|
|
|
Map of Asia |
Email this citationCIAO DATE: 11/00
New Opportunities in U.S.-South Asia Relations: An Assessment of President Clinton's Visit to India
Bruce Riedel *
CASI Occasional Paper Number 12
May 9, 2000
Introductory Remarks by Francine Frankel, Director, CASI
Addendum
Introductory Remarks by Francine Frankel, Director, CASI
It is a great privilege to welcome back Mr. Bruce Riedel, who is Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asia Affairs of the National Security Council. Mr. Riedel is currently on his second assignment to the White House where he has served five years, and during his distinguished career he has been the principal advisor to Secretaries of Defense Perry and Cohen on Middle East and South Asian issues. Mr. Riedel first honored us on February 21st by presenting a special lecture outlining the long-term vision of President Clinton and his administration for a new level of understanding in relations between the United States and India. Mr. Riedel played a major role in the planning during the long gestation period of this trip on which he accompanied the President in late March.
As you know from the press coverage in the United States, the success of this visit exceeded expectations. Those of you who have followed the coverage in the Indian press have read an unprecedented outpouring of praise for President Clinton and the way in which he addressed the outstanding issues between India and the United States in the spirit of laying the foundations for a qualitatively new relationship. During his visit to South Asia Mr. Clinton also became the first American president to visit Bangladesh and the first to address the people of Pakistan on television. I again extend a warm welcome to Mr. Riedel and thank him for returning to reflect on this historic visit and to give us his view of new opportunities in US-South Asia relations and an assessment of President Clinton's visit.
Opening Remarks
Thank you very much Francine. It is a great pleasure to be back at the University of Pennsylvania after the trip to be able to give you a report on what we think we accomplished, but more importantly, to look ahead at the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead for the United States in building on this momentum. It is also a particular pleasure to be welcomed back by Francine. I think it is safe to say that Francine has joined the small group of South Asian experts who really were instrumental and critical in helping the President and his team put together this trip, in advising us on what to do, and advising us also on what not to do. The previous mistakes of visitors of the past were one of the signposts of how we put this trip together. Avoiding the kind of errors that happened to Queen Elizabeth, Foreign Secretary Cook and others, was at the top of our agenda. Before we decided on how we would build on positive accomplishments, we wanted to make sure we avoided negative ones.
The President's trip to South Asia in March should be seen as a major American diplomatic initiative to upgrade, broaden, and deepen a relationship between the United States and a part of the world that for too long, too many administrations had neglected and allowed to be put on the back end of American foreign policy. This trip could be, and I hope will be, an historic divide in the relationship between America and a fifth of mankind. But it will be only if it is followed up by this administration and its successors. What I would like to do today is talk to you first about what we accomplished and second, what needs to be done in the months ahead in this administration, and finally, what needs to be done by our successors. Let me start with the India stop because India was very much the centerpiece of this trip. This was the first visit by an America President to India in 22 plus years, and I think it is also safe to say that it was the most sustained piece of US-India summitry since President Eisenhower hosted Prime Minister Nehru at his farm in Gettysburg in 1958. That is to say that there has been a long drought in serious exchanges between the Indian and American leadership, a drought that should not ever be repeated.
Let me start with a little bit of background about the President's thinking on India. The President decided at the end of his first term in 1996, that the US-Indian relationship needed to be given a much higher and qualitatively different priority. He and his advisors recognized that on every issue that matters to Americans in their foreign policy in the 21st century, India will be a critical player, for good or for bad. These issues include preventing nuclear war, advancing nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, sustaining global economic growth, fighting the AIDS disease, promoting global public health, protecting the environment, halting global warming, and eradicating global poverty. On every one of these issues, the role that India plays will be critical.
What we need is a deep and broad engagement so that we can ensure the right outcomes. India today is the world's largest democracy. It will soon be the first experiment in a billion-person democracy in human history. It is the second most populace country in the world and will become the first early in this century. It has the eleventh largest economy and one of the ten fastest growing economies in the world. It is the second largest military power in terms of manpower in the world, after China and in front of the United States. And it is a host of other superlatives. But for too long the United States and India had a scratchy relationship with very little warmth and depth. We have had cycles with ups and downs, but more often, cycles of neglect. I believe that the President's trip poses an opportunity to transform that and put all this behind us.
