Political India: Engaging America

The culmination of the one-day India-United States Higher Education Summit here did not generate any ‘big bang’ announcements in terms of new agreements penned but it did set in motion the mechanisms for such exchanges in the future that might lead to more U.S. investment into the vast vocational education space in India.

Specifically, and in response to a question from The Hindu, Indian Minister for Human Resources Development Kapil Sibal ruled out top-tier universities coming to India, saying, “I do not think, personally, that we will have Harvard or Yale or Princeton coming in and setting up campuses. I doubt that very much and I do not think that that is our vision either.”

Instead, he said, the Summit, which will be followed up by U.S. Under Secretary Ann Stock leading an academic delegation to India in December and a second Summit next year, will lead to twinning arrangements, joint degree programmes.

After the Summit, top officials on the U.S. side also indicated a strong interest in helping India set up institutions based on the U.S. community college model, which could cater to the “local ecosystem” of various regions in India and boost vocational training, for example in the automobiles industry.

Mr. Sibal also echoed remarks made earlier by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when he emphasised that “fly-by-night” operators would be weeded out and not permitted to invest in the Indian higher education system. He referenced several sections of the Indian Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, including the requirement that any foreign university seeking to invest in India would have to be accredited in its home country, have a 20-year record in the industry and provide a corpus of $10 million as a condition of investment.

Yet, Mr. Sibal indicated that the $10-million-corpus rule could see some flexibility especially in the case of institutions that aimed to impart skills to India’s growing workforce. There were, however, a few concrete developments that emerged after a hectic day of consultations at Georgetown University here.

The joint statement by Mr. Sibal and Ms. Clinton emphasised in particular, that strengthening educator enrichment and exchange programmes would be possible with the Government of India indicating its intention to sponsor up to 1,500 faculty and junior scholars to leading universities and research institutes in the U.S.

While some U.S. universities might be deterred from participating in the investment push into India’s education sector due to the non-repatriation of profits implied by the Indian Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, Mr. Sibal clarified that the main point of this requirement was that the fees paid by Indian university students should not be paid out abroad as dividends to shareholders.

However, officials suggested that even not-for-profit U.S. educational institutions could gain a higher return on their capital in India than they would at home, especially as not all avenues to appropriate a portion of the gains from such investments had been closed off.

Labels: Higher Education Summit, India-U.S. ties, Kapil Sibal

Getting off to a brisk start on a rainy, wind-swept morning at Georgetown University here in Washington, the first ever India-United States Higher Education Summit was kicked off on Thursday by Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Human Resource Development, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Among the top issues that they will consider during a full day’s discussions is the prospect of U.S. universities entering into partnership agreements with Indian higher education institutions under the aegis of India’s Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill.

Addressing the summit delegates, Mr. Sibal outlined the case for ramping up the “supply” of higher education in India in the years ahead. Arguing that India’s Gross Enrolment Ratio was around 15 per cent, he said increasing that proportion to 30 per cent by 2020 would require India to provide for opportunities in higher education for an additional thirty million children.

“To do that, we will need to build an additional 1000 universities and 50,000 colleges. To serve these institutions, we will require quality faculty of over a million assisted by quality support structures,” he said.

Secretary Clinton remarked that the Singh-Obama Knowledge Initiative “provides $10 million for increased university partnership and junior faculty development.” However she cautioned that in the wake of the Tri-Valley University scam, in which many Indian students were left in limbo following visa fraud allegations against that university, the U.S. was taking steps to block such fraudulent universities from reaching Indian students.

She said that the U.S. had expanded its Education USA advising services for Indian students and their families to provide information about opportunities for study and “to help you sort out misleading offers that come over the internet, and we know flood into homes across India, giving young Indian students the idea that a certain approach will work for them when, in fact, it is a dead end.” She added, “We don’t want to see that happen.”

In comments at an earlier event organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies Mr. Sibal made an eloquent case for greater U.S.-India partnerships in the higher education field arguing that the U.S.’ institutions were the “envy of the world.”

Speaking at another pre-summit meeting organised by the U.S.-India Business Council, U.S. Deputy Secretary William Burns touched upon some of the themes of the dialogue saying, “I challenge all of you during tomorrow’s Summit to seek out new avenues for cooperation we have not fully explored, including community college, distance learning, and new technologies in education, which are all part of a healthy and robust higher education mix.”

While the leaders are expected to announce some prospective partnership agreements at the end of the Summit, some outstanding questions remain.

One of these is whether any top-tier universities would be willing to invest in the full range of education opportunities in India given the provision in the Indian Foreign Educational Institutions Bill that prevents foreign universities from repatriating any profits that they make from such ventures.

A second, more fundamental, question is whether the next step for India should be to promote greater expansion within the existing domestic higher educational institutions, before it turns to foreign providers of such services.

Labels: Higher Education Summit, India-U.S. ties

Labels: bilateral trade, India-U.S. ties

Labels: defence deal, India-U.S. ties, military equipment

From The Hindu

Ashok Mago, a prominent voice of the Indian-American community, was presented the “Excellence in Global Friendship Award,” in recognition of his “outstanding contribution in promoting Indian culture in the United States and U.S.-India relations,” by Unity International Foundation, a non-profit organisation.

