for example, is one of the world's largest users of coal. Coal is a very dangerous energy source to use because it is usually extraordinarily dirty. But the United States is the world's leader in terms of finding ways to use coal in environmentally friendly and clean ways. And Bill Richardson has been meeting with his Indian counterparts about how can we do more to share that knowledge and to encourage American investment in those fields so that the future of India is not one of an environmental tragedy, but one of a country that develops without having to go through the environmental tragedy that our country apparently went through. |
| Q. | Do you think that India and China will eventually be a part of a new world power structure? |
| A. | One of the first lessons I learned as an intelligence analyst 20 some years ago is that predicting the future is really a terrible job. Your chances of getting it right are slim at best. In the medieval period, kings went to their astrologer and the astrologer looked at a star or took a pigeon and he cut it open and then he looked at it, and you know he told the future from that. Nowadays we don't even get pigeons to look at anymore, we're just supposed to make it up. So I hesitate to answer that question because it is an awfully difficult even if an awfully important one. I can say this. The President's vision of the 21st century is that it will become more multi-polar and that there will be a diffusion of not only power in the military sense but a spread of different kinds of power. In addition to that, if we are successful in the efforts that we have underway to resolve differences like those between Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East, between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, between Serbs and Albanians and others in the Balkans and ultimately also between India and Pakistan in South Asia, then the real challenges we may face in the 21st century may be wholly different than those which have preoccupied us in the 20th century. The challenge we may face is not so much about conflict between nations but managing the spread of information technology, of poverty eradication, of new economics—new economics are always very disruptive to global order—and not so much how we deal with rogue nations but rogue entities like terrorists who align themselves with narcotics traffickers and who get access to weapons of mass destruction. Those may be the challenges of 2010 and 2020, and the challenges that we have worked so hard on in the 1990's and still today may be looked back upon as the easy ones. How do you deal with corporate investment in criminal gangs? How do you deal with problems like Colombia's increasing control by narco-terrorists? How do you deal with Osama bin Ladin, a man who seems to be able to travel across countries and find adherents to cross nation states? The one thing that is clear to us and I'll just finish this long answer to a very hard question with one point, is that India is going to be one of those power centers in the 21st century and that the United States had better have a stronger relationship with India and India should have a stronger relationship with the United States or we will both suffer. |
| Q. | Journalist, New India Times. You mentioned earlier in your remarks that you're looking at ways to institutionalize the relationship between the U.S. and India. India's Foreign Secretary said very much the same thing at a press conference when he was in Washington. What ideas are you looking at to institutionalize the U.S.-India relationship? |
| A. | Again I'm going to take the dodge that I'm not going to scoop everything that the President is going to do when he gets to New Delhi by telling you it here today. But I think that as an astute journalist you'll note that there is a parallelism between the Foreign Secretary's remarks and my remarks, and this suggests that our two governments are thinking about ways of doing it. The simplest way, the most important way, is to make sure that we don't have another 22 years before we have the kind of high level engagement that we're going to have next month. And that Presidents and Prime Ministers feel comfortable picking up the telephone and talking to each other, both in times of crisis and in times of no crisis. And that New Delhi be as well known to the White House switchboard as say London or Jerusalem or Moscow is. And the same is true in New Delhi. We have to have senior leaders on both sides, at the top and in their cabinets, frequently engaged in talking with each other and the virtue of the Talbot-Singh dialogue is that while it has had many rounds, we have begun to build that kind of a relationship for the first time. |
| Q. | Inaudible. |
| A. | The question of what is proper defense strategy for India is a decision for Indian leaders, Indian decision makers to make. And from the beginning of our dialogue, we have told Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh that this is your decision. We have an interest in encouraging a process in the world that moves away from nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing and that is where we differ over the question of testing and whether developing additional nuclear weapons enhances security. We have a common interest, a very strong common interest, in discouraging the proliferation of technologies from proliferator states to other states. We have opposed the transfer of dangerous and sensitive technologies from China to Pakistan, we opposed it from Russia to Iran, from North Korea to a wide number of countries. We agree with India on the need for firm export controls by all countries that have developed advanced technologies so that they do not spread to other countries, particularly countries about which you have to have doubts as to the wisdom of whether their current leaders should have such technologies and India's record in this regard has really been quite a strong one. We have never accused the Indian government of being a trafficker in exporting its technologies to other countries and I can say and I think my Indian counterparts would agree that on those occasions when we have developed information that an Indian private company or firm has engaged in the transfer of a dangerous technology, we have raised it with the Government of India and we and they have had excellent cooperation in trying to ensure that that kind of thing doesn't happen. Regarding the question of U.S.-China relations and U.S.-India relations and the triangle between them, the United States does not see these two countries as two countries which we want to pit against each other in some kind of pre-World War I balance of power game in Asia. We think that is outdated thinking. We think it is dangerous thinking. We have important relations with both of these countries and we seek to enhance and deepen them both. We also recognize the fundamental reality. India, like us, has a commitment to democratic values and the democratic experiment. We hope someday China will join that camp as well, but that common bond of democratic values and democratic principles is part of the ballast that should help this relationship be as important as it should be in the 21st century. |
| Q. | Jason Kirk, graduate student, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania. Is it a priority for the administration to meet with any particular state government? |
| A. | We would like to. I think you must have a particular state government in mind. But we have not yet fixed the itinerary completely. Traveling with the President of the United States is an extraordinary expense. Just the press corps alone is two or three hundred people. His security architecture, his logistics architecture, and his communications architecture means we are looking at a party somewhere in the area of almost a thousand people. And moving them around from place to place is a logistics nightmare. When the President on very short notice took my advice and went to Norway last December for an opportunity to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister and Chairman Arafat, the Norwegian press claimed during our visit that this was the second occupation of Norway. The first had been by Germany in 1940 and the second was by the White House party. Fortunately, we left a lot faster and I think we were a beneficent occupation. But the point I'm trying to make is that going all the places we want to go with the party that we have is just physically not possible. |
| Q. | Harvey Sicherman, Chairman, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philadelphia. Bruce, listening to your message, which was a very enthusiastic and expansive one, don't you run the risk that this is going to be interpreted in Delhi and perhaps in some of the other regional capitals to mean that basically the United States is picking India as a partner and that everybody else is subject to the second rank. And as a consequence, given the rough relationships that exist out there, might this not this inadvertently thoughts about how to deal with some of these problems. |
