Political India: Engaging America

Labels: Taliban, U.S. Marines

While the Internet's democratisation of communication has empowered the ordinary citizen to engage with those quite distant to them in the real world, this compression of cyber-distance has raised the thorny of question of whether groups such as the Taliban have the right to freely post anti-West messages.

The latest controversy surrounding this issue has fixed the spotlight on the United States government's efforts to pressure microblog site Twitter to cancel the accounts of pro-Taliban tweeters.

The Los Angeles Times highlighted the role of lawmakers such as Senator Joe Lieberman, Independent and Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, “to persuade Internet companies to remove videos and blog posts that he says promote terrorism or offer instructions on how to commit violence.”

Though Twitter feeds ostensibly from the Taliban first appeared last year in Arabic and Pashto, the LA Times reported, an English-language feed started in April and many of its posts referred to U.S. troops in inflammatory terms.

At the heart of the issue is a deeply troubling question for U.S. foreign policy itself — the fact that there has been flip-flopping on the question of whether the Taliban is the enemy or a partner in the future Afghan state.

A lack of consistency on this matter has meant that the State Department has not listed the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation, a fact that Twitter executives were said to have underscored to the likes of Mr. Lieberman. So long as the Taliban is not an FTO, they are reported to have argued, the microblog posts are in no way a violation the Twitter's terms of service.

Yet it is undeniable that the U.S. and more generally the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Kabul is feeling the cyber-heat, a view corroborated by the fact that the ISAF has engaged in a cyber-battle with a specific pro-Taliban account.

The ISAF Twitter account is @ISAFmedia, with 16,000-plus followers and its detractor is the @ABalkhi, with 3,000-plus followers.

Hammering out dozens of tweets per day and trading allegations over specific attacks by either side, these exchanges create the impression of an ugly online brawl.

Most recently the Taliban tweeter highlighted claims that NATO forces were using Afghan mercenaries and noted on Thursday: “@ISAFmedia - your officials admitted to it dumb dumb.” In response the ISAF tweeter wrote: “@ABalkhi - Dumb dumb? How the dialogue elevates. Look: Nobody takes you seriously. Everything you type is wrong. Just. Stop.”

Labels: cyberspace, ISAF, Taliban, Twitter

Labels: Afghan-US relations, Eklil Hakimi, Taliban

From The Hindu

In the first Presidentially-mandated annual review of its strategy and progress in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the United States hinted several times that greater cooperation with Pakistan was necessary in the tribal belt located on the Af-Pak border, if extremist safe havens were to be denied.

On Wednesday evening the White House released a short summary of the classified report, which argued that while the momentum achieved by the Taliban in recent years had been arrested in much of Afghanistan and reversed in some key areas, such gains would remained “fragile and reversible,” unless the U.S. made “more progress with Pakistan to eliminate sanctuaries for violent extremist networks.”

The report, which drew upon a wide range of inputs across the Obama administration, also worried that the presence of nuclear weapons and fissile materials in the region highlighted the importance of “working with regional partners to prevent extremists, including core al-Qaeda, from acquiring such weapons or materials.”

Despite the fragility of the gains made in the region, the report said, the administration reaffirmed President Barack Obama’s commitment to proceed with the troop drawdown starting in July 2011 and continuing until the transition from International Security Assistance Forces to Afghan National Security Forces was complete by the end of 2014. This plan was consistent with the agreement reached at the recent NATO Lisbon Summit, the report noted.

Dedicating an entire section to the U.S.-Pakistan relationship the review report described progress in the bilateral relationship as “substantial, but also uneven.” Specifically the report said that there was a need for “adjustment” in terms of cooperation with Pakistan in the denial of extremist safe havens. There was no mention of India in the five-page summary released by the White House.

The report also emphasised non-military aspects of its regional strategy, noting that “the denial of extremist safe havens cannot be achieved through military means alone, but must continue to be advanced by effective development strategies.”