Mr. Mago played a key role in drumming up support for the India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement in the U.S. Congress and was also instrumental in the creation of the Senate India Caucus, led by Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

On the occasion Mr. Mago was felicitated by the Governor of Sikkim, Mr. B.P Singh, and other dignitaries present at the function included former Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Lalit Mansingh, former Indian Union Minister and Governor Bhishma Narain Singh, Vice President of Indian Council for Cultural Relations, Shahid Madi and the Ambassadors of Bhutan, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Burundi, Tajikistan and the Arab League.

R.N. Anil, Secretary-General of UIF, said that his organisation had decided to honour Mr. Mago who had “vigorously pursued the cause of India in the U.S.”

He added that history was replete with names of great men and women, who worked relentlessly to espouse the cause of unity, even if did not belong to any one nation. Mr. Mago belonged to that select group, he added.

Mr. Singh further lauded Mr. Mago’s role in bringing India and U.S. closer in recent years and said that he hoped that others would follow his lead and “bring the country of their birth and their adopted homeland closer.”

Labels: Ashok Mago, civil nuclear agreement, India-U.S. ties

From The Hindu

The reintegration of Taliban fighters into any formal governing structure in Afghanistan “is not a political negotiation designed to give Taliban elements a share of power,” Richard Holbrooke, United States Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, assured Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.

At a meeting on January 18, 2010, revealed in a private State Department cable published by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website, Ms. Rao was said to have raised “grave concerns about Taliban reintegration plans currently under discussion.”

She and other Indian colleagues had at the time argued that no amount of monetary incentives would induce the Taliban to alter its core beliefs of intolerance and militancy, and expressed scepticism that the British plan for Afghanistan would work unless Pakistan changed its policy on supporting the Quetta Shura and other Taliban elements.

However, Mr. Holbrooke reassured Ms. Rao that the U.S. would not be a party to any such arrangement given, first, the Taliban's links to the Al-Qaeda and, secondly, the social programmes of the Taliban, which were “unpalatable.”

He sought to persuade Ms. Rao that India's concerns on any changes to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 were unwarranted, in particular concerns that the policy on terrorism sanctions might be altered with respect to Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders such as Mullah Omar, Gulubuddin Hekmatyar, and Hafiz Saeed.

As per the cable, Ms. Rao also brought escalating violence in Kashmir into the conversation, and expressed concern that there had been a “sharp increase in unseasonal Pakistan-inspired violence and preparation for violence.”

Touching on the issues of cross-border shelling along the Line of Control and in Punjab, increased infiltration, and the transfer of terrorist hardware, Ms. Rao said to Mr. Holbrooke: “They are clearly trying to stir the pot in Kashmir.”

When she then informed him that India had not turned its back to Pakistan but needed to see some Pakistani progress on terrorism before it could reengage in discussions, Mr. Holbrooke said he understood “clearly where the U.S. strategic interests lie,” and shared details with Ms. Rao on the evolving political landscape in Pakistan “with a weakening President Zardari and the fluid dynamic between the various centres of power, including COAS Kayani, Prime Minister Gilani, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, and Chief Justice Choudhary.”

Labels: cablegate, India-U.S. ties, U.S. Embassy cables, Wikileaks, WikiLeaks Afghanistan, WikiLeaks India

From The Hindu

For better or worse, Martin O'Malley, the current Governor of the state of Maryland and contender for a second gubernatorial stint in the November elections, is a staunch Democrat.

And while it can sometimes seem worse, especially given the dire condition of the United States' job markets and the increasingly accusatory rhetoric emanating from the Republican opposition, it can also be better for U.S.-India ties, Mr. O'Malley argues — and definitely better for Maryland itself.

Speaking to The Hindu at one of his campaign offices near College Park, University of Maryland, the Governor appeared fired up and brimming with hope for his policy agenda, should he succeed in his bid to win a second term in Annapolis, the state capital.

Job creation

Although Maryland, unlike many other U.S. states, has weathered the convulsions of the recession with fewer job losses, job creation nevertheless is at the very apex of Mr. O'Malley's agenda and he recognises that it has both a domestic and an international dimension.

In terms of the relationship with India, whose job-creating potential President Barack Obama has emphasised in the run-up to his November visit, Maryland is among the States that have sought to foster direct trade links.

Specifically, Mr. O'Malley noted, his administration had opened a trade office in New Delhi three years back, for the sole purpose of facilitating trade and commerce partnerships between Indian companies and their counterparts in Maryland.

He said, “Now we have five offices in Asia, including our office in New Delhi, India, run by Indus Links India, whose CEO is Sanjiv Khanna. [The New Delhi office] was opened around three years ago, even during the time of budget cuts here [in Maryland].”

On Maryland's India Representative Office website Mr. Khanna explains that the organisation “assists the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED) in recruiting Indian companies to establish a location in Maryland.” It also assists DBED in providing export assistance services to Maryland companies that are seeking to expand their presence in India, Mr. Khanna says.

