|
Round The World
New
Delhi, 20 July 2011
Indo-US Strategic Dialogue
NON-EVENT, NO BRAKTHROUGHS
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)
The 2nd
Indo-US Strategic Dialogue was held in New
Delhi Tuesday last. As expected, the dialogue was
incremental in nature and did not announce any major breakthrough. But that
should not be a cause of worry, since the dialogue process by its very nature
is a stock-taking exercise that envisions an enduring mechanism of assessing
the evolution of the strategic partnership between the two democracies. The 1st round of the Strategic
Dialogue was held in June 2010 in Washington.
The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
accompanied by a huge entourage of senior US
officials, attested to the importance of the emerging strategic partnership
between India
and US. The visit came post the recent Mumbai terror attacks, continued US-Pakistani
efforts to mend fences and days before the scheduled India-Pakistan Foreign
Minister talks. Along-with the eventual drawdown of western forces from Afghanistan which
is heating up the situation. Undoubtedly, in this scenario, India needs to
prioritize its core national interest.
Importantly,
a primary element of the Indo-US strategic partnership has been the nuclear
deal but the road to its implementation has been complex and tortuous for both
countries. New Delhi
is concerned about a recent Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) decision to
strengthen guidelines on transfer of Enrichment and Reprocessing Technology (ENR) reported as
targeting countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty
(NPT).
To allay fears, Washington
is highlighting the uniqueness of the deal, the NSG waiver to India and that
it is fully committed to the deal. But, there are concerns galore concerning
the implementation of the deal involving both international and domestic laws
of nuclear commerce, including a clause of the Indian Nuclear Liability Bill that makes the suppliers of reactors liable for 80 years
for any accident at a plant.
As
such, the US while
committing to the deal also asked India to ratify the U.N. Convention
on Nuclear Damages and bring its domestic liability regime in line with
international norms. The Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC)
provides for an international fund to compensate victims in case of a nuclear
accident and limits financial liability of foreign nuclear operators. India, which signed the CSC, last year,
is expected to ratify it by November with officials saying the process was “on
course”.
This
apart, as the joint statement of the Strategic Dialogue underscored, both countries reiterated the success in Afghanistan wherein
regional and global security required elimination of safe havens, terrorism
infrastructure and violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Clinton
asserted, “We pledge full support to India in its fight against terror.
We cannot tolerate safe haven to terrorists anywhere, it is in the interest of Pakistan itself
to act against terrorism.” She welcomed the ongoing talks between India and Pakistan which could be one of the
most important elements affecting the Afghan end game.
Given
that Afghanistan’s future is
an important issue in America’s
relationship with both India
and Pakistan,
the murder of strongman Ahmed Wali Karzai, President Hamid Karzai’s half
brother highlighted the deplorable security situation there. However, despite Pakistan’s ambiguous role in the war on
terrorism and its selective policy in fighting terrorists, the US as well as the Afghan Government sees it as
indispensable in the effort to stabilize Afghanistan.
But,
US-Pakistan ties have been rocky in the aftermath of Osama’s killing. The Obama Administration officials recently decided to hold
up more than $800 million in military aid to Pakistan
while there have been reports of Islamabad expelling
US and British security trainers and threatening to cut-off US supply routes
into Afghanistan.
Notwithstanding, US and Pakistani security officials conducting intensive
parleys over days to ease the tension. Undeniably, Washington
needs to draw some clear lines, and make Islamabad
understand that crossing them would have repercussions.
Besides, India’s
role in Afghanistan is
paramount thanks to its huge investments and aid in the reconstruction process and
because of New Delhi’s
rising profile in the region and globally. Given the Taliban history vis-à-vis India,
the latter should be mighty concerned about the Afghanistan situation. As the Taliban
will inevitably be an important element of the Afghan polity in some form; India should be
pro-active in simulating different scenarios and prepare itself to meet any
eventuality.
Further, as part of the evolving
strategic partnership between India
and US, both sides intend to expand their cooperation globally, evident in
various rounds of dialogue series being initiated concerning different regions
of the world, including the launch of a bilateral dialogue on UN matters and a
Joint Working Group on UN Peacekeeping Operations.
In another significant development, US,
India and Japan
agreed to commence a trilateral dialogue at a senior official level. This has
been interpreted in many quarters as a product of the concerns raised by the
rise of a “hegemonic” China
in the region. The American side expressed their sympathy for the July Mumbai
attacks and both sides reiterated their resolve to fight terrorism. Whereby,
both would strengthen their counter-terrorism cooperation “through intelligence
sharing, information exchange, operational cooperation, and access to advanced
counter-terrorism technology and equipment.”
Additionally,
continuing and increasing cooperation on numerous aspects in defence were
deliberated upon and delineated in the joint statement, including technology
transfer, joint research, defence exchanges, maritime cooperation etc. Both
sides welcomed a 30 per cent increase in bilateral trade in 2010 over the
previous year but stated much more needs to be done to realize the true
potential of the two huge markets, keeping in mind the China juggernaut
in trade and investment. Regarding Indo-US trade figures, the potential is huge
but the implementation and turnover is low and hence much needs to be done to
change gears.
True, ‘national interest’ defines and
determines foreign policy making in any country. But this is rather an over-used term for
foreign policy speeches and statements. The challenge in this globalized world
is for the decision-makers to prioritize and concretize issues that, they
believe, form what can be called the ‘core national interest’ for their
country.
Definitely easier said than done,
since a country is engaged in innumerable areas, and ‘a step ahead’ in one
issue might also mean ‘a step behind’ in another. But, this process is something
inevitable and one can ignore it only at one’s own peril.
Clearly, this is where the future of
India’s
foreign policy lies and this is where the future of the Indo-US strategic
partnership reposes. It will be stating the obvious to say that the US, like any other power in world history, or
for that matter, like any other entity, would primarily look for its own
national interest, and India
should do the same. Thus, in essence, the goal of a strategic dialogue is to
figure out the convergent areas and assess the ways in which a super power and
an emerging power could work together. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