The Af-Pak review report also drew attention to the continued challenge that al-Qaeda posed to U.S. interests – here too underscoring that the epicentre of that threat lay within Pakistan. “We remain relentlessly focused on Pakistan-based al-Qaeda because of the strategic nature of the threat posed by its leadership,” the report argued, adding that the U.S. remained committed to “deepening... our partnerships with Pakistan and Afghanistan in a way that brings us closer to the defeat of al-Qaeda.”

While the report left little doubt that the planned troop drawdown would proceed in July 2011, it noted that any such action would be “conditions-based,” and in particular would depend on the “major challenge” for the Afghan government to show it had the capacity to consolidate gains in geographic areas that had been cleared by ISAF and ANSF.

The study also said that American diplomacy in the region would support to “Afghan-led reconciliation” as a key enabling condition for peace and stability in Afghanistan, a process that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has favoured.

Labels: Afghan war review, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, US troops withdrawal

From The Hindu

In a major legislative crackdown against the Pakistani Taliban, also known as the Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), the United States Department of Treasury, has slapped the terrorist group with sanctions.

In addition to “designating” the militant outfit — following which action the Treasury may freeze any assets of the organisation and effectively ban all U.S. entities from trading with it — the Treasury has also applied sanctions to Hakeemullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban’s commander. While Mr. Mehsud was thought to have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in January, a video released by the Pakistani Taliban in May has led to claims that he might have survived the attack.

Speaking to media at a briefing, Daniel Benjamin, from the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, said, “Today I am pleased to announce the designation of the Tehrik-e Taliban as both a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as a Special Designated Global Terrorist Organization, in tandem with the designation of two of its senior leaders, Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali Ur Rehman.”

Mr. Benjamin added that the designations were part of the U.S.’ multipronged approach to “disrupt and dismantle TTP in Pakistan and that they would help to stem the flow of finances to the TTP and provide the Department of Justice with a “critical tool” to prosecute those who knowingly provide material support to the TTP and its senior leaders.

In addition, he said, the DoJ’s ‘Rewards for Justice Program’ had announced a $5 million reward for any information leading to the arrest of Mr. Mehsud or Mr. Rehman. An arrest warrant for Mr. Mehsud had also been filed and he had further been charged with “conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens abroad and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction.”

These charges related to Mr. Mehsud’s alleged involvement in the murder of seven American citizens at a U.S. military base in Khost, Afghanistan in 2009, Mr. Benjamin noted.

Robert Hartung, Assistant Director of the Threat Investigations and Analysis Directorate in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security added that it was under the direction of Mr. Mehsud and Mr. Rehman that that the TTP also planned the failed bombing in New York City’s Time Square.

Touching upon the broader threat perception of the TTP, Mr. Benjamin noted that the TTP was “very much part of the most dangerous terrorist threat the U.S. faces.” He explained that the TTP and al-Qaeda had a symbiotic relationship: the TTP drew ideological guidance from al-Qaeda while al-Qaeda relied on the TTP for safe haven in the Pashtun areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he said.

Labels: Taliban, terrorism sanctions

From The Hindu

In what could mark the start of an accelerating backlash from the administration, the release of sensitive military documents by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website was attacked by senior Department of Defence officials.

The criticism by top DoD staff, such as Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, was also accompanied by an announcement that the military had asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to help Pentagon authorities investigate the sources of the leak of the classified documents.

Describing the release as a “breach of national security”, Mr. Gates said the use of the FBI would ensure the investigation could go wherever it needed to go.

Regarding the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Admiral Mullen said, “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

Mr. Gates however expressed the opposite view on the importance of the documents, “These documents represent a mountain of raw data and individual impressions, most several years old, devoid of context or analysis... They do not represent official positions or policy.” He further emphasised that in his view, the documents’ revelations did not fundamentally call into question the efficacy of the allied strategy in Afghanistan and its prospects for success.

However, Secretary Gates noted that the 90,000-plus documents released by WikiLeaks still had battlefield consequences for United States, Afghan troops and civilians, and also may damage U.S. relationships in Central Asia and the Middle East.