Mr. O'Malley emphasises that it is such connections with India — and indeed a few more which he spoke to The Hindu about — which make the recent controversy on outsourcing relatively less important.

On outsourcing

On the outsourcing question he is firmly and unapologetically in line with the broader view of the Democratic party, which opposes the outsourcing of federally funded jobs to other countries, especially during tough times such as the present. Yet the Governor speaks not only of trade links but also the role of the Indian-American community and of immigration reform, as factors that could bolster U.S.-India ties.

Regarding the Indian-American community, the Governor pointed out that the Democratic Majority Leader in the Maryland Legislature was Indian-American Kumar Barve, and that his administration had overseen the appointment of over 165 Asian Americans to various key posts in Maryland public boards and commissions. These included Indian-Americans appointed to head the portfolios of human services and economic development, Mr. O'Malley said.

Immigration

On immigration, Mr. O'Malley argued that one area that Republican opponent and former Governor Bob Ehrlich and he “very much disagreed” was Mr. Ehrlich's assertion that “multiculturalism is bunk, that history has shown that a multicultural people can never survive or thrive.”

Referring to a recent gubernatorial candidate debate conducted by the Washington Post, Mr. O'Malley added that Mr. Ehrlich had likened “new Americans” — Mr. O'Malley's inclusive term for legal immigrants — to “someone that is breaking into your home in the middle of the night,” and that Mr. Ehrlich had asked if such persons should be considered a new family member.

More broadly, the incumbent Governor said, “In order for us to be a strong country and to be good neighbours internationally, we have to embrace that aspect of American history which has always made us strong, which is the diversity of people that come together to create new cures, new economies, new inventions and things that make our world a better place and make us a moral leader.”

While President Obama has likely shelved comprehensive immigration reform until after November's Congressional elections, Mr. O'Malley said in the context of such reform it was certainly important to do a better job on immigration enforcement and protect the U.S.' borders.

However, he added, it was also necessary to find that “precious consensus that has eluded us over the last several years, because of people that subscribe to that divisive, fear-mongering ideology that Bob Ehrlich embraces, which would have us believe that people who are here and are not able to get citizenship somehow all came here illegally.” Not all such people came here illegally to begin with, he said.

Mr. O'Malley said that similar to the country's founding fathers he subscribed to the concept of e pluribus unum, or “out of many, one.” Given Maryland's record for predominantly voting in Democrats, it would appear the people of this state agree.

Labels: immigration, India-U.S. ties, Maryland

From The Hindu

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …,” wrote Charles Dickens. Today those could well be the words of the captains of Indian industry and the government that represents them. For even as the drum rolls have begun early this summer in anticipation of Barack Obama's visit to India in November, the record of the United States' 44th President on deepening economic ties with India does not inspire confidence.

Look at the facts. The economic dimension of the bilateral relationship has grown significantly in size and complexity since the pre-1991 era. Even more so since India decisively emerged from the fog of post-Pokhran nuclear isolation and sanctions were lifted by former President George W. Bush in 2001. Indeed it was the very same man who then went on to give the burgeoning relationship its biggest breakthrough in the form of the civilian nuclear deal.

Yet some in India's private sector, and perhaps in the Industry and External Affairs Ministries as well, would argue that that was where it ended. To be sure, the current U.S. administration has not spoiled the party entirely; if anything it has been at pains to sustain the image of not rocking the boat. Thus there have been veritable cascades of bonhomie during such encounters as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's much-touted “first state visit” of the Obama Presidency last November, and the India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue of May 2010.

The concerns

While these events and the behind-the-scenes Track I and Track II dialogues have certainly kept the boat from rocking, there is little doubt that the two countries are charting a course through troubled waters and that storm clouds loom on the horizon. To those following the comments of visiting Indian leaders in Washington, one thing is clear: sections of Indian industry, from the high-tech and space sectors to IT giants, are deeply unhappy with the U.S. intransigence on a range of issues at the very heart of their operations.

Some of the most serious concerns are the following.

First, export control restrictions, particularly on dual-use, high-tech items, have been brought up time and again by senior officials such as Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma. In March, as Ms. Rao co-chaired a meeting of the India-U.S. High Technology Cooperation Group, she described the restrictions and related constraints as “anachronistic.”

Second, the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security has inexplicably retained government organisations such as the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on the Entities List, thereby banning U.S. corporations from trading with them. Although Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs and other U.S. officials promised several months ago that the list was being revised, ISRO has not officially been taken off it yet.

Third, the “totalisation” conundrum has led to Indian professionals paying “huge amounts” as social security contributions in the U.S. and yet they are unable to draw any benefits on the basis of such contributions. Senior Indian Ministers such as Labour and Employment Minister Mallikarjun Kharge and Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology Sachin Pilot spelled out the nature of the problem to their U.S. counterparts in Washington in March and April. Yet in an interview with The Hindu, Mr. Blake said that the U.S. social security administration had “really grappled with this but thus far not found a way to be responsive.”