| A. | That is a very good question. And it goes in part to why the answer to the first question was 'we haven't made a decision yet' because it's how we balance our various interests in this part of the world that makes it hard to say that we just rule out a priori an engagement with the authorities in Islamabad. I tried to lay out though, in my remarks, that we're not sugarcoating anything here. There are areas that we and this government in New Delhi disagree on, very important matters. And we would be doing no one a service if we pretended those don't exist and we're not pretending that they don't exist. We're not giving anyone a blank check to do anything. Our position in Kargil last year was based on a fundamental principle which was the Line of Control should be respected. In that case, one side had encouraged the process of crossing that Line of Control. The decision-making around that remains murky to this day. But the fact was unmistakable. And we condemned that fact and we would condemn any attempt by any party to change the nature of the relationship by use of force and by violent means. What we encourage, what we think is the path to a better future, is dialogue and engagement. We understand how hard that can be. But what is remarkable about these two countries and indeed about the relationship between almost all the countries of South Asia is how little engagement there is. The Prime Minister took a bold move in taking a bus ride to Lahore. What was remarkable was that people didn't think this should be normal. Between countries that border on each another, that have common history, that have so much in common, people should feel comfortable taking buses, driving their cars, going by train, going by air and in this case, it was the abnormality of the situation which the Prime Minister was, I think, trying to highlight and say 'there has to be a better way for our countries to get together' and that is what we support and that is what we will continue to support. |
| Q. | A year from now there will be a different Administration in the White House. If I hadn't read the program, I would have assumed that you were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs. What I ask of you is what is the role of the State Department in all of this because that to me represents continuity. The White House represents political coming and going, but other than maybe Strobe Talbott, I don't think you mentioned the State Department once. What are they doing in all of this? |
| A. | Well, Strobe is the Deputy Secretary of State and frequently the Acting Secretary of State. The South Asia Bureau has really come into its own, I think, in the Clinton Administration. It has its origins in the last year of the Bush Administration but this Administration encouraged the development of a strong South Asia Bureau. And we see State as being very much a part of the institutionalization of this relationship. It is Secretary Albright to whom the President will be looking for recommendations as to how to put meat on the bones of that idea. I'm not sure whether my colleague Rick Inderfurth will be pleased when I tell him you confused me with him here today, but I think it is because the identity of views between us and the State Department on this issue is almost entirely overlapping, so I didn't see the need to separate them out. Let me ask a question behind your question because I think it's an important one. If I was in the audience I would say this is all fine. The President and his advisors are promising that his successors are going to do this, that and the other thing. It's easy to make such promises. How do you know that they will be lived up to? The answer is I can't know. What I can tell you is that in this last year we hope to build as strong bonds as possible, as strong ties as possible, as strong institutional relationships as possible. We hope to leave to our successors, whether that is Vice President Gore or someone else, a record that shows this is important for the United States. I take some comfort in knowing that in his speech about the future of Asia, Governor Bush highlighted developing a strong relationship with India as one of the priorities of American policy in Asia for the 21st century. So I think that the best we can do is try to build the institutional basis, explain the reasons for going and then it will be to our successors to either do the right thing, which is to continue and build upon it, or to make the mistake of ignoring this part of the world and putting it at the back end of their inbox. |
| Q. | Will India's membership in the Security Council be discussed? |
| A. | One of the things that you learn in advising Presidents is that it is not only his agenda that he is going to have to talk about, but hosts will, whether you want it or not, raise what they want to raise. The question of India's role in the future of the United Nations Security Council I'm sure will be discussed. You know our position, which is that there should be Security Council reform. We favor making Japan and Germany permanent members of the Council and finding some way by which different parts of the world will nominate other countries to be permanent members of the Council. We also feel very strongly though, that to the extent the Security Council works, it works because it is relatively small to be an unwieldy body and that the determination of additional permanent members is a very risky step and one that should be taken with a great deal of caution and a great deal of care. |
| Q. | Can we expect India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? |
| A. | We encourage both India and Pakistan to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it is in both of their national interests. Neither has seen their national security enhanced by nuclear testing. The dangerous developments that we have talked about today underscore that nuclear testing did not bring an era of peace and stability to the region. It may have encouraged processes directly in the opposite corner. A country should sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, not because their neighbors do or don't, or because someone else on the other side of the world does. They should because it is in all of our interests to end nuclear testing. We know how nuclear weapons work. They work very effectively. We don't need to constantly be pushing all the scientific parameters and taking all the risks that are involved in nuclear testing. This Administration feels very strongly that a Comprehensive Test Ban is one of the legacies that it should give to the 21st century. Obviously, some in Congress, the majority in Congress, do not agree with us. But we will continue to adhere to the requirements of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Now if a country like India or Pakistan signs the Treaty, the Treaty is very explicit that if there is an overriding national security crisis, any country can announce its withdrawal from the CTBT because of those national security requirements. It is written into the Treaty. The importance of the Treaty is in establishing an international agreement that nuclear testing is something that historians should write about as a 20th century phenomenon that stopped—that we collectively had the wisdom to stop exploring how quickly we could develop a system to destroy life on the planet. That's what that Treaty has done. The Government of India and indeed the previous Government of Pakistan, both indicated in remarks at the General Assembly two years ago, in 1998, that they wanted to find themselves in a position to adhere to the CTBT once a domestic consensus had developed in favor of doing that. And I very much hope that the Government of India will make that decision. I very much hope that the new military leadership in Pakistan will make that decision as well. |
Thank you.
Concluding Remarks: Francine Frankel
On behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, the Center for the Advanced Study of India, and of all of us who came here today, I want to express my sincerest thank you to Bruce Riedel for a very clear, thought provoking, forthright discussion of the President's trip to India and its real meaning in the context of U.S. foreign policy. Even though on many occasions he said that he couldn't trace in the details, he did the most important thing for all of us. That is to give us a vision of where United States policy is moving—where this administration wants it to move and where with the legacy of this President's visit, as it is being planned, we can imagine that U.S. policy will continue to set new goals for better relations with India and Asia in the next decade. I am very grateful to you for doing this for us and for coming to CASI to bring us this message.