Centerpieces of the Trip
| ...Almost all the members of Parliament raced to the podium at the end of the President's speech to show their support for a new kind of relationship — one based on mutual respect, on appreciation of each other's dignity, and on mutual shared interest. |
Let me highlight four areas on the President's stop in India that I think are particularly important. First and foremost, the President's trip created an entirely new atmosphere in the relationship between our two governments, but more importantly, about the ways in which Indians think about America. Francine made reference to the phenomenal warmth and hospitality the President received. A new term, "Clintonmania," swept through the Indian media. No one who sat in the Indian Parliament on March 22nd and watched the reactions of Indian parliamentarians to the President's speech can deny that a new day has been born. Many in that room have spent their careers bashing the United States for one thing or another, but almost all of them raced to the podium at the end of his speech to show their support for a new kind of relationship — one based on mutual respect, on appreciation of each other's dignity, and on mutual shared interest. The stops in Agra, Jaipur, Hyderabad and Bombay built further on what was begun in New Delhi, and again the reaction of the Indian people was phenomenal. But atmospherics, while they are very important and create a basis on which things can work, are not enough. Behind them we need a solid architecture in this relationship and a common vision of the future.
This is the second area we concentrated on creating a new architecture for sustaining serious deeper and broader engagement. We built this around a commonly agreed vision statement, which both governments signed for the future of the relationship. We committed to regular head-of-state summits ending the 22-year drought. We committed to annual foreign minister meetings. We created the new science and technology forum to promote scientific cooperation between Indian and American experts. We created a new Asian Center for Democratic Governance, a non-governmental committee to be housed in New Delhi to promote democracy throughout Asia. After the visit, we signed a US-India financial and economic forum agreement that sets up annual meetings of the top leadership of our economic teams on both sides, and to be headed on the American side by the Secretary of the Treasury. These are all building blocks for the future that create ties between our bureaucracies, our scientists, and our experts and focus on those things we have most in common—democracy, economic trade and others.
But under this architecture we also tried to focus on some concrete accomplishments to bring our countries closer together. One of these was concrete agreements to strengthen trade and improve economic ties. Secretary of Commerce, William Daley, accompanied the President on this trip and witnessed the signing of over $4 billion of new business arrangements between American and Indian companies. The Export and Import Bank pledged to support those with $2 billion in financial support for American exports to India. Moreover, the President, through his presence and through his visits tried to symbolize the changes in the Indian economy that make it so important to Americans. He went to Hyderabad to symbolize our interaction with the fastest growing element of the Indian economy, information technologies. India's exports in information technologies have gone from $200 million in 1990 to $5.2 billion in 1999. And the odds are very good that if you call up Microsoft tonight with a question the answer you will get will be coming from either Bangalore or Hyderabad. India is today an information technology superpower like the United States. But it is more than that. The President's visit to Bombay symbolized another important factor in the Indian economy: its fast growing role in world financial matters in an area where cooperation between Wall Street and Bombay are getting deeper and stronger everyday.
A fourth area I want to focus on is the concrete arrangements we have made to strengthen our mutual interests in a better-protected environment, promoting clean energy and safeguarding nature. Secretary of State Albright and Foreign Minister Singh signed an environmental cooperation agreement outside the Taj Mahal that set specific goals for energy efficiency and cleaning the environment and working together to combat the phenomenon of global warming. The United States pledged $45 million to promote research and clean energy development in India. We announced a new USAID program to encourage regional clean energy cooperation between India, Nepal and Bangladesh and funded it with $50 million in US support.
| India is today an information technology superpower like the United States. But it is more than that. The President's visit to Bombay symbolized another important growing role in the Indian economy: its fast growing role in world financial matters in an area where cooperation between Wall Street and Bombay are getting deeper and stronger everyday. |
Challenges on the Road Ahead
Let me highlight the two most difficult areas and how we see the road ahead. First is the area of non-proliferation. President Clinton made clear in his speech to Parliament and in his private discussions with the Indian leadership our view that India's May 1998 tests were a mistake - a mistake not just for the world non-proliferation regime but in the end, more so for India's security interests. India is not more secure today than it was in April 1998 and some, even in India, would argue that it is less secure. But he also made clear our view that it is up to India and Indians to make the decision on how they will proceed in this arena. It will not be an American imposed view. It is a decision that Indians need to make. We cannot undo the past nor can we make India's decisions forward into the future but we can have a dialogue in which we try to jointly reason together on what the appropriate steps are. This is the same message the President delivered in Islamabad to the Pakistani leadership and people.