Visa fee hike

The most recent salvo came last week when Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Clair McCaskill sponsored — and got passed — a border security bill entailing an H1-B- and L-visa application fee hike of $2,000 for firms with a higher proportion of non-American employees.

No prizes for guessing which firms would be most adversely hit by this bill. The National Association of Software and Services Companies (Nasscom) sharply criticised the bill, and its president Som Mittal warned it was an “indirect form of protectionism and runs contrary to the Obama administration's oft-repeated goal of opening markets and doubling U.S. exports.”

To some, these worrisome barriers to an open economic relationship are symptomatic of the old stereotype of Democratic administrations — that they are less concerned about economic proximity to India than Republican administrations are.

Others worry specifically about the Obama government's penchant for protectionist policies, a trend that is certainly validated by the emerging rhetoric in Washington.

So far as Mr. Obama himself is concerned, it began long before he became President. As a Democratic Senator and rising star on the domestic political scene, he gained notoriety in India for backing several “killer amendments” to the India-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement. Although pro-deal lobbies dodged that bullet and the Feingold Amendments were defeated in the Senate, Mr. Obama has done little in his Presidential avatar to shake off the reputation that his actions created.

And the future looks even bleaker. The President and his Democratic colleagues are increasingly adopting a tunnel-vision approach, focussing on the one challenge that could make or break the next few years for them — the November Congressional elections. Thus India should expect that this administration will, for the next few months at least, be driven only by the adage: “It's the economy stupid!”

With the unemployment rate stabilising at 9.5 per cent and over 130,000 jobs being shed each month, even a juggernaut of a political issue such as the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may trail behind job creation.

So might immigration reform. So might even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are in any case set to slowly wind down. Imagine, then, how low on the priority list the woes of Indian industry must be. Nay, consider in fact the possibility that the battle of cry of “Stop jobs getting Bangalored!” may actually serve as a handy rallying point in the barren wasteland that is the American job market.

Given the compelling power of protectionist politics on the eve of a major round of elections, there will be little point in arguing that Indian industry is actually helping to create jobs for American citizens — though in fact it is.

Over time the only hope for those within Indian industry seeking to do business with the U.S. may be the U.S. private sector itself. History would corroborate this theory. It was in many ways the bonds between the Indian government, on the one hand, and the Indian-American community and the U.S. nuclear lobbies, on the other, that helped shepherd the civilian nuclear deal through Congress.

Indian companies with global ambitions may find that this is the only way to stop the spring of hope from giving way to the winter of despair.

Labels: Barack Obama, India-U.S. ties

From The Hindu

As President Barack Obama’s November visit to India draws ever closer, the behind-closed-doors discussions between the governments of India and the United States are gaining momentum. While administration officials are keeping silent on the specifics of the discussions, some of the important interactions underway this week were announced by the State Department.

On Thursday, the State Department announced, Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Meera Shankar would be meeting with the U.S. Under Secretary for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, Robert Hormats. Further, Mr. Hormats was scheduled to meet Dr. K. Kasturirangan and members of the Indian Planning Commission, at the Department of State.

Additionally, signalling the likelihood that nuclear programmes and regional security issues may feature prominently in the Indo-U.S. interactions later this year, it was announced that the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, Ellen Tauscher, had held a telephonic meeting with the Indian Foreign Secretary, Nirupama Rao.

Labels: India-U.S. ties, Obama Indian visit

From The Hindu

Tim Geithner, United States Treasury Secretary, met with an Indian delegation of the U.S.-India Aspen Strategy Group to discuss economic and other policy priorities between the two nations, according to a statement by the Treasury.

The participants in the meeting considered the progress of working groups that were established during Mr. Geithner’s visit to New Delhi in April, to launch the U.S.-India Economic and Financial Partnership. The main focus of the working groups was the deepening of capital markets and on macroeconomic issues.

The meeting came close on the heels of President Barack Obama hitting out at the loss of American jobs to countries such as India and China. Secretary Geithner had touched upon the very same issue prior to his India trip, when he had argued that higher taxes levied on U.S. companies having offshore operations were justified because tax incentives were not neutral to the location of the investment. “We are just trying to get reform that achieves neutrality; it is pretty good policy to be neutral on these kinds of things,” he had said at the time.

During Tuesday’s meeting the Secretary and the delegation discussed “a broad range of issues including the G-20’s commitment to create strong, sustainable and balanced global growth,” a Treasury official said.

Labels: India-U.S. ties, Obama administration

From The Hindu

At the start of the United States-India Strategic Dialogue on Thursday, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a request to provide Indian authorities with access to David Coleman Headley, accused in the Mumbai attacks and currently in the custody of the United States. He also pushed for relaxation of export control restrictions by the U.S. on high-tech goods sought by India.

In a clear indication of India's frustration with the lack of progress in the Headley case over two months after Headley struck a bargain with the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Krishna said, "access for our authorities to persons who have been apprehended by your Government in connection with [the] Mumbai terror attack is the logical next step."

Mr. Krishna added, "We are confident that our continued cooperation will lead to [the] realisation of this objective." He however noted that India valued the support it had received from the U.S. government in its investigations.