In particular, Mr. Gates expressed concern that they might damage the U.S.’ relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Both nations remember that the U.S. walked away from the region in 1989, and U.S. military and civilian leaders have been trying hard since 2001 to repair those relationships and close the trust deficit,” he said.

Admiral Mullen corroborated this sentiment, noting, “In addition to making sure we understand the tactical risks from these leaks, I think it is incumbent upon us not to let the good relationships we have established and the trust we have worked so hard to build throughout the region also become a casualty.”

Labels: Afghan war, NATO, Robert Gates, Taliban, Wikileaks

From The Hindu

While the United States has refused to corroborate the suggestion — implied by some of the WikiLeaks documents — that Pakistan’s spy agency colluded with the Taliban against Western forces in Afghanistan, a State Department spokesman however said Pakistan had to do more to prove that it was implementing a “strategic shift against insurgent groups”.

At a briefing, Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley said that even prior to the whistleblower website releasing military and intelligence documents on the war in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said in Islamabad that Pakistan needed to “ensure that insurgent groups are not being supported by elements within Pakistan who continue to follow an old mindset that conflicts with Pakistan’s own security interests”.

Following the WikiLeaks scoop, however, Mr. Crowley suggested that such a shift would have particular salience for India and, “If Pakistan wants to convince India that it has made this kind of fundamental change, bringing to justice those who are responsible for the Mumbai attack would be a very, very constructive and important step.”

He added there was little doubt that India wanted to see Pakistan taking steps to bring to justice those people that threatened neighbouring states, underscoring, “We continue to have conversations with Pakistan on bringing to justice those responsible for the Mumbai attack.”

In terms of the U.S.’ perspective on the matter, Mr. Crowley said there were some indications that Pakistan had fundamentally changed its approach to insurgencies in the past year to two.

Yet he added, “Are we still concerned about this? Absolutely, we are.” Mr. Crowley also reiterated that the Secretary had outlined these concerns to both the Pakistani Government and the Pakistani people in “very direct and very candid” discussions last week.

Labels: India Pakistan relations, Taliban, Wikileaks

From The Hindu

A hacker-founded whistleblower website, WikiLeaks, has released close to 75,000 documents, from the battlefront in Afghanistan, which purportedly show the complicity of Pakistani spy agencies and the Taliban in waging a war against Western military forces. The site said it would soon be releasing another 15,000 documents.

In a development that could well rock the United States-Pakistan relationship or have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks release was said to show that Pakistan had permitted agents of intelligence services to hold secret planning sessions with the Taliban, aimed at agreeing a military strategy against American and other forces in the country. Unconfirmed reports also said that evidence of war crimes and a higher-than-expected civilian casualty rate could be found in the reports.

The White House reacted strongly within hours of the release. National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a statement that the U.S. "strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security".

He especially criticised WikiLeaks for making "no effort to contact us about these documents", complaining that the U.S. government had learned of the release from news organisations. General Jones was also quick to reassure that such "irresponsible" leaks would not impact the U.S.' ongoing commitment to deepen its partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan, to defeat common enemies and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

Speaking to The Hindu, Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former officer at the Central Intelligence Agency, said, "The documents underscore what we have known for years — Pakistan has an intimate relationship with the Taliban. The former head of Afghan intelligence has been saying this for the last month. The Obama administration has understood this from its first days in office." He added that the White House did understand there was no viable alternative to a policy of engagement with Pakistan to try to "coerce and entice Islamabad to cut those ties".

Shift in Af-Pak region

General Jones appeared to corroborate this view, noting that there had been a shift in the Af-Pak region under President Obama which entailed a "substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al-Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years". He further said that while there were still "serious challenges" ahead, the U.S. was focused on breaking the Taliban’s momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government could begin to assume responsibility for its future.

Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank and formerly with the State Department’s South Asia Bureau, told The Hindu that some of the challenges the documents pointed to, such as high Afghan civilian casualties, had been rectified in the new counterinsurgency strategy first introduced in August 2009 by General Stanley McChrystal.

