US, India have turned a new page in their relationship, says Inderfurth

Much of the State Department in Washington's Foggy Bottom area is verbotenterritory. Following recent episodes involving stolen computers and missingfiles, all visitors journalists included now have to be escorted if theyproceed above the second floor, which is where officials sit. Ensconced inthe South Asia bureau on the sixth floor as its Assistant Secretary andpointman for the region, Karl Frederick Inderfurth is guarded even withoutall the trappings of extra security that is sweeping the State Department. Aformer journalist with ABC, he is more at ease on the other side of themicrophone. Now considered one of the key principals of the Clintonadministration's South Asia turnabout, Inderfurth spoke to Washingtoncorrespondent CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA last week on the President's tripto the region:

What is the US assessment of the President's trip to India?
It exceeded our expectations and indeed our hopes. We always felt it wouldbe a successful visit, that the times are right to move into a position ofnatural stronger closer relationship. That the personalities, PresidentClinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee, are right. But the trip do go evenbeyond our expectations and reaffirmed the view of many of us that it wastime to get the relationship back on the track, time to get our quarterbackon the field.

So on a scale of one to ten, how much of US objectives were achieved andhow much of India's aspirations were met?
In terms of tone and quality, I would say we had a perfect ten. But justbecause the tone and quality of exchanges were right on the mark does notmean that the US and India have reached an agreement on all outstandingissues. No two nations can do that no matter how close they are. Thesethings require more time. The President was very open in his views here buthe was open in a respectful sort of way. So I think we have turned a newpage in our relation. I think Dennis Kux will have to change the title ofhis book or its sequel from Estranged Democracies to Engaged Democracies. Wecannot forget the years of estrangement so this has made the engagement allthe more well-received. As Secretary Albright said there is somethingunnatural about two countries that share so many values not being closer.

That's all atmospherics. What about objectives on the scale?
I would not want to quantify it but the objectives were also met on thistrip. We would certainly have a very high score. There is no question thatwe are moving forward in strengthening the relationship. The visionstatement and the institutionalising of dialogue is already beginning toshow the effect even thought it has just been a few weeks after thePresident's visit. We are working together on terrorism, nuclear exportregulation, economic issues, Asian security, child labour and a whole lot ofissues. All this points to what was a fundamentally overriding objective ofthis trip which was to establish a broadbased multifaceted relationship withIndia.

But on issues like the test ban treaty there does not seem to be anyprogress. It wasn't even on the table during the President's visit.
I don't agree that there has been no progress. The Indian government didannounce immediately after the testing a unilateral moratorium on furthertesting and that was an important first step.

But all those endless rounds of talks between Jaswant Singh and StrobeTalbott doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I think the talks have laid a foundation for better understanding of theproblem from both sides and the way we approach the issue. We clearly desireto see India sign the CTBT. I think our approach (of talks) shows that weare listening to what India had to say. It has opened the process to furtherprogress because it is not the US lecturing to India. We also recognise thatthere have been interruptions in the ability of the government to addressthe issue because of the elections, the tragedy of the hijacking and so on.We will be watching what further progress can be made.

So do you recognise the rationale of India's nuclear deterrence?
We have said very clearly that we recognise the issue of India's defencerequirements and the issue of how it will define these requirements areIndia's right and sovereign decision and nothing could be more fundamentalthan that. The US will not set itself up as the judge and jury of decisionstaken. We will express our views but the fundamental rights of a sovereignnation to determine its own defence requirements are there.

So you don't agree with India's view that it needs a minimum nucleardeterrent but you recognise that it is India's decision.
That's precisely right.

But you have asked India to define what its minimum credible nucleardefence needs are.
We think that India and its national security establishment are still in theprocess of how best to define its future defence requirements. Now keep inmind that this is no different from what every country in the world is doingwhether it is with respect to conventional or other requirements. Weourselves are in the process of defining our nuclear deterrence because ofour Start II negotiations with Russia. It will always be helpful to have abetter sense of future direction. You often learn this in this countrythrough Congressional hearings, through reports issued by the Pentagon etc.It is our hope and expectation that when India does more formally presentits requirements to fulfil its minimum credible deterrence, it will meetthose standards (of public disclosure and debate).

Besides how can India do this in a changing security environment.
We agree that is a problem. It is the same problem we face. But as thePresident and all our senior officials have said, we are hopeful that in theworld that we are in today and the direction in which we are going, it willbe a world defined by fewer rather than more nuclear weapons.

Undersecretary Tom Pickering said recently that India should transcendKargil and talk to Pakistan and Pakistan should also take steps. So whereexactly does the US stand on this? Who makes the first move?
I think our position is very clear on this. We want to see a dialogue butfor that dialogue to take place we believe it would be important for stepsto be taken that will generate a positive environment. We do believe thatIndia has recently taken some very important steps with the release of theKashmiri leaders. So we are watching very closely to see if the President'smessage on his visit to Islamabad was received and if the authorities willbe able to take actions with respect to the President's message ondemocracy, terrorism, and non-proliferation.

Do you think enough has been done on the ground in Pakistan for talks totake place?
In terms of whether enough has been done, that will be a determination thatNew Delhi will have to make. It's a dialogue with New Delhi not withWashington.

Does the US see merit in India's case for a permanent membership of theUN Security Council?
We recognise the case that India is making for permanent membership based onits size, democracy, contributions to the UN including peacekeeping. We havesaid for these reasons we will give serious consideration. We believe thatIndia can further enhance its case for membership by moving towards theinternational community on issues like non-proliferation.

Copyright © 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.