He also touched upon another area where India is awaiting a favourable U.S. policy response -- export control restrictions on high-tech goods, particularly dual-use items.

In this regard Mr. Krishna said in his opening remarks, "Given the strategic nature of our partnership and particularly the conclusion of the Civil Nuclear Initiative, these controls are not only anomalous but also a hindrance to furthering trade and investment in this particularly significant sector of our economies."

He added that India looked forward to "early steps in this direction".

On dispelling doubts

In her statements, Secretary Clinton sought to dispel 'doubts that remain on both sides'. Ms. Clinton said there were still "doubts among some Indians that the U.S. only, or mainly, sees India in the context of Afghanistan or Pakistan, or that we will hasten our departure from Afghanistan leaving India to deal with the aftermath".

She noted that equally, there were also "doubts in America that India has not fully embraced its role in regional or global affairs or will not make the economic reform needed to foster additional progress".

However, she argued that with this Dialogue and the level of confidence that India and the U.S. have established between themselves, they would "confront these challenges directly and candidly".

Click here for video of joint press conference by Hillary Clinton and S.M. Krishna. Source: U.S. State Department.

Labels: David Coleman Headley, high-technology exports, Hillary Clinton, India-U.S. ties, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, S.M. Krishna, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu

“The Government [of India] is committed to put in place a nuclear liability regime… [and] we look forward to U.S. companies investing in India,” said External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna.

Speaking before the start of the United States-India Strategic Dialogue at an event hosted by the U.S.-India Business Council, Mr. Krishna said many companies in the U.S. were in dialogue with Indian companies already, adding, "We would like it to be as robust a partnership as we have both envisioned."

Highlighting some of the key areas of discussion over the coming days, Mr. Krishna said, they would include a wide range of subjects, "from countering terrorism and extremism, advancing nuclear security, working to secure the global commons, seeking to build a developed and cooperative Asia, and succeeding in Afghanistan to dialogues for co-operation in science and technology, research for clean energy and monsoon prediction, health and education, and a dialogue on women’s empowerment".

Mr. Krishna noted that the Dialogue would also be an important occasion for India and the U.S. to reflect on the remarkable journey that the two democracies had embarked upon, and to set their sights on new milestones.

High-technology exports

He also touched upon the question of restrictions on high-technology exports to India from the U.S., an issue that industry associations such as the High Technology Cooperation Group have been emphasising over the last few months.

Making a strong pitch for fewer restrictions Mr. Krishna said, “Indian importers have a 100 per cent compliance record when it comes to safeguarding imported technology — we have been implementing the End-Use Verification Agreement with U.S. partners for years now — and have, last year, agreed to a Technical Safeguards Agreement in space co-operation.”

He noted that India also had the End Use Monitoring arrangement for defence acquisitions and had “given a number of written assurances that U.S. technology will enjoy the level of security stipulated by the relevant U.S. laws and not be diverted in contravention of U.S. regulations.”

He said given these assurances and the trust fostered through strategic dialogue, the two countries “should be able to create an environment for a robust two way trade in advanced technology products.”

Mr. Krishna will meet with his counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials on Thursday as part of the formal Strategic Dialogue discussions. President Barack Obama will also meet with the Indian delegation at the State Department during what is expected to be a star-studded reception for attending dignitaries and select media.

Labels: high-technology exports, Hillary Clinton, India-U.S. ties, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, S.M. Krishna, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu

There is no escaping a strong sense of déjà vu surrounding the upcoming United States-India Strategic Dialogue to be held here this week. Both countries are poised, yet again, to do what they have done ever since President Obama took office, namely, skip through policy minefields while professing unwavering cooperation on a range of less exigent issues.

Much like the previous meetings, this one will not be about Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to deliver justice through the prosecution of the masterminds of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Speaking before the talks Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, said that regarding Punjab-based terror groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, “Pakistan has [acted against them] in the past between 2004 and 2007, and that laid the basis for a very significant expansion in relations between India and Pakistan.” Then why exactly did the Mumbai attacks occur? This “softly, softly” approach towards Pakistan may be wearing dangerously thin.

Neither will this meeting recognise a fundamental dissonance within President Obama’s nuclear security and non-proliferation agenda — that powers such as the U.S. and Russia continue to maintain significant and less-than-secure arsenals even as they turn up the heat on de facto nuclear powers like India.

Questions to be raised

Would India dare remind the U.S. that it was on American soil that six nuclear warheads fixed to cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a B-52 bomber in 2007, violating numerous Cold-War-era treaties? Would India even contemplate asking the U.S. to bring Israel’s nuclear programme into the spotlight as it has done Iran’s?

Much like the previous dialogue, this one will certainly not be about understanding India’s views on third parties like Iran, regardless of India’s strategic closeness to that country.

Given its absence at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), India will have no say in the decision by the P5+1 group to mete out rough justice to Iran through UNSC sanctions, which completely undermine Iran’s promise to move low-enriched uranium off its soil under the fuel-swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil.

Global, bilateral issues on agenda

Instead, global and bilateral issues have been placed on the agenda which, though worthy of holding the relationship to a positive pitch, make a proverbial 200-pound gorilla of the other burning questions.