Addendum
Remarks by the President to the Indian Joint Session of Parliament
Parliament
New Delhi, India
March 22, 2000
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Vice President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, I am privileged to speak to you and, through you, to the people of India. I am honored to be joined today by members of my Cabinet and staff at the White House, and a very large representation of members of our United States Congress from both political parties. We're all honored to be here and we thank you for your warm welcome. (Applause.)
I would also like to thank the people of India for their kindness to my daughter and my mother-in-law and, on their previous trip, to my wife and my daughter. (Applause.) I have looked forward to this day with great anticipation. This whole trip has meant a great deal to me, especially to this point, the opportunity I had to visit the Gandhi memorial, to express on behalf of all the people of the United States our gratitude for the life, the work, the thought of Gandhi, without which the great civil rights revolution in the United States would never had succeeded on a peaceful plane. (Applause.)
As Prime Minister Vajpayee has said, India and America are natural allies, two nations conceived in liberty, each finding strength in its diversity, each seeing in the other a reflection of its own aspiration for a more humane and just world.
A poet once said the world's inhabitants can be divided into "those that have seen the Taj Mahal and those that have not." (Laughter.) Well, in a few hours I will have a chance to cross over to the happier side of that divide. But I hope, in a larger sense, that my visit will help the American people to see the new India and to understand you better. And I hope that the visit will help India to understand America better. And that by listening to each other we can build a true partnership of mutual respect and common endeavor.
From a distance, India often appears as a kaleidoscope of competing, perhaps superficial, images. Is it atomic weapons, or ahimsa? A land struggling against poverty and inequality, or the world's largest middle-class society? Is it still simmering with communal tensions, or history's most successful melting pot? Is it Bollywood or Satyajit Ray? Swetta Chetty or Alla Rakha? Is it the handloom or the hyperlink?
The truth is, no single image can possibly do justice to your great nation. But beyond the complexities and the apparent contradictions, I believe India teaches us some very basic lessons. The first is about democracy. There are still those who deny that democracy is a universal aspiration; who say it works only for people of a certain culture, or a certain degree of economic development. India has been proving them wrong for 52 years now. Here is a country where more than 2 million people hold elected office in local government; a country that shows at every election that those who possess the least cherish their vote the most. Far from washing away the uniqueness of your culture, your democracy has brought out the richness of its tapestry, and given you the knot that holds it together.
A second lesson India teaches is about diversity. You have already heard remarks about that this morning. But around the world there is a chorus of voices who say ethnic and religious diversity is a threat; who argue that the only way to keep different people from killing one another is to keep them as far apart as possible. But India has shown us a better way. For all the troubles you have seen, surely the subcontinent has seen more innocence hurt in the efforts to divide people by ethnicity and faith than by the efforts to bring them together in peace and harmony.
Under trying circumstances, you have shown the world how to live with difference. You have shown that tolerance and mutual respect are in many ways the keys to our common survival. That is something the whole world needs to learn.
A third lesson India teaches is about globalization and what may be the central debate of our time. Many people believe the forces of globalization are inherently divisive; that they can only widen the gap between rich and poor. That is a valid fear, but I believe wrong. As the distance between producers large and small, and customers near and far becomes less relevant, developing countries will have opportunities not only to succeed, but to lead in lifting more people out of poverty more quickly than at any time in human history. In the old economy, location was everything. In the new economy, information, education and motivation are everything — and India is proving it.
You liberated your markets and now you have one of the 10 fastest growing economies in the world. At the rate of growth within your grasp, India's standard of living could rise by 500 percent in just 20 years. You embraced information technology and now, when Americans and other big software companies call for consumer and customer support, they're just as likely to find themselves talking to an expert in Bangalore as one in Seattle. (Applause.)
You decentralized authority, giving more individuals and communities the freedom to succeed. In that way, you affirmed what every successful country is finding in its own way: globalization does not favor nations with a licensing raj, it does favor nations with a panchayat raj. And the world has been beating a path to your door.
In the new millennium, every great country must answer one overarching question: how shall we define our greatness? Every country — America included — is tempted to cling to yesterday's definition of economic and military might. But true leadership for the United States and India derives more from the power of our example and the potential of our people.
I believe that the greatest of India's many gifts to the world is the example its people have set "from Midnight to Millennium." Think of it: virtually every challenge humanity knows can be found here in India. And every solution to every challenge can be found here as well: confidence in democracy; tolerance for diversity; a willingness to embrace social change. That is why Americans admire India; why we welcome India's leadership in the region and the world; and why we want to take our partnership to a new level, to advance our common values and interests, and to resolve the differences that still remain.
There were long periods when that would not have been possible. Though our democratic ideals gave us a starting point in common, and our dreams of peace and prosperity gave us a common destination, there was for too long too little common ground between East and West, North and South. Now, thankfully, the old barriers between nations and people, economies and cultures, are being replaced by vast networks of cooperation and commerce. With our open, entrepreneurial societies, India and America are at the center of those networks. We must expand them, and defeat the forces that threaten them.
To succeed, I believe there are four large challenges India and the United States must meet together — challenges that should define our partnership in the years ahead. The first of these challenges is to get our own economic relationship right. Americans have applauded your efforts to open your economy, your commitment to a new wave of economic reform; your determination to bring the fruits of growth to all your people. We are proud to support India's growth as your largest partner in trade and investment. And we want to see more Indians and more Americans benefit from our economic ties, especially in the cutting edge fields of information technology, biotechnology and clean energy.
The private sector will drive this progress, but our job as governments is to create the conditions that will allow them to succeed in doing so, and to reduce the remaining impediments to trade and investment between us.
Our second challenge is to sustain global economic growth in a way that lifts the lives of rich and poor alike, both across and within national borders. Part of the world today lives at the cutting edge of change, while a big part still exists at the bare edge of survival. Part of the world lives in the information age. Part of the world does not even reach the clean water age. And often the two live side by side. It is unacceptable, it is intolerable; thankfully, it is unnecessary and it is far more than a regional crisis. Whether around the corner or around the world, abject poverty in this new economy is an affront to our common humanity and a threat to our common prosperity.
