Ties with big powers

By K. K. Katyal

THE FOREIGN policy part of the President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan's address to Parliament has not attracted attention in initial comments, perhaps because it was the least controversial and the scope for differences over various formulations limited. The references had to be brief and some annotation is called for to bring out the significance of recent developments, for instance in the context of India's relationship with big powers - the U.S., Germany from among European Union members and China. In particular, the mixed signals from Washington in the midst of the transition from one administration to another, the new dimension to the ties with Germany as represented by the current visit of its Defence Minister, Mr. Rudolf Scharfing, and the on-going contacts with Beijing, climaxed by the recent trip to India of Mr. Li Peng, number two in the Chinese hierarchy. China, according to persistent reports from Beijing, keeps a close watch on the evolution of India's ties with the U.S. even as it mulls over its equation with the Bush administration.

New Delhi has played it cool to the stray, discomforting pointers of the Bush administration's India policy. The President's address referred to the U.S. in highly positive terms. The draft was finalised by the Cabinet well before the unsavoury signals came from Washington but, even then, the significance of the presidential words could not be minimised.

The address noted the ``steadily growing strength of India's interaction with the U.S.'', in particular the ``firm foundation for the new phase in our relationship'' laid by the exchange of top-level visits, and the role of the Indian-American community in changing the American perception of India. ``We continue to engage,'' it said, ``with the Administration of President George W. Bush to foster a stronger and mutually beneficial bilateral relationship.''

New Delhi prefers to go by the observations of the U.S. functionary concerned with the conduct of foreign relations, the new Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, during his confirmation hearing by the Senate rather than by the remarks of the Defence Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, or the Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. George Tenet. According to Mr. Powell, ``India has to be a high priority for foreign policy activities of the U.S.'' because, as against its role in the past when ``they were trapped in another kind of world'', it ``is all opened up and it is the soon-to-be-largest country by population, it is a powerful country and it is a nuclear-armed country. We have to engage more broadly with India''. He then spoke, on the one hand, of doing ``what we can to constrain their nuclear programme at this time'' and, on the other, of helping them with economic development. And, in reply to questions, he promised to review sanctions and ``to see whether this is the time to move forward and remove the remaining sanctions that are in place''.

Mr. Rumsfeld, however, threw a pebble, so to say, in the still waters of bilateral relations, bracketing India with North Korea and Iran, while mentioning the countries posing a threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies. On his part, Mr. Tenet seemed to take exception to Indo-Russian cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, saying Moscow sought to use trade in sensitive technologies to promote its ties with China, India and Iran. Somewhat inexplicably, the question of Russian cooperation with India in establishing nuclear power plants has been raked up now. The agreement on two plants pre-dated the prohibitory regime, put together by nuclear powers. As for the rest, Moscow stated categorically that it would not countenance any pressure because the proposed facilities were to be covered by safeguards.

New Delhi may tend to take a charitable view of the dissonance in Washington - as an unavoidable case of confusion in an administration which is yet to settle down, as a situation wherein there is no check on thoughtless utterances and coherence is an easy casualty. However, India cannot take for granted the continued understanding of its concerns that was seen towards the end of the Clinton era. A sustained effort will be necessary to preserve and build on the gains of the recent past, while recognising that bipartisan support, in the U.S., to foreign policy issues could not exclude variations in style, leading to material shifts in policy.

In particular, New Delhi would need to keep a close watch on the Bush administration's line on the nuclear issue. Those who derived comfort from the Republican Party's dislike of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and envisaged an easing of pressure on India have to revise their opinion. The new administration may push its non-proliferation agenda in other forms.

It was, therefore, just as well that the very presidential address, which spoke of an improvement in Indo-U.S. relations, also reiterated New Delhi's resolve to maintain a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. ``Our security imperatives compel us'' to do so until the objective of global, comprehensive and non- discriminatory disarmament was achieved, it said. That was precisely the stand the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, took in his protracted dialogue with the U.S. State Department representative, Mr. Strobe Talbott, in the past. Any fresh engagement, Washington needs to be reminded, would have to start from that position.

As regards Germany, the chill that set in after Pokhran-II is a thing of the past, thanks to the pragmatism shown by Berlin and the painstaking efforts by diplomats from the two sides. Germany reacted sharply to the May 1998 nuclear tests, making its chagrin known through various demonstrative actions - abrupt cancellation of talks with an Indian delegation after its arrival in the country, suspension of the development assistance and the hard line on multilateral fora such as G-8 meetings. That phase ended - decisively - with the India visit of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Joschka Fischer, last year. The normality and the warmth of the past have been restored. Development aid has been resumed and entry norms have been relaxed for experts in information technology. The new cordiality is reflected in the visiting Defence Minister's discussions on steps to strengthen contacts between the two defence establishments and to promote conceptual like-mindedness.

The President's address dwelt on the ``qualitatively higher level of India's strategic partnership with the European Union'' which, according to it, was evident from the first-ever India-E.U. summit in Lisbon. That may be too tall a claim, but the confidence that ``our warm relations with the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and other European countries will continue to acquire new dimensions'' was justified.

As regards the U.K., the steps contemplated by it to bar the use of British soil for terrorist activities in India and the finality about a major deal - India's order for advanced jet trainers - represented a high degree of positivism.

The address reiterated India's commitment to ``friendly and good- neighbourly ties with China, based on Panchsheel and mutual sensitivity to each other's concerns'', with a warm reference to Mr. Li Peng's visit. This note of satisfaction was justified, considering that the two sides had undone the damage caused to the bilateral relations by mutual suspicions and distrust, in the post-test phase, and were poised to take new initiatives to strengthen their ties and to deal with unresolved key issues.

While the magnitude of the challenges on subjects such as ``description'' of the Line of Actual Control in the border areas and reconciling the security concerns is not to be under- estimated, the political will and maturity mustered by them are a good augury.

The dealings with big powers, as a whole, have been a fascinating and rewarding experience - an apt subject for informed discussion by our parliamentarians.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Kerala's interim budget
Next     : Starving the poor - I