The most telling sign that the U.S.-India engagement is set to simmer but will never get fully cooked was a statement by Mr. Blake to a question on what the deliverables of the Strategic Dialogue would be. He said, “I do not want to talk about the deliverables now. But we are really not focused that much on deliverables.”

Labels: India-U.S. ties, Lashkar-e-Taiba, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, Robert Blake, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu (shorter print edition excerpt)

Robert Blake is the United States Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs a position he has held since May 2009. A career Foreign Service Officer, Mr. Blake has served at the American Embassies in Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt and in senior roles at the State Department in Washington. Mr. Blake was also Deputy Chief of Mission in New Delhi between 2003-2006, and Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives from 2006 to mid-2009. He has a B.A. from Harvard College and an M.A. in international relations from Johns Hopkins. In a recent interview with The Hindu, Mr. Blake touched upon a number of current foreign policy issues.


Two questions on economics and trade, firstly, several Indian ministers, including Sachin Pilot and more recently Mallikarjun Kharge, have made references to the fact that Indians and Indian companies pay a lot of money towards social security here in the U.S. and yet do not see any benefits coming out of such contributions as they do not remain in this country long enough. From these statements it is obvious that this is becoming a growing concern in India. Can you explain what, if anything, the U.S. is planning to do to address this concern?

Well this has been a long-standing issue on our agenda and it is called “totalisation.” The problem is that our social security systems are not synchronised. We certainly have heard the Indian concerns on this and sought to be responsive. But our social security administration has really grappled with this but thus far not found a way to be responsive. But we will continue to look at this and see what we can do.

With Indian state institutions such as ISRO still on the Entities List of the BIS, there is a real concern in India that this will come in the way of high-tech trade and cooperation promised under the Obama-Singh umbrella of initiatives (especially for dual-use items). While the administration has said that its policies in this area will be reviewed, the concern on the Indian side has been magnified by the fact that the administration is altering tax laws against off-shoring of U.S. business and the rhetoric seems to point towards a deliberate intent towards greater protectionism. What could you say that would reassure India in this regard?

I can tell you that we are not moving towards a more protectionist position vis-à-vis India or any other country. The President has repeatedly stated his commitment to free trade and has stated his commitment to the existing trade agreements that we have with countries that are pending, like Colombia, but more broadly to the Doha Round. Obviously the role and cooperation of countries like India is going to be critical in achieving a successful outcome. You have seen our trade representative Ron Kirk make statements with Minister Sharma on this.

On the question of export controls, there is a broader administration-wide export-control review that is taking place. You saw, recently, statements by Secretary Gates, that referred to the fact that the laws on the books are now quite dated and do not reflect the tremendous advances that have taken place in technology; and the fact that many of the technologies that are now controlled are available in RadioShack and there is usually not need for any controls on many of these things [laughs]. So there is a need to rationalise that list and there is also a need to make one agency responsible and not the whole bunch of agencies right now that have responsibilities for export control. The administration is really committed to trying to look at this in a really positive way. One of the most important benefits to the United States is that it will enable us to export more to countries like India.

As part of that export control review we will then be able to look at what we might be able to do on the Entities List, for example, with India – I know ISRO and there are several others. We have already been looking at ways that the U.S. and India could take reciprocal measures that would allow us to continue to enhance trade in high technology goods of all kinds. As you know we have already had the high-technology corporation group which has been in existence for many years and has made really very significant progress in reducing the number of goods that require a license for export to India. Now it is well over 96-97 per cent of the things that we trade are not subject to any license at all. It is really a very small proportion of the overall goods.

But again we feel that there are very significant opportunities to work in space. We were already part of the Chandrayaan launch. We are already doing a lot of cooperation through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on things like meteorological forecasting and things like that. We would very much like to do this and space will be another important area of cooperation going forward.

On David Coleman Headley, it has been over one month since he struck a plea agreement with the Department of Justice. When you spoke to us at the Foreign Press Centre you said that no decision had been made on giving India direct access to Mr. Headley. So there are a few questions here: Could you please explain why Indian authorities should not feel frustrated that this process is taking so long and how much longer will they have to wait? Secondly what is the exact nature of the procedures that are stalling the process – is it simply a question of formal filings required by either side or is it something more fundamental such as Mr. Headley reconsidering his offer to cooperate or the U.S. still trying to put in place modalities to manage Mr. Headley’s interaction with India tightly?

It is not so much a question of the U.S. putting [modalities in place]. It is more a question of getting agreement from Mr. Headley and his lawyers about this – what are going to be the parameters of that access, should it occur. I do not think anyone should read too much into this. People at a very high level with very good intentions are working on this and we are in very close touch with Indian authorities on this. I think it is just important to be patient, but I can tell you that we are well aware of India’s interest but also India’s equities as well. Obviously Mr. Headley was involved in reconnoitring sites for not only the Mumbai bombings but perhaps other ones. They have a very clear interest in knowing what further information he may have and we understand that.