The problem is truly immense, as you know far better than I. But perhaps for the first time in all history, few would dispute that we know the solutions. We know we need to invest in education and literacy, so that children can have soaring dreams and the tools to realize them. We know we need to make a special commitment in developing nations to the education of young girls, as well as young boys. Everything we have learned about development tells us that when women have access to knowledge, to health, to economic opportunity and to civil rights, children thrive, families succeed and countries prosper. Here again, we see how a problem and its answers can be found side by side in India. For every economist who preaches the virtues of women's empowerment points at first to the achievements of India's state of Kerala— I knew there would be somebody here from Kerala — (laughter and applause.) Thank you.
To promote development, we know we must conquer the diseases that kill people and progress. Last December, India immunized 140 million children against polio, the biggest public health effort in human history. I congratulate you on that. (Applause.)
I have launched an initiative in the United States to speed the development of vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS — the biggest infectious killers of our time. This July, when our partners in the G-8meet in Japan, I will urge them to join us.
But that is not enough, for at best, effective vaccines are years away. Especially for AIDS, we need a commitment today to prevention, and that means straight talk and an end to stigmatizing. As Prime Minister Vajpayee said, no one should ever speak of AIDS as someone else's problem. This has long been a big problem for the United States. It is now a big problem for you. I promise you America's partnership in the continued struggle. (Applause.)
To promote development, we know we must also stand with those struggling for human rights and freedom around the world and in the region. For as the economist Amartya Sen has said, no system of government has done a better job in easing human want, in averting human catastrophes, than democracy. I am proud America and India will stand together on the right side of history when we launch the Community of Democracies in Warsaw this summer.
All of these steps are essential to lifting people's lives. But there is yet another. With greater trade and the growth it brings, we can multiply the gains of education, better health and democratic empowerment. That is why I hope we will work together to launch a new global trade round that will promote economic development for all. One of the benefits of the World Trade Organization is that it has given developing countries a bigger voice in global trade policy. Developing countries have used that voice to urge richer nations to open their markets further so that all can have a chance to grow. That is something the opponents of the WTO don't fully appreciate yet.
We need to remind them that when Indians and Brazilians and Indonesians speak up for open trade, they are not speaking for some narrow corporate interest, but for a huge part of humanity that has no interest inbeing saved from development. Of course, trade should not be a race to the bottom in environmental and labor standards, but neither should fears about trade keep part of our global community forever at the bottom.
Yet we must also remember that those who are concerned about the impact of globalization in terms of inequality, in environmental degradation do speak for a large part of humanity. Those who believe that trade should contribute not just to the wealth, but also to the fairness of societies; those who share Nehru's dream of a structure for living that fulfills our material needs, and at the same time sustains our mind and spirit.
We can advance these values without engaging in rich-country protectionism. Indeed, to sustain a consensus for open trade, we must find a way to advance these values as well. That is my motivation, and my only motivation, in seeking a dialogue about the connections between labor, the environment, and trade and development.
I would remind you — and I want to emphasize this — the United States has the most open markets of any wealthy country in the world. We have the largest trade deficit. We also have had a strong economy, because we have welcomed the products and the services from the labor of people throughout the world. I am for an open global trading system. But we must do it in a way that advances the cause of social justice around the world.(Applause.)
The third challenge we face is to see that the prosperity and growth of the information age require us to abandon some of the outdated truths of the Industrial Age. As the economy grows faster today, for example, when children are kept in school, not put to work. Think about the industries that are driving our growth today in India and in America. Just as oil enriched the nations who had it in the 20th century, clearly knowledge is doing the same for the nations who have it in the 21st century. The difference is, knowledge can be tapped by all people everywhere, and it will never run out.
We must also find ways to achieve robust growth while protecting the environment and reversing climate change. I'm convinced we can do that as well. We will see in the next few years, for example, automobiles that are three, four, perhaps five times as efficient as those being driven today. Soon scientists will make alternative sources of energy more widely available and more affordable. Just for example, before long chemists almost certainly will unlock the block that will allow us to produce eight or nine gallons of fuel from bio-fuels, farm fuels, using only one gallon of gasoline.
Indian scientists are at the forefront of this kind of research —pioneering the use of solar energy to power rural communities; developing electric cars for use in crowded cities; converting agricultural waste into electricity. If we can deepen our cooperation for clean energy, we will strengthen our economies, improve our people's health and fight global warming. This should be a vital element of our new partnership.
A fourth challenge we face is to protect the gains of democracy and development from the forces which threaten to undermine them. There is the danger of organized crime and drugs. There is the evil of trafficking inhuman beings, a modern form of slavery. And of course, there is the threat of terrorism. Both our nations know it all too well.
Americans understood the pain and agony you went through during the Indian Airlines hijacking. And I saw that pain firsthand when I met with the parents and the widow of the young man who was killed on that airplane.(Applause.) We grieve with you for the Sikhs who were killed in Kashmir —(applause) — and our heart goes out to their families. We will work with you to build a system of justice, to strengthen our cooperation against terror. (Applause.) We must never relax our vigilance or allow the perpetrators to intimidate us into retreating from our democratic ideals. Another danger we face is the spread of weapons of mass destruction to those who might have no reservations about using them. I still believe this is the greatest potential threat to the security we all face in the 21st century. It is why we must be vigilant in fighting the spread of chemical and biological weapons. And it is why we must both keep working closely to resolve our remaining differences on nuclear proliferation.
I am aware that I speak to you on behalf of a nation that has possessed nuclear weapons for 55 years and more. But since 1988, the United States has dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons. We have helped Russia to dismantle their nuclear weapons and to safeguard the material that remains. We have agreed to an outline of a treaty with Russia that will reduce our remaining nuclear arsenal by more than half. We are producing no more fissile material, developing no new land- or submarine-based missiles, engaging in no new nuclear testing.
From South America to South Africa, nations are foreswearing these weapons, realizing that a nuclear future is not a more secure future. Most of the world is moving toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. That goal is not advanced if any country, in any region, it moves in the other direction.
I say this with great respect. Only India can determine its own interests. Only India — (applause) — only India can know if it truly is safer today than before the tests. Only India can determine if it will benefit from expanding its nuclear and missile capabilities, if its neighbors respond by doing the same thing. Only India knows if it can afford a sustained investment in both conventional and nuclear forces while meeting its goals for human development. These are questions others may ask, but only you can answer.