In the end, the measure of American determination on this, however, will never be what we say to other governments. It will be what we do ourselves. And our own path is clear. The United States has dismantled 13,000 of our nuclear weapons devices since 1988. We have ceased testing nuclear weapons and signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We support the fissile materials cutoff talks in Geneva. We have the toughest export control laws in the world on dual-use technologies and we rigorously enforce them. We are now engaged in a process with the Russians of trying to find ways to further cut our nuclear weapons force.
| Until India and the United States can find greater harmony on non-proliferation issues, this relationship will not be able to achieve its full potential. Under Congressionally mandated sanctions, some sanctions will have to stay in place; our security dialogue and our military to military relationship will remain stunted. |
The second very tough issue between our two countries that is both a challenge and an opportunity is how India deals with its neighbor to the West, Pakistan, and how it deals with the future of the Kashmir dispute. The President spoke often to this issue during his visit, and his message was the same in New Delhi as it was in Islamabad. We outlined our policy as the four "R's"—restraint by both sides, respect for the line of control, rejection of violence and renewal of dialogue. Above all, there can be no military solutions to the problems between India and Pakistan, neither in terms of the movements of borders, nor in the imposition of borders solely by military force. Only through dialogue and respect for human rights can these relations be improved.
Since the President's visit, India has taken a series of modest, but I think, quite important steps to signal its desire to find a resolution to its long-standing quarrel and to find a dialogue with those in Kashmir who have rejected Indian rule. We believe that at the right time, India should resume its own bilateral dialogue with Pakistan.
| We outlined our policy as the four "R's"—restraint by both sides, respect for the line of control, rejection of violence and renewal of dialogue. Above all, there can be no military solutions to the problems between India and Pakistan, neither in terms of the movements of borders, nor in the imposition of borders solely by military force. Only through dialogue and respect for human rights can these relations be improved. |
These two are the toughest issues between the United States and India, but the dialogue we had about them in New Delhi was frank, candid and refreshingly insightful. We talked to each other, not past each other. And for the first time in decades, the United States and India have learned that they can have a serious dialogue even when they disagree. But we should not lose sight of the fact that there are far more issues upon which we have parallel joint and common interests, and where we can and do cooperate already. First, we both agree on the need to fight international terrorism. The United States condemned the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814. During his visit, the President met with the widow and parents of Rupen Katyal, the man who was murdered by the terrorists, to show our sympathy for Indian victims of terror. We condemned the murder of three dozen Sikhs on the day the President's official visit began in India and we have set up a common contra-terrorism forum to work together against this international scourge. Since the President's visit, FBI Director Louis Freeh has had his own very positive visit to India.
Stability in Asia
We also have a common interest in fostering stability throughout Asia. Undersecretary of State Pickering will be focusing on Asian security issues when he visits New Delhi later this month. The President and the Prime Minister had an extensive and long discussion of the future of Asia, the future of Russia and the future of China in their talks. We also have common interests in fighting narcotics trafficking and in fighting the organized criminal gangs that are behind it. We have common interest in fighting the AIDS epidemic and the stereotypes that go with it. I can go on and on. Those interests we can all pursue together. The challenge is to sustain the lift that we gave this relationship in March, build on it in the months left in this Administration and have a platform strong enough for future Administrations to build on.
Let me turn more briefly to the two other stops on the President's visit and the challenges we faced in both of those places. Pakistan and Bangladesh are among the two most important and largest Muslim countries in the world. This administration's foreign policy rejects the notion that there is an inevitable clash of civilizations between the United States and the Islamic world. We believe we have far more in common with our Muslim friends in the world than we have differences, and these two stops offered another opportunity to underscore that belief.
The President's stop in Dhaka was the first ever by an American president to Bangladesh. He noted at the beginning of his trip that the United States has not always been as good a friend to the Bangladeshi peoples' right to freedom as it should have been. But that day is over. Bangladesh is now a close friend of the United States. It has a thriving and perhaps a little too lively democracy, but one that we support very strongly. The President urged greater respect for tolerance in civil debate in his meetings with Prime Minister Hasina and the opposition leader, Begam Zia.
