Author: Jyoti Malhotra
Publication: The Indian
Express
Date: September 26,
2000
Prime Minister A.B.
Vajpayee's recent trip to the US has been the subject of substantial interest
in the subcontinent and beyond. Is there now a US `tilt' towards
India and away from Pakistan? Will the new engagement have an impact on
China? Marshall Bouton, Vice-President of the Asia Society, at whose dinner
Vajpayee launched his American yatra, discusses what lies beneath with
JYOTI MALHOTRA.
Q: Why did the Clinton
administration shower such fulsome praise upon Vajpayee?
A: It's a combination
of a series of changes in the way the two countries look at each other.
Much emphasis has been laid on the personalities of the two leaders, but
it's really about converging interests. This is not only about President
Clinton and PM Vajpayee having a good time together. It's also about
the US realising that the relationship with India is important to the stability
of the Asian balance of power.
Q: Is this limited to
South Asia?
A: To all of Asia.
I'm not talking about India as a counterweight to China, I don't think
either Washington or Delhi intend that. The US does not view its
relationship with China as a zero-sum game. But India is clearly
going to be a factor in the Asian balance of power. And then there
are a host of other issues which will be increasingly salient when a new
administration comes in -- public health, terrorism, the environment --
where it's impossible to think of any meaningful global progress without
India being involved.
Q: But wasn't all of
this true even when Pokharan took place?
A: Even if India does
sign the CTBT, there remain serious concerns in the US about the stability
of the nuclear situation in the subcontinent, and any US administration
would seek reassurance from New Delhi. This administration has found
it difficult to talk to India about those issues, because to do so would
be to legitimise India's new status. But the next administration
may not have the luxury of that choice.
Q: Is the US willing
to accept India's nuclear status?
A: Not in a formal way.
But the foremost goal ought to be to prevent a nuclear exchange in the
subcontinent. But over time, the international community including
the US will find it desirable and eventually, necessary, to find ways to
talk to India about its status.
What's remarkable in
the Indo-US rapproachment is the change in atmosphere on Kashmir.
The tests have caused
Washington to take a closer look at what's on the ground. And the
feeling is that Pakistan's current stance of confrontation has raised the
ante. At the same time the US will continue to urge Delhi to re-enter
dialogue.
Q: So, despite the fact
that Vajpayee took the bus to Lahore and it ended up at Kargil, he should
take the initiative to talk?
A: He is expected to,
it is in India's interest to try and reduce tensions and reopen dialogue.
It doesn't ensure success, but the international community wants him to
try.
Q: Did Clinton raise
this with Vajpayee?
A: The PM got credit
for pursuing dialogue with the Hizbul Mujahideen despite criticism at home
and the violence in Kashmir that followed. But the US would very
much like to see some kind of a dialogue with Pakistan reopened at the
earliest. Some formula whereby Kargil could not only be put behind,
but Delhi's requirement of the reduction of cross-border terrorism can
be met without explicitly being met.
Q: Please elaborate.
A: There needn't be
an announcement, it can be just on the ground. I think both the PM
and the Foreign minister would like to find an opportunity to reopen dialogue
and they need some clear indication that there is some willingness on the
Pakistani side to end cross-border terrorism.
Q: Has this message been
given to General Musharraf? Do you see a US tilt towards India and away
from Pakistan?
A: On the first, yes,
I think so. And on the second, I don't think so. The pre-eminent
US security interest in South Asia is the prevention of conflict.
The message from Vajpayee's visit is that we have to avoid euphoria, complacency
or an exaggeration of what's been accomplished. It's too important
to let it be endangered by any such mistaken inferences. If, at some
point, India is perceived as the recalcitrant, not to mention the aggressive
party, it won't feel like a tilt for very long.
Q: What's the US asessment
on Musharraf?
A: Concern about the
lack of progress on a number of fronts, whether it is the economy, fundamentalism,
the restoration of democracy, the media, blasphemy laws. He is currently
riding a few tigers -- the relationship with India, Kashmir, the Islamic
right -- he has to stop riding them. It's a tricky situation, but
he took on this job.
Q: What now?
A: There's no doubt
that there has been a historical turning point in the relationship, but
the problem ahead is a practical one. The new administration will
take time to get itself organised and the new momentum may dissipate.
The private sector has to provide real ballast, which hasn't happened yet.
On the nuclear front, Gore has said one of his first tasks is to return
the CTBT for ratification and if he wins, that will really put pressure
on India.
Q: So, the CTBT isn't
passe?
A: No, it's on top of
the agenda. Some people here feel that if Bush comes in it will disappear.
But no, it won't.
Q: On China?
A: The centre of gravity
of Bush's China policy will not be that different from Gore. You
saw that in the recent Senate vote.
Similarly on South Asia,
either president will have similar concerns, such as the nuclear issue,
concern about war in South Asia, trade.
We have shared interests,
shared values, but it's going to take work to make the relationship happen.
This is still a young, fragile flower.