She said, "The WikiLeaks expose should not be used to argue that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is doomed to failure... [It was] refined over the last year and... the new counterinsurgency strategy is sound and should be given time to succeed."

Ms. Curtis added, however, that the leaked documents revealed "a level of U.S. frustration with Pakistan's dual policy of fighting some extremists while harbouring others", a view that was not always apparent in official statements praising Pakistan as a steadfast ally in the war on terrorism.

She further noted that given the continuing challenges posed by Pakistan's ambiguous policy toward terrorism in the region, the Obama administration ought to consider carefully whether its current Pakistan policy should be recalibrated in ways that convince the Pakistanis to shift their strategy toward the Taliban more fundamentally.

In a similar vein, addressing those in Pakistan who might have worried about the impact of the leak, General Jones added that especially given the country’s willingness to work with the U.S. since 2009, "counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al-Qaeda’s leadership... [and] the Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people".

However, in what might have been a tacit acknowledgement of the veracity of some of the reports leaked, General Jones cautioned: "Yet the Pakistani government – and Pakistan’s military and intelligence services – must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups."

Linking actions to annual aid

Implicitly linking such actions to the $1.5 billion annual aid that the U.S. is currently providing Pakistan, the General also said, "The balance must shift decisively against al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people."

According to the New York Times, which was said to be in possession of the documents a week ago, much of the information released by WikiLeaks could not be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants.

The newspaper added that however, "many of the reports rely on sources that the military rated as reliable" and current and former American officials interviewed, said the portrait of the Pakistani spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence.

The report came close on the heels of a decision by the U.S. Treasury to impose sanctions against three key leaders and financiers for the Haqqani Network and the Taliban, for supporting acts of terrorism linked to the militant groups based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the United States Department of the Treasury announced this week.

In targeting the three individuals, the Treasury noted last week that the Haqqani Network was a Taliban-affiliated group of militants operating out of North Waziristan Agency, and that "Pakistan has been spearheading insurgent activity in Afghanistan".

Labels: Afghan war, NATO, Taliban, Wikileaks

From The Hindu

Three key leaders and financiers for the Haqqani Network and the Taliban have been “designated” or targeted through sanctions for supporting acts of terrorism linked to the militant groups based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the United States Department of the Treasury announced this week.

The designation was made pursuant to Executive Order 13224, according to which the Treasury was authorised to target Gul Agha Ishakzai, the head of the Taliban’s financial commission; Amir Abdullah, former treasurer to senior Taliban leader Mullah Berader; and Nasiruddin Haqqani, an emissary for the Haqqani Network.

In targeting these three individuals, the Treasury noted that the Haqqani Network was a Taliban-affiliated group of militants operating out of North Waziristan Agency, and that “Pakistan and has been spearheading insurgent activity in Afghanistan”.

As per the latest Executive Order, the Treasury has effectively frozen all assets that the three individuals hold under U.S. jurisdiction. Further the Treasury may now prohibit any U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with them. Further the three individuals were also added to the United Nations 1267 Consolidated List on July 19, 2010, for being associated with Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the Taliban, the Treasury said in a statement.

Commenting on the designation Adam Szubin, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, said, “Today’s designation of three senior leaders and financiers for the Taliban and its affiliated Haqqani Network builds upon Treasury’s longstanding efforts to deprive these extremists of the resources they need to execute their violent activities.”

He added that the U.S. would continue to aggressively work to expose and dismantle the financial networks of terrorist groups in support of President Barack Obama’s goal of a stable Afghanistan.

Background details provided

The Treasury also provided background details identifying information on the three individuals targeted.

Regarding Mr. Ishakzai, the Treasury said he was the head of the Taliban’s financial commission and part of a recently-created Taliban council that coordinated the collection of zakat — a tax sanctioned by Islamic law — from Baluchistan Province, Pakistan. The Treasury further noted that Mr. Ishakzai collected money for suicide attacks in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and has been involved in the disbursement of funds for Taliban fighters and their families.