Bangladesh has a very important election next year that offers the opportunity for a further milestone in its democracy. We want to do more with Bangladesh. We want to assist Bangladesh with its greatest struggle and challenge: eradicating poverty and building a more prosperous future for its country. U.S. private investment in Bangladesh now approaches two billion American dollars. It started with practically nothing in 1990. Bangladeshi garment sales in this country last year earned the country two billion dollars. We want to try to do more. Bangladesh has enormous natural gas deposits to offer the potential of a far different future for its people than its past.
The President offered to have the United States' geological survey study Bangladesh's natural gas deposits to help the Prime Minister and the leadership of Bangladesh to decide how best to use this natural resource to extend prosperity.
| Bangladesh is now a close friend of the United States. It has a thriving and perhaps a little too lively democracy, but one that we support very strongly. The President urged greater respect for tolerance in civil debate in his meetings with Prime Minister Hasina and the opposition leader Begam Zia. |
The President was the first U.S. president to visit Pakistan in over 30 years. Again, the gap has been far too long. Pakistan has been an historic friend and ally to the United States. We have worked together to build a better world for many decades. We have a vital national U.S. interest in a healthy Pakistan that is at peace with itself and its neighbors. But that unfortunately, is not the case today. Pakistan is a country in urgent need of reform and help, and no one knows this better than Pakistanis and the current Pakistani leadership. Pakistan's experiment in democracy has failed in the last decade. The country has become a victim of terrorism, it has become a coalition of corruption that threatens the very essence of governance. It has a dangerous 20-year-old war going on in its immediate western neighbor and a very volatile relationship with India. Drug trafficking has become a major menace through Pakistan, not just for the world, but for Pakistanis. And the Pakistani economy has been stalled in low gear now for well over a decade.
In the end there is probably no greater challenge for us in South Asia than how we find ways to help Pakistan help itself. The President, both in his private discussions and in his unprecedented speech broadcast to the Pakistani people, laid out our view of what needs to be done. Pakistan urgently needs a timetable for restoring democracy. It needs better governance. It needs to end its dangerous associations with extremist groups in the region. It needs to demonstrate restraint, practically on the ground in Kashmir. It needs to find ways to renew, broaden, and deepen dialogue with India. It needs to stay away from adventures like Kargil. It needs to use its influence with the Taliban in Afghanistan to end that war, to shut down terrorist camps and to bring terrorists to justice. It needs to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and demonstrate restraint in developing weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
These are tough decisions to make and they will be decisions that only Pakistanis can make. I will tell you that we got no assurances from General Musharraf that he is prepared to embark on this path. But we did agree to a dialogue with his government to try to work on them together. Since the President's visit, several of General Musharraf's senior colleagues have visited Washington in an effort to try to find common ground to follow up. Ultimately, as I said, these are Pakistani decisions. We cannot and we should not make them for Pakistan. We can and we should and we will look for ways to help Pakistan as it deals with these tough problems, consistent with law and consistent with U.S. sanctions. This is because in the end, Pakistan can also be a great opportunity for the United States. A healthy prosperous Pakistan at peace with its neighbors can be a powerful stabilizing influence, not just in South Asia, but in Central Asia, in the Gulf region, and indeed throughout Asia and the entire Islamic world.
Let me close with just a few words on the largest country in South Asia that the President did not visit, Afghanistan. Finding a way to end this horrible war in Afghanistan is a huge challenge and opportunity. Afghanistan has become the world's premier refuge for terror, for narcotics trafficking and it is a human rights catastrophe. I had the opportunity to visit Kabul two years ago with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who was our Ambassador to the United Nations at that time. I have also been in Beirut in 1984, in Kuwait City in 1991, I have visited the villages of northern Iraq, but I have never seen anything in my life like Kabul. It is as if you were in Berlin or Tokyo in 1945. The destruction is more complete than perhaps anywhere else in our world today. This is a human tragedy of enormous proportions. The United Nations Security Council, at our urging and the urging of other members of the Council, has passed several resolutions in the last year, particularly Resolution 1267, imploring the Taliban authorities to take action to change their country's future. It is long past time for them to listen to the world community and act. For our part, we will continue to do what we can to bring the warring parties together, and to support the UN diplomatic process. We will also do what we can to help the Afghan people. Few know that the United States is the world's largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Well over $70 million last year was provided through non-governmental institutions, of which $45 million was in food aid.
To conclude, the President's trip represents what I hope to be a milestone in American relations with an important part of the world. There are enormous challenges and enormous opportunities in front of us. The President noted in each one of his stops that South Asia can be the great success story of the first quarter of the 21st century. If you look at what Indian Americans, Bengali Americans, and Pakistani Americans have done in this country, where they are among the most successful immigrant groups ever, and you transpose that to South Asia, the potential is enormous.