I can only speak to you as a friend about America's own experience during the Cold War. We were geographically distant from the Soviet Union. We were not engaged in direct armed combat. Through years of direct dialogue with our adversary, we each had a very good idea of the other's capabilities, doctrines, and intentions. We each spent billions of dollars on elaborate command and control systems, for nuclear weapons are not cheap.
And yet, in spite of all of this — and as I sometimes say jokingly, in spite of the fact that both sides had very good spies, and that was a good thing — (laughter) — in spite of all of this, we came far too close to nuclear war. We learned that deterrence alone cannot be relied on to prevent accident or miscalculation. And in a nuclear standoff, there is nothing more dangerous than believing there is no danger.
I can also repeat what I said at the outset. India is a leader, a great nation, which by virtue of its size, its achievements, and its example, has the ability to shape the character of our time. For any of us, to claim that mantle and assert that status is to accept first and foremost that our actions have consequences for others beyond our borders. Great nations with broad horizons must consider whether actions advance or hinder what Nehru called the larger cause of humanity.
So India's nuclear policies, inevitably, have consequences beyond your borders: eroding the barriers against the spread of nuclear weapons, discouraging nations that have chosen to foreswear these weapons, encouraging others to keep their options open. But if India's nuclear test shook the world, India's leadership for nonproliferation can certainly move the world.
India and the United States have reaffirmed our commitment to forego nuclear testing. And for that I thank the Prime Minister, the government and the people of India. But in our own self-interest — and I say this again — in our own self-interest we can do more. I believe both nations should join the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; work to launch negotiations on a treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons; strengthen export controls. And India can pursue defense policies in keeping with its commitment not to seek a nuclear or missile arms race, which the Prime Minister has forcefully reaffirmed just in these last couple of days.
Again, I do not presume to speak for you or to tell you what to decide. It is not my place. You are a great nation and you must decide. But I ask you to continue our dialogue on these issues. And let us turn our dialogue into a genuine partnership against proliferation. If we make progress in narrowing our differences, we will be both more secure, and our relationship can reach its full potential.
I hope progress can also be made in overcoming a source of tension in this region, including the tensions between India and Pakistan. I share many of your government's concerns about the course Pakistan is taking; your disappointment that past overtures have not always met with success; your outrage over recent violence. I know it is difficult to be a democracy bordered by nations whose governments reject democracy.
But I also believe — I also believe India has a special opportunity, as a democracy, to show its neighbors that democracy is about dialogue. It does not have to be about friendship, but it is about building working relationships among people who differ. One of the wisest things anyone ever said to me is that you don't make peace with your friends. That is what the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin told me before he signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, with whom he had been fighting for decades. It is well to remember — I remind myself of it all the time, even when I have arguments with members of the other party in my Congress — (laughter) — you don't make peace with your friends.
Engagement with adversaries is not the same thing as endorsement. It does not require setting aside legitimate grievances. Indeed, I strongly believe that what has happened since your Prime Minister made his courageous journey to Lahore only reinforces the need for dialogue.(Applause.)
I can think of no enduring solution to this problem that can be achieved in any other way. In the end, for the sake of the innocents who always suffer the most, someone must end the contest of inflicting and absorbing pain.
Let me also make clear, as I have repeatedly, I have certainly not come to South Asia to mediate the dispute over Kashmir. Only India and Pakistan can work out the problems between them. And I will say the same thing to General Musharraf in Islamabad. But if outsiders cannot resolve this problem, I hope you will create the opportunity to do it yourselves, calling on the support of others who can help where possible, as American diplomacy did in urging the Pakistanis to go back behind the line of control in the Kargil crisis. (Applause.)
In the meantime, I will continue to stress that this should be a time for restraint, for respect for the line of control, for renewed lines of communication. Addressing this challenge and all the others I mentioned will require us to be closer partners and better friends, and to remember that good friends, out of respect, are honest with one another. And even when they do not agree, they always try to find common ground.
I have read that one of the unique qualities of Indian classical music is its elasticity. The composer lays down a foundation, a structure of melodic and rhythmic arrangements, but the player has to improvise within that structure to bring the raga* to life.
Our relationship is like that. The composers of our past have given us a foundation of shared democratic ideals. It is up to us to give life to those ideals in this time. The melodies do not have to be the same to be beautiful to both of us. But if we listen to each other, and we strive to realize our vision together, we will write a symphony far greater than the sum of our individual notes.
The key is to genuinely and respectfully listen to each other. If we do, Americans will better understand the scope of India's achievements, and the dangers India still faces in this troubled part of the world. We will understand that India will not choose a particular course simply because others wish it to do so. It will choose only what it believes its interests clearly demand and what its people democratically embrace.
If we listen to each other, I also believe Indians will understand better that America very much wants you to succeed. Time and again —(applause) — time and again in my time as President, America has found that it is the weakness of great nations, not their strength, that threatens our vision for tomorrow.
So we want India to be strong; to be secure; to be united; to be a force for a safer, more prosperous, more democratic world. Whatever we ask of you, we ask in that spirit alone. After too long a period of estrangement, India and the United States have learned that being natural allies is a wonderful thing, but it is not enough. Our task is to turn a common vision into common achievements so that partners in spirit can be partners in fact. We have already come a long way to this day of new beginnings, but we still have promises to keep, challenges to meet and hopes to redeem.
So let us seize this moment with humility in the fragile and fleeting nature of this life, but absolute confidence in the power of the human spirit. Let us seize it for India, for America, for all those with whom we share this small planet, and for all the children that together we can give such bright tomorrows. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
U.S.-India Relations: A Vision for the 21st Century
Presented by U.S. President Clinton and India's Prime Minister Vajpayee
March 21, 2000
At the dawn of a new century, President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee resolve to create a closer and qualitatively new relationship between the United States and India.
We are two of the world's largest democracies. We are nations forged from many traditions and faiths, proving year after year that diversity is our strength. From vastly different origins and experiences, we have come to the same conclusions: that freedom and democracy are the strongest bases for both peace and prosperity, and that they are universal aspirations, constrained neither by culture nor levels of economic development.
There have been times in the past when our relationship drifted without a steady course. As we now look towards the future, we are convinced that it is time to chart a new and purposeful direction in our relationship.