Mr. Abdullah was said to have served as treasurer to senior Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Berader and was the former deputy to the Taliban governor of Kandahar Province. He was also charged with fundraising for the Taliban from numerous countries in the Middle East and in 2001 Mr. Abdullah reportedly “helped many senior Taliban members who fled Afghanistan settle in Pakistan”.

Finally Mr. Haqqani was regarded as a key leader of the Haqqani Network, being the brother of Sirajuddin Haqqani, previously designated by the U.S. in March 2008. Nasiruddin Haqqani was said to function as “an emissary for the Haqqani Network and spends much of his time raising money”.

Labels: Afghanistan, Haqqani network, Taliban

From The Hindu

The State Department on Friday confirmed that arrests had been made in Pakistan relating to the case of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber currently in custody in the United States.

“There have been some arrests in Pakistan,” Philip Crowley, State Department spokesman, said, in response to a question on the arrest of an army general in Pakistan. The general was allegedly arrested on the charge of withholding information regarding Mr. Shahzad from the authorities.

At a briefing Mr. Crowley also noted, “We just had a high-level visit to Pakistan by General Jones, the National Security Advisor, and Leon Panetta, the CIA Director. We are satisfied with the cooperation that we are receiving with Pakistan in this investigation.”

However he added that regarding the specifics of any arrests that took place, he would have to defer to the Government of Pakistan. In particular Mr. Crowley remained non-committal about recent news that the U.S. embassy in Pakistan sent out about avoiding a local catering company that might have ties to the Taliban.

Labels: catering company, Faisal Shahzad, Hanif Rajput catering, Leon Panetta, Philip Crowley, Taliban, Times Square bomb plot

From The Hindu

Following a major bomb scare in New York’s bustling Times Square on Saturday, police were reported to be examining a surveillance video showing a man removing his shirt and glancing back in the direction of the vehicle that contained the bomb.

The video, released by the New York Police Department, shows an unidentified white man walking down an alley and stopping briefly to remove his shirt. The man, who was wearing a red shirt underneath, is then seen looking backwards in the direction of the Nissan Pathfinder vehicle which was giving out smoke. He is then seen placing his first shirt in a bag and walking away.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a television interview cautioned that “the person on the tape may not become a suspect”. He said there were virtually millions of people that come through Times Square and “this person happened to be in a position in which a camera got a good shot of him”. He added it was possible this individual had something to do with the bomb but there was “a very good chance that he did not”.

No evidence to support Taliban claim

Police also addressed reports of videos posted to the Internet over the weekend, apparently suggesting that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the planned attack. At a press conference Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, “Although a Taliban bomb-maker has claimed on the internet that the car bomb was placed in Times Square to avenge the deaths of Mujahideen fighters, we have no evidence to support this claim.”

Mr. Kelly added that though they had not yet determined whether the car bomb was linked to “any specific terrorist organisation,” they were working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation through the Joint Terrorism Task force. He noted, “Our investigators have developed leads that may assist us in identifying the individual responsible for the attempted car bombing in Times Square last night.”

Mr. Bloomberg similarly reiterated there was “no legitimate evidence” of a link to al-Qaeda, the Taliban or any other militant group. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano mentioned in a media interview that nothing had been ruled out yet, and “Right now, every lead has to be pursued… I caution against premature decisions one way or another.”

Providing a few more details regarding the explosive device itself Mr. Kelly said, “In essence our initial take is that it is incendiary in nature… Of course if this had detonated, in my judgement, would have caused casualties with a significant fireball. I am told that the vehicle itself would have been cut in half. You have large numbers of pedestrians in that area so yes, we were lucky that it did not detonate.”