But South Asia can also be and has become dangerously close to the most dangerous place in the world, as well. It is the only place in the world where two nuclear-armed countries face each other on a hot border every single day. The choices about which direction to take will ultimately have to be made by the people of South Asia. But this President and his team, and I hope his successors, have demonstrated that they will have a friend in the United States.
Question & Answer Section
Fielded by Bruce Riedel. Questioners identified when possible
| Q. | Did you say that we received the undertaking of the Government of India to build a consensus for signing the Test Ban Treaty? |
| A. | To be very precise, what they have told us is that they must have a consensus within their political system in favor of this, but the Prime Minister had earlier indicated when he came to the General Assembly the November before last that it is their intent to find a way to adhere to the Treaty. And the Prime Minister reaffirmed that commitment to the President when they met. They have also made very clear their intent to continue their own moratorium on testing. But we think that it is very important that ultimately this Treaty be signed and by all countries, including our own Senate. |
| Q. | You neglected to mention Sri Lanka at all and I was wondering to what extent, if at all, the civil war in Sri Lanka reaching a climax has any bearing on India? |
| A. | Sri Lanka is an important country in the region in the midst of a terrible civil conflict, among the most brutal in the world. Events since our trip, the triumph of the Tamil Tigers in fighting around Jaffna, raises both a challenge and an opportunity. The Tamils have about 40,000 Sri Lankan troops isolated now in the city of Jaffna. By all accounts those troops are demoralized, weakened, and probably incapable in the end of defending themselves successfully. The Tamil Tigers have a reputation for not taking prisoners. If they massacre 40,000 government soldiers, they send a powerful signal about their intent in the future. On the other hand, if they demonstrate for the first time, some degree of interest in adhering to the simplest rules of warfare, it might be a basis upon which some kind of dialogue can begin. For our part, we want to encourage a way for the people of Sri Lanka to find a future in a united country. The Sri Lankan government had proposed some steps towards devolution of authority which we had supported. We have an interest in working with India and engaging the Indian government in trying to find a common joint approach to this problem. India has its own tortured past in dealing with the Sri Lankan problem. There is no enthusiasm in the Indian general staff, as far as I can tell, for going back into this morass and together we have an interest in finding some way to end this conflict. It is a terrible tragedy to see so many conflicts going on endlessly in South Asia that are only detracting from the ability of these people to find a better future. |
| Q. | You mentioned strategic balance, and I was wondering what you meant by that. |
| A. | I was referring to our common interest in maintaining stability throughout the Asian continent. First of all, let me say what I am not talking about. I am not talking about trying to play India against China, or build a US-Indian-Japanese-Southeast Asian wall of containment against China. That is neither in our interest nor in India's interest. Even if we wanted to do it, which we do not, no Indian government is going to play those great power games anymore. But we do have an interest in trying to ensure that there is stability in this enormous part of the world, and in having frank and open dialogues about how we will manage problems together, like the problem that has developed in the Taiwan Straits with the elections of a new government in Taiwan. The United States and India both have an interest in seeing that this situation does not lead to a conflict. And the President and the Prime Minister had an extensive discussion about their common views on this and about their common appreciation of the leadership in Beijing. We do not see this relationship with India as devoted to trying to build up India against anybody else. But we and India both have an interest in a more peaceful world and in strengthening the institutions that can make that happen. The U.S. should not look at India and China as two competing sources for our sympathy, but we should also recognize that there is a fundamental difference between our relationship with India and our relationship with China. And that lies in the nature of the one most common strength this relationship has—we are both democracies—and as democracies, we function in the world in a way different than totalitarian regimes do because we have to pay attention to what the people think. That gives us an enormous amount of strength and solidity to our relationship with India in the future. |
| Q. | You said that there seems to be a lot of initiative on environmental issues between the U.S. and India. China is also a big player with respect to global climate change. Particularly with the sensitive relations right now, isn't there at least the danger that by playing up this new and closer relationship with India and by making statements like "we have a natural affinity with India" that you would unintentionally provoke reactions in China that would not be favorable for stability? |