So what is it that is the specific problem, because the plea agreement clearly says that the death penalty was waived based on his cooperation.

I really do not want to say more than what I have already said. It is not really our department that is working on this but the Department of Justice.

On your recent trip to the region, you mentioned that you had urged authorities in Pakistan to take action against Punjab-based groups, such as LeT, “not only because that is important to India but it is important to the U.S..” Apart from the earlier indirect actions by Pakistan in the Swat and South Waziristan offensives, in what ways are they following your advice? How about more immediate goals such as banning them and their associates from holding public meetings (as they have been doing) or seeing through the trial of the Mumbai attacks suspects to its completion?

First of all with respect to the case, my impression is that is moving forward and that there is not any effort on the part of the Pakistani government to slow that down in any way. It is just that the judicial process is moving ahead.

On the question of LeT, I will just say what I have said before, which is that we really see that LeT is an organisation of growing scope and ambition, as the Headley case itself illustrates; and also a threat to the U.S. but also a threat to India and other countries, and potentially a threat to Pakistan too. So it is important for all countries to do what they can to circumscribe and control the activities of LeT. We will be continuing to urge our friends in Pakistan to deal with this. As I said earlier, they have made a lot of progress in Swat and then in South Waziristan, in arresting senior members of the Taliban. There is good momentum that has been taking place. At the same time it is important for all of us that these other groups – many of which have attacked Pakistan itself, like Jaish-e-Mohammed and groups like that – that they also be a target of Pakistani actions. We will continue to urge for progress on that.

It has wider benefit for not only counterterrorism priority, but also Indian and Pakistani relations. One of the things that I said to our Indian and Pakistani friends when I was there, particularly to the business community, is that there are tremendous under-exploited opportunities for trade between the two countries and that if progress can continue to be made on terrorism and on the judicial actions that we talked about earlier, that would really open up a way for the business communities of both sides to expand trade relations and business investment relations.

From my conversations both in India and Pakistan, they are both ready to do that. But they are both waiting for political signals from their governments before they take actions. These small but important steps on things like LeT can have a wider and positive effect on bilateral relations.

Yes but in that same vein do you not think that some of these related organisations could have public meetings and also the slightly unrelated point on attacks in Afghanistan on Indian personnel. Do these things not dissuade this sort of process from kicking off?

Well they do, yes, so again that underlines the importance of Pakistan fulfilling what it has always said it would do, which is to not allow its territory to be used as a platform against other countries.

Well I guess what many Indians would wonder is, what role could the U.S. play in pushing that forward on the ground. Certainly they have made the right statements but there is a sense that action is not following.

Yes, Pakistan has a sovereign government and they are a friend of the U.S. and we will continue to work with them on this but all I can say is we have identified this as a priority.

President Obama said at his Nuclear Security Summit press conference that the U.S. wanted to reduce nuclear tension in South Asia. Does the U.S. see Chinese nuclear weapons and the Chinese proliferation link with Pakistan as factors which have contributed to this tension historically and at the present time?

We all know the historical ties between Pakistan and China. But I do not think I would want to make any statements about the current [situation]. I do not think that there are any significant proliferation issues right now with regard to China and Pakistan.

There are no concerns?

I do not think that that is at the forefront of things that we are working on. Our dialogue with China now is first of all urging them to work with the international community to help stabilise Pakistan and then help provide the assistance that it needs. But then also on the counter-terrorism front there are groups operating in Pakistan that are antithetical to Chinese interests – [for example] the East Turkistan [Islamic] Movement. It is certainly in their interest and in our interest to see that action is taken against those groups to prevent the destabilisation of China. Then we are of course very closely working with China in Afghanistan as well, and we appreciate the role they are playing there in terms of new investments and a lot of the projects they have undertaken there.

On Sri Lanka, what would you say is your single biggest worry about how the post-election scenario could play out in terms of continuing the process of rehabilitations of IDPs and a longer-term political solution for lasting peace between the major ethnic groups? Does the President’s appointment of his brothers to powerful portfolios and his attitude towards Sarath Fonseka, who is still in custody, worry you at all in this regard?

I would rather not talk about worries; I would rather talk about opportunities. Again I think the President has scored a very significant victory in both the Presidential elections and in the Parliamentary elections. It shows that the President has a great deal of personal support around the country and particularly in the south, where he won an overwhelming victory. Now, he has a really historic opportunity to unify the country, to bring the country together as one country as never before – or at least not in the last 30 years. So we look very much forward to working with the new government to help that process of unifying the country. I hope to have the opportunity to meet with President Rajapaksa during the SAARC summit which is going to be taking place in Bhutan next week to hear about his plans in that regard.

So what about the question of Mr. Fonseka?

That is a in the Sri Lankan judicial system now and I do not have any independent information about the charges that are against him. We will have to wait and see on that. Our interest, like the interests of the Sri Lankan people, is to make sure that he is tried in accordance with Sri Lankan law.

Do you see any obstacles at all in terms of this President reaching out to Tamil groups and IDPs and fostering a long-term solution? That is the harder bit and that is something that this country wrestled with for decades and that is what people are going to be watching for now.