Labels: New York, Taliban, Times Square

From The Hindu


Photo: M. Vedhan

Timothy J. Roemer, nominated by President Barack Obama as the 21st U.S. Ambassador to India, presented his credentials to President Pratibha Patil on August 11, 2009. Acting on the advice of Mr. Obama to get out of New Delhi to meet Indians all around the country, the former six-term Congressman and former president of the Center for National Policy in Washington D.C. visited Chennai in September for a packed schedule of meetings. Dr. Roemer addressed a range of bilateral, U.S. policy, and international issues while fielding questions during a one-hour interactive editorial meeting at The Hindu on September 24.

Shyam Ranganathan and Narayan Lakshman present an edited excerpt from the conversation (the full text is available at The Hindu's beta website):

Strategic cooperation

When President Obama asked me to serve in this role, he said this is not only one of the most important relationships in the world, it will be one of the best relationships in the world. The President, like the Secretary of State, meant this not only on bilateral issues such as the civilian nuclear deal that was passed by both our respective legislatures and approved by the executive branches, but now moving from one very important issue to five extremely important issues of bilateral, regional and global consequences.

Five pillars

We have a common threat with radical extremism emanating from different parts of the world particularly from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Toiba. And both India and the United States identify this common threat. After the attacks of 9/11 and after the Mumbai attacks, we are working together at unprecedented levels to share intelligence, to assess our strategic interests, to better train our personnel, to send delegations of people back and forth between the United States and India in a joint way so we learn from India and that India learns from the United States.

There are also areas that are extremely important on climate and energy security issues that the two countries can work on. I think both countries see it in their strategic interest to lessen their dependence on oil, on imported oil, and broaden their alternatives, co-operate more on technology and science, improve their energy efficiency and their conservation, look for new markets so their entrepreneurs can raise money to create new jobs respectively in the United States and in India. This is a very exciting and important part of this partnership moving forward.

There are also areas of development, education, healthcare, that are extremely important to the two countries. There are also issues of strategic cooperation on agriculture and something that was referred to in the 1960s as the Green Revolution. The last one I would mention would be economics, trade and investment opportunities. The United States and India look for more partnerships moving forward that benefit both the United States and India in this global economy.

Public diplomacy

This President of ours thinks in broad and big and ambitious terms. That is why he wants to take this relationship from the civilian nuclear deal to five strategic partnerships. He expects me to meet as many people as I can. Public diplomacy is a vital goal for the President of the United States. It is for me to meet everyday Indians to see what families are experiencing, to see how we can listen and learn, to see how we can improve the people-to-people ties because of course it is the people-to-people ties that have been leading this relationship over the last few decades. 95,000 Indian students are in American schools. We have several million Indians engaged and active in the American community. We have very intimate business-to-business ties.

This relationship is very positive and on a trajectory going up in extremely optimistic ways. When Presidents and Prime Ministers get along so well, when you have these great people-to-people ties, when you have a strategic vision, an ambitious vision of five new dialogues and pillars to move this relationship forward, that bodes extremely well for our relationship going forward.

Change and continuity in the Obama administration

A lot of credit must go to the Republican Party, to the Democratic Party, to President Clinton, to President Bush, to governments here in India, to the BJP party, to the Congress party, to Mr. Vajpayee, to Prime Minister Singh, to the people-to-people ties. This is a relationship that is constant, that is continuous, that is forged on historic ties, that are people-to-people, business-to-business, and government-to-government at many levels. The continuity is a strength of the relationship.

I think that change is also a harbinger of an Obama administration and Secretary Clinton’s leadership style that wants to do big, bold agendas and believes that we can do several things at the same time – that we can expand on the success of the civilian nuclear deal that expanded the confidence and trust between our two governments. That provided essential steps forward in our relationship – jobs in America, opportunities for increased electricity and power, and life-changing results for people in rural communities that desperately need access to electricity.

This is a great foundation to build on, but now we have more pillars, more great things to accomplish together not only in the bilateral relationship. With India’s emergence as a leading regional and global player, there are many opportunities to forge these relationships for India to lead on globally – proliferation and disarmament issues, energy security issues, green revolution issues, education reform issues, security issues leading the way to cooperate against the regional and global threats like the al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Toiba. So there is both continuity and change in this relationship. Both are statements of the stability in the relationship. But the change also challenges both countries to do bigger and broader things together on a global stage.