| A. | Well the law of unintended consequences is something that we are very conscious of. We learned the hard way. When the President went to China two years ago, and signed a series of agreements with the Chinese government, I had the pleasure of going to India about three weeks later to be told how we should not be so close to China because it was not a democracy. I think we learned from one misstep. We went out of our way on this trip to make sure that the Chinese government was fully briefed on our activities with India in order to allay just the kind of suspicions that you are talking about. My boss, Sandy Berger, went from Geneva to Beijing to talk to the Chinese leadership about our South Asia trip and to make sure that we prevent any unintended seismic ripples that would come out of it. But you are absolutely right, we do need to be very careful. I think that is why as I said, we need to be up front and clear that we are not building alliances against X or Y power. What we are trying to do is strengthen our relationship with all the major powers in Asia because of the tremendous importance of this part of the world for American interests in the 21st century. But you are quite right to raise that as a concern. All I can say is that we are trying to be as attentive to that as possible. |
| Q. | Eric Miller, Ph.D. candidate, Folklore, University of Pennsylvania. I read in the New York Times that when President Clinton was in New Delhi, I think, he was scheduled to go by helicopter to visit a village. But at the last minute the security people thought it was going to be too risky. So then some of the villagers were brought by bus. What was the response by the Indian security people, the villagers, and the Indian press to this event? |
| A. | We had several security scares on this trip. It is a sad statement about the nature of the modern world and it is a sad statement about the strength of some terrorist organizations in this part of the world that we had to make these adjustments. The specific case you are referring to is during our visit to Bangladesh. We had very specific information about a threat to the President. The President decided it was too important for him not to go to Bangladesh, and that he would be giving in to terrorism. So we went but we did try to take some prudent security measures, some of which became apparent as we took them, not all of them. Flying in helicopters is an extremely vulnerable way to move people around. So we decided that we would not fly helicopters either in Bangladesh or Pakistan. I think I can tell you for sure the reactions of the villagers. Most of them had never been to the big city before in their life and they were quite pleased at the opportunity to leave their village and see the big city for once. We probably also, knowing the footprint of a Presidential visit, would have done a serious amount of damage to the environment of that village, if all 500 of us and the press had traipsed around there. So I think in the end the village turned out better for the occasion. The villagers certainly were enthusiastic and the President had the opportunity to do something that he really wanted to do. Few people realize that Bangladesh played an important part in Bill Clinton's political education. Bangladesh is where micro-credit banking began. Micro-credit is where a villager borrows five dollars to buy tin for a roof or a cow, and then pays the bank back. Very few banks in the world loan people five dollars. That is not the way to make money. But in Bangladesh this was started in the 1960's and early 1970's. A young governor, in a rural poor state of Arkansas read about it and set up micro-credit in Arkansas, which was one of the things that helped him become re-elected Governor of Arkansas. And he feels a certain debt to the Grameen bank of Bangladesh for giving him this good idea. So that village coming to us instead of us going to it is the village in which the micro-credit phenomenon began and it is a phenomenon that has literally gone global. And it has gone infotech because micro-credit now still loans you five dollars to buy a cow, but more likely loans you ten dollars to buy a cellular telephone. This allowed the village women of Bangladesh to create a functioning telephone system in a country that does not have the infrastructure to support one. Bangladeshi workers in the United Arab Emirates, or in Brooklyn, can call home to their moms and their moms can make money from renting their phones to their neighbors. So it is an enormously important thing that the President had that opportunity to highlight this kind of pulling up your boot straps solution to poverty eradication in poor countries - not just in South Asia, but in Latin America, in Africa, around the world where micro-credit is now a rapidly developing phenomenon. |
| Q. | Victoria Farmer, Ph.D. candidate, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania. I was wondering if you could elaborate for us a little bit on the shape of the regional energy cooperation fund that you spoke of. There are three main areas within that. One is how are the funds designed to be used? For example, is it basic research, or is it infrastructure development? The second area is what are the types of energy? Does this include nuclear energy? And the third is the sources of funding for participation. For example, are all the participant countries contributing, both in terms of money and expertise, solely from government agencies, or is it also private contributions? |
| A. | That is a very good series of questions. Let me start with a little bit of context. In very gross terms, India's economic success in the last decade has been primarily in the western and southern half of the country. The eastern side of the country, Calcutta, Bengal, Bihar, have not done as well. The Bangladesh economy, while it is growing, also desperately needs to find new sources of income. Nepal has had a fairly stagnant economy for most of the 1990s. To drive economic growth in this part of South Asia, we need to find cheap sources of energy. The human potential is there. We need to find a driver for the economy in this part of the region. We are convinced that the natural gas deposits in the Bay of Bengal, almost entirely in Bangladeshi sovereign waters, are that opportunity. We estimate that there is at least 120 years worth of natural gas deposits in terms of what Bangladesh's requirements will be. It would be a terrible mistake not to use those resources, not just for Bangladesh, but to sell the electricity and