India, U.S. on the same side

By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI, AUG. 19. It can no longer be seen either as an accident or a passing phase of ``irrational exuberance''. There are just too many global issues on which India and the United States find themselves on the same side.

The recent Indian endorsement of the Bush administration's plans for missile defence may not be the rare exception to the past norm of inevitable disagreement between New Delhi and Washington on multilateral issues.

There was a time when India was among the countries which voted most often against the U.S. at the United Nations. Even the erstwhile Soviet Union and China were more in agreement with the U.S. than India.

By sheer force of habit, India might still be voting against the U.S. on many resolutions in the U.N. But on important issues there is a new convergence.

Look at arms control - a traditional area of disagreement. India and the Bush administration are now opposed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Citing national security reasons, they have rejected the global convention against landmines.

For a very different set of reasons, neither India nor the U.S. is happy with the Kyoto Protocol that has defined the terms of addressing the problems of global warming. Neither country is too enthusiastic about the impending U.N. conference on racism at Durban.

The U.S. has been a strong opponent of the proposals to set up an International Criminal Court; last week in Parliament, the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, cited reasons of ``sovereignty'' for the Indian refusal to support the creation of the ICC.

And to cap it all, India and the Bush administration both dislike the recent temptations in the U.N., abetted by the Clinton administration, to poke its nose around the world in the name of ``humanitarian intervention''.

* * *

Underlying the convergence appears to be a real empathy between Indian foreign policy interests and the conservative elements of the American establishment who rule the roost under the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush.

In the past India was in thrall of the American liberals, who were critical of the U.S. neglect of democratic India during the Cold War. But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberal internationalists in the U.S. had become too interventionist for Indian comfort.

For many liberals in Washington preventing the spread of nuclear weapons had become religion. On top of it they called for American diplomatic activism on India-Pakistan relations and the resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

The Bush administration comes from the other end of the spectrum with a hands-off approach on Kashmir. It is ready to live with and manage the reality of nuclear weapons in the subcontinent. And the Bush administration is willing to treat India as a major power and give it a higher billing in the global strategic calculus. No wonder India finds the Bush administration very congenial.

* * *

The new Chinese ambassador designate has arrived in the capital last week. Mr. Hua Qunduo will join the queue to present his credentials to the President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan.

Already waiting in line is Mr. Robert Blackwill, U.S. ambassador designate. Mr. Narayanan's indisposition had held up the credential ceremonies and hopefully will take place in the next few days. The acceptance of credentials are necessary before an Ambassador can formally interact with the host government. But these days governments are a little relaxed and do not hamper the functioning of the new ambassadors.

Mr. Hua has replaced Mr. Zhou Gang during whose three- year term the focus was on putting the relationship back on rails after Pokhran-II. Mr. Hua will have the opportunity to take relations to a new level. He will have his hands full with the plans of the Mr. Jaswant Singh to visit China in October and the likely visit of the Prime Minister, Mr. Zhu Rongji, here later in the year.

Mr. Hua is a career diplomat; he had served in Fiji as China's Ambassador. Prior to that he was the deputy chief of the American division in the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

* * *

It is economy, stupid! The idea of ``commercial diplomacy'' is back in vogue at the Foreign Office. South Block has announced the appointment of three advisory councils on energy and environment, trade and the foreign aid programme of India.

Advisory councils are welcome; but the Foreign Office should go fast and forward towards institutional reform both at the headquarters and the missions to ensure that business comes to the centre-stage of Indian diplomacy. And that could be part of a badly needed modernisation of the Foreign Office itself. After the Kargil war, the Government talked of reforms in much of the security sector - except the foreign office. It is time the Ministry of External Affairs debates ideas on transforming itself to deal with the new millennium.

* * *

Allowing consular access and legal representation to foreign citizens is one of the elementary obligations of any nation-state under international law. But the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has never claimed to play by the book. In refusing to let Western diplomats meet aid workers from their countries being held by the Taliban, Kabul is courting another confrontation with the international community.

The eight Western citizens and 16 local staff have been held on the charge of trying to convert the local population to Christianity. If convicted, they are punishable by death.

India's own experience in dealing with the hijack of IC-814 to Kandahar at the end of December, 1999 suggests the Taliban is brutally adept at psychological games. With hostages in hand, and Western diplomats desperate for access, expect the Taliban to do some real squeezing.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : A justifiable protest