Trade policy

The President is very cognisant of the fact that free and fair trade helps grow our economy at home. It will be a fundamental goal for me as United States Ambassador here to strengthen the trade, investment, and economic opportunities between our two countries. That has been on a trajectory upwards.

The President recognises that helping our businesses get access to new markets is absolutely essential for future economic growth and continuing to pull out of this (as it’s called in America) Great Recession. The President talked very eloquently in the campaign about creating new jobs, green collar jobs, and creating new markets for those green collar jobs. Hybrid cars, new batteries, solar power, geo-thermal power, alternative technologies, clean coal technologies and finding ways to exchange these technologies, trade these technologies, sell these technologies with other global players.

When he became President, several of his initiatives passed through Congress. The stimulus bill contained tens of billions of dollars for alternative energy investments to follow through on his pledge to create green collar jobs, to look for more opportunities in the United States and globally. In some subsequent legislation, not just in the stimulus bill but in the pending bill on energy that is in the U.S. Senate now, he has got billions of dollars of additional money for new investment opportunities in the energy sector. So he has committed his words, his eloquence to this issue, but he has also committed his political capital and achieved much in these areas legislatively.

Civilian nuclear cooperation

We are certainly very pleased with the progress attained in this historic deal and in this relationship on the civilian nuclear partnership. There are however some key legacy issues to complete. It is extremely important to the Obama administration that we try to do these as soon as possible — for India’s interests and also for the United States of America’s interests. This means commitment and fulfillment of an agreement, jobs for Americans, and electricity and changing people’s lives in India.

There are issues such as the public announcement of the two reactor sites for the United States and the two States that they will be located in. We are waiting for the Indian government to publicly announce that.

We are working closely with the Indian government on all these issues but also on the declaration of safeguarded facilities with the IAEA. We think there is great progress being made there. We hope to get that over the finish line. There is needed liability legislation passed through Parliament in India. We are hopeful that it will be completed in time for the Prime Minister’s visit in November. And then there is the issue on licensing that we still have to complete.

U.S. companies are very anxious and excited to have this completed. I can also assure you that at the highest levels of the United States government this is an extremely important and vital priority. It just so happens out of the four or five remaining legacy issues, almost every one of them is in the court of the Indian government.

Climate change: resources committed

The President has committed not only money and resources to climate change, but also his energy bill and his stimulus bill, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. He has committed people to it. When the President took office he appointed people like Carol Browner and Lisa Jackson — Carol Browner, in the White House to help strategise on climate change and energy security issues, who served in the Clinton administration. Lisa Jackson is in charge of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] — somebody at the state level who has put climate and energy issues at the front and centre of her career.

He has a Vice-President who is firmly committed to these issues and an Energy Secretary too, who has brought great expertise from the National Labs to the energy and climate change issues. In Congress he has allies — in the Senate and in the House — people like Barbara Boxer and Howard Berrman, key strategists throughout the legislative branch who are working hard, supporting his legislation and his initiatives.

So from the level of money and resources to the level of personnel and time in the White House, to people who are helping him and partnering with him in the legislative area, there is a great deal of commitment to this climate issue. We hope that is contagious. We hope key players like India will also look at some of the challenges in their country.

We have made mistakes on this issue in our history. So I think rather than following some of our example on this, our two countries must work together for innovative, new solutions – reforestation programmes, planting new trees to form the sink to absorb some of the carbon emissions, alternative energy sources, science and technology partnerships, global partnerships with India and other countries. I think this is key.

Action on terrorism

You have to remember that about two months after 9/11 took place, a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden said it was not 19 Arab armies or 19 Arab tanks that attacked the U.S. — it was 19 postgraduate students! He was saying it’s a different world; that the transnational threats are very real, and it’s not just the nation state that can be a threat. It could be a cell of terrorists being trained somewhere north of here, coming in and attacking in Mumbai. It can be a cell of people training in Afghanistan and going into New York City. It can be a cyber security or computer threat. It can be a healthcare threat.