the gas to develop eastern India as well. Similarly, Nepal has hydroelectric potential, which has not yet been fully developed, which could help drive its economy. Again, the key for this to really take off is to sell the energy or the electricity of the two smaller countries to India to earn capital to boost their own economies. It is in everyone's interests. It is in India's interest to get cheaper energy, reliable clean energy. It is in Bangladesh's interest to gain that capital. And it is in American private industry's interest to be the companies that actually exploit the natural gas and build the power facilities. Like most things that make a lot of economic sense, it has run into a political reality, that is, decades of distrust between the average Bangladeshi and their larger neighbor. By offering to do our own geological survey work to underscore how large these natural gas resources are, we are trying to provide some measure of safety and assurance to Bangladeshis that this is not just a "give it to India" program, that it really is a resource large enough to help all of these people. The regional energy cooperation fund will not include nuclear energy. I am not an economist by training, but almost anyone will tell you today that nuclear energy is not a safe, reliable, clean way to build large amounts of power. Those countries that engaged in that in the 1960's and 1970's are largely trying to get out of it. And there is obviously also a proliferation concern. The $50 million in US governmental assistance will go first to research, but it is also available for investment in small energy projects. The governments of the region did not pledge money of their own, but we certainly believe they should. We think in the end, the more kinds of regional cooperation on this issue, the better. In the final analysis, one of the things that is most striking about South Asia is how little tissue of interconnection there is between the countries in the region. A part of the world that 50 years ago was very interconnected by the British, is today terribly divided. Thus, between India and Pakistan, for example, there are virtually no exchanges of academics, of think tanks. Opening the bus from Lahore to Delhi was such a major phenomenon because there was no means of transportation for most people to go back and forth. We believe—we are convinced—that regional economic cooperation is one of the keys to building a better future for the peoples of South Asia. Because if there are these kinds of interconnecting tissues, then the threat of war and conflict will go down. When people see that there is a better way to work with their neighbor than to sponsor a terrorist organization against them, they will have an interest in it. And if this project, this natural gas project, can build an interconnecting tissue between Bangladesh and India, we think it will set a model for the rest of the region. |
| Q. | Professor Rosane Rocher, South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania. There are now more than a million persons of Indian origin who are American citizens in this country. Did they figure in the discussions between the President and the Indian government? And how do we address incidents like mistreatments by the INS of computer programmers and others that affect the quality of the relationship? |
| A. | They featured very prominently in the planning and execution and I hope, most importantly, in the follow-up to this trip. I mentioned the President's frequent references to the stronger role in success of the Indian American community by almost every statistical measure, income level, educational level. The US Indian community is the most successful immigrant community in our nation's history and the US-Pakistani community is up there with them. They have the potential to be a special bridge between out two countries. Many Indian Americans were consulted about the trip. Many of them at their own expense traveled to India. They were a part of several events in New Delhi and in Bombay. There are always going to be incidents like the one that you mentioned. We try to find ways to minimize that, and I think that our dialogue with the Indian government on this is remarkably smooth. There are limits. I won't bore you with visa law here, but there are limits to what we can do in terms of providing additional visas, but we are always trying to find ways to make that process smoother and more efficient. And I can tell you that as more and more American companies invest in India, they create a powerful lobby on the Hill for finding ways to improve the visa situations. But it is most important to think about the future because this community has the capacity to ensure that there never is another 22-year drought, and that there is an active interest in this kind of a relationship. And it should be a bipartisan effort and it should be an effort very heavily focused on building support in the Congress. And there I think the record of the India Caucus is a remarkably successful one in only a few years of going from what was really a niche market to now having a real impact on US thinking about India. |
| Q. | Abizer Zanzi, graduating senior, International Relations, University of Pennsylvania. My question is what are the prospects of India becoming a member of the United Nations Security Council? |
