The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to India has been meaningful in many ways but it has left behind a trail of some debates as well. From day one Hillary Clinton consistently spoke about “broadening and deepening” of good relationship between our two countries. And this, certainly, was accomplished in a large measure. She spoke of cooperation not only between the two governments but between the private sector, the businesses and the people at large. This cooperation, she said, is intended to become the “driver of progress in the 21st century”.
By staying in Mumbai at Hotel Taj, which was the focus of 26/11terrorist attacks, she sent a clear signal to the terrorists that the United States is committed to fighting back terror with all its might and shall not allow them to keep killing the innocent people. She also sent a clear message to Pakistan that t will have to dismantle the entire edifice of terror structure. “Terrorism anywhere is a threat everywhere,” she said.
The issue of terrorism has been of top most concern to both India and the US. This time there was a marked change in the US approach to the problem. For the first time Clinton talked of a criminal “syndicate” that is housed in Pakistan. It was a clear indication that the US wants Pakistan to act against not only the Taliban and Al Qaida but the LeT and Jaish as well- the terrorist outfits targeted against India. Some consolation to India.
Despite this plain speaking Hillary Clinton did leave an impression that the US was supporting Pakistan more than what is necessary, in spite of all the damage it has done as much to the peace and stability of the rest of the world as to itself. But that perhaps could be her political compulsion. One tends to believe that the US understands the gravity of the situation in Pakistan and is treading a delicate path to carry Pakistan along in the fight against the terror outfits operating from that country.
As expected, Clinton made it clear that US had no intension to force India to enter into a dialogue with Pakistan though it is supportive of bringing the two countries closer. She pointed out that the Joint statement issued at Shermal Sheikh was the outcome of the decisions taken by the two sovereign nations. This was however diluted by the US Assistant Secretary of state for Public Affairs Phillip.J Crowly, who described the meeting as the sort of engagement the US has been advising the two nations to engage in. Ordinarily what Clinton said should be the case, though Indians seem to be sceptical.
The agreements signed in the fields of science and technology, defence and space indicate the keenness of the two countries to enter into a strategic partnership for the welfare of the people of the two countries and the world at large. Perhaps the most important agreement, deals with starting a strategic dialogue process which will rest on five pillars of education, health, agriculture, medicine, science and technology, development and a whole range of other issues.
.
New Delhi agreed to identify two sites where the US companies can set up nuclear power plants. This will however have to wait for India passing the required liability legislation as required under the US law. What has led to a controversy is the conclusion of the End-use Monitoring agreement under which the US will be allowed to inspect individual items obtained from the US for defence purposes, to ensure that these are used for the purpose they are provided for. The government has however been maintaining that the inspection will not be at the site but at a place and time to be decided by India. The US has such agreements with 83 countries.
After the recent G-8 resolution prohibiting passing on nuclear technology to countries that are not a signatory to the NPT, a doubt has been cast on whether the Indo- US nuclear deal can mean much for India. But Clinton made it clear that the deal is here to stay and the US will go in for “full nuclear cooperation” with India. She said the US is committed to completing remaining elements to make the deal fully operational. What is important is that she left it on New Delhi to take a position on Signing the NPT.
Certain irritants, however, remain. On top is the issue of climate change. India has been resisting, along with China and other developing nations any cap on greenhouse gas emissions that can be detrimental to its economic growth. Environment Minister Jai Ram Ramesh made it clear that though India wants the Copenhagen conference on climate change to succeed, a legally binding cap on emissions would not be acceptable to it. He denied any understanding had been arrived at the recent Major Economies Forum to limit the rise in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius for the developing countries by 2050. India continues to maintain that the developed countries have a historic responsibility of controlling green house gas emissions. It says while India contributes less than 2 tons of emissions per head per year, in the case of the US it is 20 tons, already. Happily India and the US have decided to take a “pragmatic approach” on the issue, with Clinton assuring India that it does not want to do anything that can affect it’s development. Despite that assurance India will have to tackle the subject carefully.
The Hillary visit has certainly opened new doors for cooperation between the oldest and the largest democracies of the world which, together, are home to one out of every four human beings on the planet. But the question that remains is how India suddenly has become an important country in the US scheme of things. Is it because India is fast emerging as a global power the world would like to do business with or because India has been flexing its muscles by confronting the US in many fields? It has, for instance, become the spokesman of the developing countries on issues like climate change, and Doha round of trade talks. It has also opposed the monopoly of the US dollar continuing as the single international currency. Perhaps, the answer lies in a mix of all these considerations.
Printer-Friendly Version