Globalization is erasing boundaries and building networks between nations and peoples, economies and cultures. The world is increasingly coming together around the democratic ideals India and the United States have long championed and lived by.
Together, we represent a fifth of the world's people, more than a quarter of the world's economy. We have built creative, entrepreneurial societies. We are leaders in the information age. The currents of commerce and culture that link our societies run strong and deep. In many ways, the character of the 21st century world will depend on the success of our cooperation for peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom.
That presents us with an opportunity, but also a profound responsibility to work together. Our partnership of shared ideals leads us to seek a natural partnership of shared endeavors.
In the new century, India and the United States will be partners in peace, with a common interest in and complementary responsibility for ensuring regional and international security. We will engage in regular consultations on, and work together for, strategic stability in Asia and beyond. We will bolster joint efforts to counter terrorism and meet other challenges to regional peace. We will strengthen the international security system, including in the United Nations, and support the United Nations in its peacekeeping efforts. We acknowledge that tensions in South Asia can only be resolved by the nations of South Asia. India is committed to enhancing cooperation, peace and stability in the region.
India and the United States share a commitment to reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, but we have not always agreed on how to reach this common goal. The United States believes India should forgo nuclear weapons. India believes that it needs to maintain a credible minimum nuclear deterrent in keeping with its own assessment of its security needs. Nonetheless, India and the U.S. are prepared to work together to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. To this end, we will persist with and build upon the productive bilateral dialogue already underway.
We reaffirm our respective voluntary commitments to forgo further nuclear explosive tests. We will work together and with others for an early commencement of negotiations on a treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. We have both shown strong commitments to export controls, and will continue to strengthen them. We will work together to prevent the spread of dangerous technologies. We are committed to build confidence and reduce the chances of miscalculation. We will pursue our security needs in a restrained and responsible manner, and will not engage in nuclear and missile arms races.
We will seek to narrow our differences and increase mutual understanding on non-proliferation and security issues. This will help us to realize the full potential of Indo-U.S. relations and contribute significantly to regional and global security.
The true measure of our strength lies in the ability of our people to shape their destiny and to realize their aspirations for a better life. That is why the United States and India are and will be allies in the cause of democracy. We will share our experience in nurturing and strengthening democratic institutions the world over and fighting the challenge to democratic order from forces such as terrorism. We will cooperate with others to launch an international Community of Democracies this year.
The United States applauds India's success in opening its economy, its achievements in science and technology, its commitment to a new wave of economic expansion and reform, and its determination to bring the benefits of economic growth to all its people.
Our nations pledge to reduce impediments to bilateral trade and investment and to expand commerce between us, especially in the emerging knowledge-based industries and high-technology areas.
We will work together to preserve stability and growth in the global economy as well. And we will join in an unrelenting battle against poverty in the world, so that the promise of a new economy is felt everywhere and no nation is left behind. That is among the fundamentalchallenges of our time. Opening trade and resisting protectionism are the best means for meeting it. We support an open, equitable and transparent rule-based multilateral trading system, and we will work together to strengthen it. We agree that developed countries should embrace policies that offer developing countries the opportunity to grow, because growth is the key to rising incomes and rising standards. At the same time, we share the conviction that human development also requires empowerment of people and availability of basic freedoms.
As leaders in the forefront of the new high-technology economy, we recognize that countries can achieve robust economic growth while protecting the environment and taking action to combat climate change. We will do our part to meet the global environmental challenges, including climate change and the impacts of air and water pollution on human health.
We also pledge a common effort to battle the infectious diseases that kill people and retard progress in so many countries. India is at the forefront of the global effort that has brought us to the threshold of the eradication of polio. With leadership, joint research, and application of modern science, we can and will do the same for the leading killers of our time, including AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
We are proud of the cooperation between Indians and Americans in advancing frontiers of knowledge. But even as we unravel the mysteries of time and space, we must continue to apply our knowledge to older challenges: eradicating human suffering, disease and poverty. In the past, our cooperation helped ease mass hunger in the world. In the future, it will focus as well on the development of clean energy, health, and education.
Our partnership is not an end in itself, but a means to all these ends. And it is reinforced by the ties of scholarship, commerce, and increasingly of kinship among our people. The industry, enterprise and cultural contributions of Americans of Indian heritage have enriched and enlivened both our societies.
Today, we pledge to deepen the Indian-American partnership in tangible ways, always seeking to reconcile our differences through dialogue and engagement, always seizing opportunities to advance the countless interests we have in common. As a first step, President Clinton has invited Prime Minister Vajpayee to visit Washington at a mutually convenient opportunity, and the Prime Minister has accepted that invitation. Henceforth, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India should meet regularly to institutionalize our dialogue. We have also agreed on and separately outlined an architecture of additional high-level consultations, and of joint working groups, across the broad spectrum of areas in which we are determined to institutionalize our enhanced cooperation. And we will encourage even stronger people-to-people ties.
For India and the United States, this is a day of new beginnings. We have before us for the first time in 50 years the possibility to realize the full potential of our relationship. We will work to seize that chance, for our benefit and all those with whom we share this increasingly interdependent world.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Prime Minister of India
William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States of America
Agreed Principles: Institutional Dialogue Between the United States and India
1. During the visit of President Clinton to Delhi in March 2000, President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee agreed as part of their vision for the future relationship that a regular, wide-ranging dialogue is important for achieving the goal of establishing closer and multifaceted relations between India and the United States and for the two countries to work jointly for promotion of peace and prosperity in the 21st century.
The two leaders agreed on a number of steps to intensify and institutionalize the dialogue between India and the United States.
2. The President of the United States and Prime Minister of India will hold regular bilateral'Summits' in alternating capitals or elsewhere, including on the occasions of multilateral meetings, to review bilateral relations and consult on international developments and issues. They will remain in frequent contact by telephone and through letters.
3. The two countries will also hold an Annual Foreign Policy Dialogue at the level of the Secretary of State of the United States and External Affairs Minister of India. This dialogue will be broad-based and touch upon all aspects of US-India relations, including considering the work of other groups as appropriate.
4. The two countries also consider the ongoing Dialogue on Security and Non-proliferation between the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States and External Affairs Minister of India important for improving mutual understanding on bilateral, regional and international security matters. They agreed that this dialogue should continue and take place semi-annually or as often as considered desirable by both sides.