| A. | It was discussed although less than I thought it would be, to be frank. The issue of expanding the U.N. Security Council is one of the toughest issues facing the United Nations today. The US position has long been that while we support expansion of the Council, we do not support weakening its ability to make decisions. The Security Council works because there are a finite number of countries in it, and that number is small enough to facilitate a consensus on decision-making. What separates it from the General Assembly is by that very nature. We support a modest expansion in the total number of countries. We believe the decisions about who should get the new permanent seats need best be made by the regions from which they will come. We recognize that India is obviously a strong candidate to be in the Security Council as a permanent member. By all the measures that I spoke of at the beginning of my presentation, India needs to be there. We also believe that India's prospect of gaining a permanent seat would be enhanced if it was seen to be part of the global non-proliferation regime rather than an outcast of the non-proliferation regime. That is another reason why Indian leaders should think long and hard about the wisdom of joining what we think is a global effort to find ways to reduce the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction. Countries like South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, which have voluntarily made the decision to abjure the development of mass destruction, are obviously going to have second thoughts of putting a country in a permanent seat that went a different way. And their view will also have to be recognized when this decision is made. |
| Q. | John Fuller, The Philadelphia Committee on Foreign Relations. What will happen with a new Administration? What is your perception now of the benefits from the President's visit. And what is your perception of where things will stand a year from now with a new administration that has new priorities? |
| A. | First of all, I think that the institutional basis is here. I talked about the architecture we created. A cynical person could say, sure, you are committing your successors to these annual meetings, to regular summits, and there will be some wisdom to that. We think it's the right thing to do. And we are happy to commit our successors because we think they should do it. Had the President been able to make this trip when he first planned on making it in 1998, before the tests, we would have had three years to live up to this architecture. And we would have been in a position to pass on a stronger form, and that did not turn out to be the case. But I think the architecture is there. I think the more important question, though, is whether Americans now begin to think about India in a different way. My sense is that this is starting to happen. If you read Governor Bush's speech on foreign policy that he gave a few months ago, he devotes attention to India in that speech. He talks a lot about Russia and China, but he also talks about the need to develop a relationship with India. I know that the Vice President also is a firm believer in strengthening and enhancing this relationship. But in the end, politicians do what they think is right, but also what they think their constituencies will support. I'm clearly a believer in this relationship. I wouldn't have worked three years to make this trip happen if I was not. The American people are the ones who will have to tell their leadership, through the Council on Foreign Relations, Committees on Foreign Relations, study groups at universities, think tanks like this one, that this is a part of the world that we want you to pay some attention to and to do something about. I hope that one of the effects of five days of Presidential travel through India is not just what Indians watch on their TV, but I hope what CNN brought into the homes of Americans about this being an important part of the world. |
| Q. | That was a very delightful speech about your perceptions. I had a meeting with Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, and he told me that the Government of India is giving priority to the importance of Indian Americans, and they are opening up special facilities in India so that the Non-Resident Indians (NRI's) can promote US-India business interests. Are there any such movements in the United States to foster more interactions between the two governments through the Indian Americans? |
| A. | We have developed an outreach program to the Indian-American community to try to bring them in. We had a meeting in the White House just before the President went and we had one after the President came back, and they were enormously successful, because you get people with good ideas, new ideas, people who have not sat around in the bureaucracy and heard each other talk over and over again. You hear people who have something new to say. We found it so successful that we set up a similar forum with the Bangladeshi community and with the Pakistani American community. We intend to continue to meet with them as a group on our side, myself and my colleague from the State Department, Assistant Secretary Inderfurth and some others, to try and mine this resource for ideas. The interesting thing in the case of the Bangladeshi community, is that they had never met before as a common group. There was a Bangladeshi American chemistry union and a Bangladeshi American physics association, I am sure there are a lot of Ph.D's in the Bangladeshi American community, but they had never actually come together before, as a political group to speak to the White House and we thought that that was long overdue. We got several very good ideas from that and I hope that we will follow up on that in creating science and technology forums between the United States and Bangladesh like those that we have now set up with India. Thank you. |
Concluding Remarks: Francine Frankel We have all been extremely fortunate this afternoon to have as wonderful a speaker as Bruce Riedel, someone who follows this area closely and has heard other discussions of the aftermath of the trip. I think I can say that this is the most authoritative overview and the most thoughtful of assessments that have been made and they leave us with a roadmap to the future of the opportunities and the challenges that confront the United States, India, and the rest of South Asia. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Riedel for returning to give us these insights and share his views with us and I'm sure we'll all be the richer for it. Thank you very much.
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