In almost every press conference I have had in my short tenure here, I have underscored the importance of the U.S. and India working together to confront this common global threat. Encouraging the government of Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the bloodthirsty attacks in Mumbai to justice is absolutely key.

The U.S. government is completely devoted to going after people who are threatening our allies, like India, and killing Americans. That needs to be urgent, timely and comprehensive, on the part of the Pakistan government — to implement the sentences on these six people they now have on trial. I would also take it a step further than you have and say that people like Hafiz Sayeed, who are on the Interpol Red Notice List, who are on the UN 1267 Resolution, who have long been on lists in the U.S., need to be brought to justice.

Finally, the third point, which is absolutely vital for our moving forward and successfully taking on this common threat, is to help dismantle the infrastructure of LeT [Lashkar-e-Toiba], who have become a regional threat, not just a threat to India, but a player in terrorism and destruction in this entire region.

Those are three extremely important issues. At the same time we talk about national security issue, it is vitally important for the U.S. and India to talk about the economic issues, the education issues, the alleviation of poverty issues, where 650 million people in India live on less than $2 a day, the public diplomacy issues that the President has tasked me with – getting out and meeting people, broadening and deepening this relationship. It’s not just only about national security but about economic security, development security, energy security — that’s where this relationship really has the ability to grow.

Teach for America and India

I had a very productive, interesting, and expansive discussion with your new Minister of Human Resources and Education, Kapil Sibal. We talked about the opportunities for moving forward on higher education and legislation that, I think, is soon to be introduced. Hopefully this is legislation that might allow these partnerships to grow and prosper in the future, between American universities and Indian universities, that would guarantee a sound curriculum, good faculty, good partnerships.

The Teach for America idea, originated by Wendy Kopp in America, where we now go out in America and try to recruit some of our best and brightest to teach under some of the most difficult circumstances in inner city schools and rural schools, where it is hard to place teachers in American schools – how might we replicate that in India?

There is a Teach for India programme – how might that be scaled up to get more and more teachers into the communities? I heard from people in the Indian community in this Round Table that they are concerned that we need more and more people going into the teaching profession in India.

Quality and access in education

Access to education in America is broad, wide, and expansive. Whether you are living on a native American Indian reservation, whether you are in an inner city school, whether you are a disabled student, you have access to public education in America.

We worked on this bill called “No Child Left Behind.” We were able to pass that legislation with bipartisan support. There were two fundamentally important goals.

One, we said in a global economy it is absolutely essential that when you are passed from the sixth grade to the seventh grade or out of high school, there need to be specific goals and curricula and standards you have attained. It does not do anybody any good, whether you be poor or disadvantaged, or rich and advantaged, to be passing somebody through school but they cannot read at the right level, or they do not have the right sense of history, or they haven’t attained the goals of the technical training and drafting or an animation that it required, the computer skills.

So we set strict standards in this legislation saying you need to be able to attain certain goals going from one grade to the next. A diploma will mean something and you have to earn this in this 21st century global economy, which is so competitive.

Secondly, we said that we need to continue to be able to recruit, train and promote the best teachers in the world. If you are teaching students physics, you should be certified in physics. If you are teaching English you should be certified in English and have a broad background in Shakespeare and Byron and the great writers of the world rather than be trained in a different area. So we insisted on certain goals being reached on teacher training and teacher qualifications.

I think both of those goals try to get to this issue: with a vast opportunity of access in America, extended to so many groups of people, how do you insist on quality? How do you improve quality going forward with the teacher training programmes, with the teacher certification programmes, and with the student performance programmes? I think we found a good balance in “No Child Left Behind.”

Labels: 26/11, Al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, climate change, IAEA, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Mumbai attacks, No Child Left Behind, Taliban, Teach for America, Teach for India, Timothy Roemer, U.S. Ambassador