The Principals of this dialogue will establish Expert Groups on specific issues as considered desirable and appropriate.
5. Foreign Office Consultations between the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States and Foreign Secretary of India will continue. The two leaders believe that close cooperation between the two countries is a factor of stability in the politically and culturally diverse and rapidly transforming Asia. A Dialogue on Asian Security will also be conducted as part of the Foreign Office Consultations. The two sides will also stay in close touch and consult on international democracy initiatives.
6. The two leaders consider combating international terrorism as one of the most important global challenges. They expressed satisfaction at the establishment of the Joint Working Group on Counter-terrorism and its productive first meeting in February 2000. They agree that the Joint Working Group should continue to meet regularly and become an effective mechanism for the two countries to share information and intensify their cooperation in combating terrorism.
7. The two leaders see an enormous potential for enhancement of economic and business relations between the two countries in the Knowledge Age. They decided to institutionalize bilateral economic dialogue. They will keep themselves informed and follow developments in the bilateral economic dialogue closely through a high-level coordinating group. The coordinating group will be led on the US side by the White House with the support of the State Department, and on the Indian side by the Prime Minister's Office with the support of the Ministry of External Affairs.
The Coordinating Group will develop a common economic agenda for and undertake preparations for the Heads of Government meetings. With broad inter-agency and inter-ministerial representations at senior official levels, it would convene regularly to facilitate close coordination on the various issues raised in the ministerial dialogues and ensure that discussions therein complement and reinforce broad economic and foreign policy objectives, including the deepening of bilateral cooperation on high technology and information technology issues.
US-India Financial and Economic Forum: The US Secretary of the Treasury and the Indian Minister of Finance will host a forum on finance and investment issues, macroeconomic policy and international economic developments at regular intervals.
Their meetings at the ministerial level would be supplemented by sub-Cabinet meetings and involve, as appropriate, the participation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Council of Economic Advisors, and other officials of the US Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Reserve Bank of India, and other officials of the Government of India.
US-India Commercial Dialogue: The US Secretary of Commerce and Minister of Commerce and Industry of India will lead a dialogue to deepen ties between the Indian and American Business communities. The dialogue will encompass regular government-to-government meetings to be held in conjunction with private sector meetings. Its aim will be to (a) facilitate trade, and (b) maximize investment opportunities across a broad range of economic sectors, including information technology, infrastructure, biotechnology, and services. Participation will include, as appropriate, representatives of other Cabinet agencies and ministries on both sides.
Close contact will be maintained with business associations, and activities will be planned with the benefit of such private sector input, including the establishment of subcommittees to pursue specific projects or sectoral issues of mutual interest.
US-India Working Group on Trade: The United States Trade Representative and the Ministry of Commerce and other concerned Ministries/Departments of the Government of India will engage in regular discussion to enhance cooperation on trade policy. As appropriate, individual trade issues could be examined in greater depth with the participation of other agencies with corresponding responsibilities and through creation of sub-groups. The Group will serve as a locus of consultation on a broad range of trade-related issues, including those pertaining to the World Trade Organization. The Group will receive inputs from the private sector (including trade policy issues identified in the US-India Commercial Dialogue) as appropriate.
8. The two leaders consider cooperation between the two countries in energy and environment an important part of their vision for the future. They have agreed to set up a Joint Consultative Group on Clean Energy and Environment. The Group will hold periodic ministerial/high level meetings as desirable and appropriate and will lay emphasis on collaborative projects, developing and deploying clean energy technologies, public and private sector investment and cooperation, and climate change and other environmental issues. The Co-conveners of the Group will be the Department of State of the United States and the Ministry of External Affairs of India.
9. The two leaders believe that the strong scientific resources of the two countries provide excellent opportunities for scientific collaboration between them. They agree to set up a US-India Science and Technology Forum. The Forum shall promote research and development, the transfer of technology, the creation of a comprehensive electronic reference source for US-India science and technology cooperation, and the electronic exchange and dissemination of information on US-India science and technology cooperation, and other programs consistent with the previous practice of the US-India Foundation.
10. Institutional dialogue in other areas will be considered as mutually agreed.
Remarks by the President in Greeting to the People of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan
March 25, 2000
THE PRESIDENT: As-salaam aleikum. It is an honor to be the first President of the United States to address all the people of Pakistan, and the first to visit your country in more than 30 years. I'm here as a great admirer of your land's rich history, of its centuries of civilization which stretch as long as the Indus River. I'm here as one whose own nation has been greatly enriched by the talents of Americans of Pakistani descent. But most of all, I am here as a friend — a grateful friend who values our long partnership; a concerned friend who cares deeply about the future course of your country; a committed friend who will stand with the people of Pakistan as long as you seek the stable, prosperous, democratic nation of your founders' dreams.
More than half a century ago, Muhammad Ali Jinnah shared that vision as he addressed Pakistan's Constituent Assembly. "If you work together," he said, "in the spirit that every one of you is first, second and last a citizen, with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make."
The Quaid-e-Azam ended that speech by reading a telegram he had just received. The message expressed hope for success in the great work you were about to undertake. That message was from the people of the United States.
Despite setbacks and suffering, the people of Pakistan have built this nation from the ground up, on a foundation of democracy and law. And for more than 50 years now, we have been partners with you. Pakistan helped the United States open a dialogue with China. We stood together when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Our partnership helped to end the Cold War. In many years since, we have cooperated in the fight against terrorism. Our soldiers have stood together in missions of peace in every part of the world. This is your proud legacy; our proud legacy.
Now we are in the dawn of a new century, and a new and changing world has come into view. All around the globe, a revolution is taking hold - a revolution that is tearing down barriers and building up networks among nations and individuals. For millions it has made real the dream of a better life with good schools, good jobs, and a good future for their children.
Like all key moments in human history, this one poses some hard choices, for this era does not reward people who struggle in vain to redraw borders with blood. It belongs to those with the vision to look beyond borders, for partners and commerce and trade. It does not favor nations where governments claim all the power to solve every problem. Instead, it favors nations where the people have the freedom and responsibility to shape their own destiny.
Pakistan can achieve great things in this new world, but real obstacles stand in the way. The political situation, the economic situation, the tensions in this region - they are holding Pakistan back from achieving its full potential in the global economy.