The election results were only announced yesterday so we have to give the President a chance to articulate his plans. I do not want to make statements that are going to in any way circumscribe what he is going to say. I would rather give the President a chance to make his comments and then we will comment after that [laughs].

Finally as the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, what is your view of India, Pakistan and Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation? The SCO is expected to announce membership criteria at its Tashkent summit next month and all three countries are known to be interested. How does the U.S. see the SCO in general, and specifically, in relation to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Could the SCO play a role in stabilising the situation there?

We see that the SCO can play a very important role in bringing in the countries of Central Asia and the wider region together. That could be a very important vehicle for dialogue and also for economic development and economic integration. As long as the SCO sees those things as its goal, we certainly welcome that. The expansion to other countries, such as India and Pakistan, would be welcome. I know India particularly has a great deal of interest in trying to expand relations into Central Asia, and many Central Asians tell me that they have interest in doing more business with India, and also Pakistan eventually. But the security situation in Pakistan sometimes constrains them right now. But many Central Asian business people that I have spoken to see quite significant trade and investment opportunities both from South Asian countries coming up to invest in Central Asia but also in terms of export opportunities into South Asia for Central Asian companies. The SCO can play quite an important role in that respect and it is good for friends like Pakistan and India to be involved in that.

Again in that context you earlier mentioned that you were concerned about both India and Pakistan tying up with Iran, in the context of pipelines, talking of business in the region. What is your thinking on that either in the context of the SCO or even otherwise, with such projects going forward? Do you think that both at forums such as the SCO and on independent commercial projects the coming together of countries like India and Iran is a cause for concern for the U.S., vis-à-vis stability in the region or what you are trying to achieve with Iran in a global context?

You are well aware of what we are trying to accomplish with Iran right now. We are at a very sensitive stage in our diplomacy with them. The President has pursued the dual-track policy of holding out a hand of friendship, but if the Iranians are not willing to accept that, to build international consensus to bring the Iranians to the table and stop their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. At the moment we are trying to discourage all countries from pursuing projects that would put significant resources into the hands of, particularly groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps, that have pursued terrorist actions and that have given money and weapons to terrorist groups in the Middle East and have sought actively to destabilise and attack Israel and pursue terrorist policies in the wider part of the world.

So we have a very strong interest in stopping that. All the countries of the world have a very strong interest in stopping that. It is in that context that we discourage friends like India and Pakistan from pursuing, for example, energy projects and so forth.

But the coming together of these countries on the platform of the SCO per se does not worry you?

I do not know, I cannot comment on the Iranian part of the SCO. I have not really followed it that closely – what Iran’s intentions are with regard to SCO.

Labels: David Coleman Headley, India-U.S. ties, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Robert Blake

From The Hindu

Nuclear security and non-proliferation, Afghanistan, food security, and poverty reduction featured prominently in the bilateral discussions between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama on Sunday, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, told media during a teleconference.

Mr. Obama had, in particular, thanked Dr. Singh for the humanitarian and development work that India has been undertaking in Afghanistan, Mr. Rhodes added. At the meeting both leaders emphasised the strategic importance of the India-United States relationship to the entire world, he said.

The Singh-Obama meeting was the first in series of bilateral talks that President Obama is holding prior to the kickoff of the Nuclear Security Summit of April 12-13.

During the media interaction Mr. Rhodes however declined to comment on whether or not Mr. Obama had assured Dr. Singh that India would have access to Mumbai attacks suspect David Coleman Headley, currently in custody in the U.S. The case is the responsibility of the U.S. Justice Department and the Attorney General, he said.

No binding communiqué likely

Regarding the question of whether a binding communiqué would emerge as a result of the summit discussions Mr. Rhodes said that the main outcome of the meetings in Washington would be to move towards the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials world over within the next four years.

“Specific national actions… and concrete steps towards such an effort will be required,” Mr. Rhodes said in this regard, and countries such as Chile have already demonstrated the role of national commitments to global nuclear security by transferring their stocks of enriched uranium to the U.S..

Laura Holgate, Senior Director, WMD Terrorism and Threat Reduction, further added that no legally binding communiqué would emerge from this summit; however there will be a political agreement. This would be consistent with the overall aim of the summit, which was to raise awareness of the threat of nuclear terrorism and the actions needed to tackle that threat, she said.

Other bilateral discussions

On other key bilateral discussions held by President Obama, Mr. Rhodes said that the U.S. had established a new agreement on the Northern Distribution Network during discussions with Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Under this agreement the U.S. would be able to utilise polar air routes that then channelled both troops and equipment supplies via Kazakhstan into countries such as Afghanistan. This would save the U.S. significant amounts of time and money, Mr. Rhodes explained.

On President’s Obama’s bilateral discussions with the President Jacob Zuma of South Africa and President Nazarbayev, Mr. Rhodes commented that both countries had given up plans for nuclear weapons development that they might have had in the past, and yet were on the route to nuclear security and economic prosperity.

Labels: Barack Obama, India-U.S. ties, Manmohan Singh, non-proliferation, NPT, nuclear issue