I know I don't have to tell you all this. This is something you know, something you have seen. But I do have hope. I believe Pakistan can make its way through the trouble, and build a future worthy of the vision of its founders: A stable, prosperous, democratic Pakistan, secure in its borders, friendly with its neighbors, confident in its future. A Pakistan, as Jinnah said, at peace within and at peace without.
What is in the way of that vision? Well, clearly, the absence of democracy makes it harder, not easier, for people to move ahead. I know democracy isn't easy; it's certainly not perfect. The authors of my own country's constitution knew that as well. They said that the mission of the United States would always be, and I quote, "to form a more perfect union." In other words, they knew we would never fully realize our ideals, but that we could keep moving closer to them. That means the question for free people is always how to keep moving forward.
We share your disappointment that previous democratic governments in Pakistan did not do better for their citizens. But one thing is certain: democracy cannot develop if it is constantly uprooted before it has a chance to firmly take hold. Successful democratic government takes time and patience and hard work. The answer to flawed democracy is not to end democracy, but to improve it.
I know General Musharraf has just announced a date for local elections. That is a good step. But the return of civilian democratic rule requires a complete plan, a real road map.
Of course, no one from the outside can tell Pakistan how it should be governed. That is for you, the people of Pakistan, to decide, and you should be given the opportunity to do so. I hope and believe you want Pakistan to be a country where the rule of law prevails; a country where officials are accountable; a country where people can express their points of view without fear; a country that wisely forsakes revenge for the wounds of the past, and instead pursues reconciliation for the sake of the future. If you choose this path, your friends in the United States will stand with you.
There are obstacles to your progress, including violence and extremism. We Americans also have felt these evils. Surely we have both suffered enough to know that no grievance, no cause, no system of beliefs can ever justify the deliberate killing of innocents. Those who bomb bus stations, target embassies or kill those who uphold the law are not heroes. They are our common enemies, for their aim is to exploit painful problems, not to resolve them.
Just as we have fought together to defeat those who traffick in narcotics, today I ask Pakistan to intensify its efforts to defeat those who inflict terror.
Another obstacle to Pakistan's progress is the tragic squandering of effort, energy and wealth on polices that make your nation poorer, but not safer. That is one reason we must try to resolve the differences between our two nations on nuclear weapons.
Again, you must make the decision. But my questions to you are no different from those I posed in India. Are you really more secure today than you were before you tested nuclear weapons? Will these weapons make war with India less likely or simply more deadly? Will a costly arms race help you to achieve any economic development? Will it bring you closer to your friends around the world, closer to the partnerships you need to build your dreams?
Today, the United States is dramatically cutting its nuclear arsenal. Around the world nations are renouncing these weapons. I ask Pakistan also to be a leader for nonproliferation. In your own self-interest, to help us to prevent dangerous technologies from spreading to those who might have no reservations at all about using them, take the right steps now to prevent escalation, to avoid miscalculation, to reduce the risk of war. As leaders in your own country have suggested, one way to strengthen your security would be to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The whole world will rally around you if you do.
I believe it is also in Pakistan's interest to reduce tensions with India. When I was in New Delhi, I urged India to seize the opportunity for dialogue. Pakistan also must help create conditions that will allow dialogue to succeed. For India and Pakistan this must be a time of restraint, for respect for the line of control, and renewed lines of communication.
I have listened carefully to General Musharraf and others. I understand your concerns about Kashmir. I share your convictions that human rights of all its people must be respected. But a stark truth must also be faced. There is no military solution to Kashmir. International sympathy, support and intervention cannot be won by provoking a bigger, bloodier conflict. On the contrary; sympathy and support will be lost. And no matter how great the grievance, it is wrong to support attacks against civilians across the line of control.
In the meantime, I ask again: Will endless, costly struggle build good schools for your children? Will it make your cities safer? Will it bring clean water and better health care? Will it narrow the gaps between those who have and those who have nothing? Will it hasten the day when Pakistan's energy and wealth are invested in building its future? The answer to all these questions is plainly no.
The American people don't want to see tensions rise and suffering increase. We want to be a force for peace. But we cannot force peace. We can't impose it. We cannot and will not mediate or resolve the dispute in Kashmir. Only you and India can do that, through dialogue.
Last year, the world watched with hope as the leaders of India and Pakistan met in Lahore on the road to better relations. This is the right road to peace for Pakistan and India, and for the resolution of the problems in Kashmir. Therefore, I will do all I can to help both sides restore the promise and the process of Lahore.
A few months ago we had a ceremony at the White House to mark the end of Ramadan. An Imam shared a message from the Koran which tells us that God created nations and tribes that we might know one another, not that we may despise one another. During the years of my presidency, I have tried to know the Muslim world as part of our common humanity. I have stood with the people of Bosnia and Kosovo, who were brutalized because of their Muslim faith. I have mourned with Jordanians and Moroccans at the loss of their brave leaders. I have been privileged to speak with Palestinians at their National Council in Gaza.
Today I am proud to speak with you because I value our long friendship, and because I believe our friendship can still be a force for tolerance and understanding throughout the world. I hope you will be able to meet the difficult challenges we have discussed today. If you do not, there is a danger that Pakistan may grow even more isolated, draining even more resources away from the needs of the people, moving even closer to a conflict no one can win. But if you do meet these challenges, our full economic and political partnership can be restored for the benefit of the people of Pakistan.
So let us draw strength from the words of the great Pakistani poet, Muhammad Iqbal, who said, "In the midst of today's upheaval, give us a vision of tomorrow." If the people of Pakistan and South Asia are driven by a tolerant, generous vision of tomorrow, your nation and this entire region can be the great success story of the world's next 50 years.
It is all in your hands. I know enough about the ingenuity and enterprise and heart of Pakistani people to know that this is possible. With the right vision, rooted in tomorrow's promise, not yesterday's pain— rooted in dialogue, not destruction — Pakistan can fulfill its destiny as a beacon of democracy in the Moslem world, an engine of growth, a model of tolerance, an anchor of stability. Pakistan can have a future worthy of the dreams of the Quaid-e-Azam.
If you choose that future, the United States will walk with you. I hope you will make that choice. And I pray for our continued friendship, for peace, for Pakistan — Zindabad.
Note * Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council
