Why in election season?

Why in election season?
J. N. Dixit

Prime Minister Vajpayee is to visit Washington from September 15 to 17. Political hype and media frenzy about the visit has begun, in a way utterly irrelevant to the substance and prospects of Indo-US relations. The possible results of Vajpayee's visit must be assessed first in the context of trends in Indo-US relations since President Clinton's March visit here. Have they been positive and encouraging? Second, how far will the US and Indian agendas for the Clinton-Vajpayee discussions find continuity in the next US administration, given the indications that a Republican administration may replace Clinton's -- unless political analyses and public opinion polls so far are dramatically incorrect?

Although Vajpayee will be in Washington only for about three and a half days, his stay will last for 12 days, and will include a visit to the Silicon Valley hi-tech Indian community and attending the UN General Assembly session. Should Vajpayee be visiting Washington to call on a President who is relinquishing charge within three and a half months of the meeting? Even more important are reports that the Democratic Party leadership is keen to project Vajpayee's visit as an Indian endorsement of the Democratic presidential and Senate campaigns. This is because the Indian expatriate community is becoming an incrementally influential factor in US politics. Their fundings and votes are important both to Vice-President Gore and Hillary Clinton, who is fighting for a Senate seat from New York. (The Indian vote becomes even more important for her in the light of reports about lack of Jewish support for her.) Al Gore is hosting a lunch for Vajpayee and Hillary Clinton is interrupting her campaign to attend the WhiteHouse dinner for Vajpayee.

While the Prime Minister should indeed make a gesture of reciprocity towards Clinton, should he be getting enmeshed in US electoral politics, especially in the context of Republican prospects? Shouldn't the visit have taken place towards the summer or autumn of next year?

Preliminary contacts between Indian officials and their US counterparts began in mid-June. Brajesh Mishra and Jaswant Singh have had discussions with US National Security advisor Sandy Berger, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and members of the US Congress. Jaswant Singh has had discussions with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Warsaw. Leaving aside the obvious objective of making contacts with Indian technocrats and participating in the UN General Assembly, two twin facts are clear: the US and India are conscious of some very basic differences persisting on political, economic and technological issues; and there is a reciprocal commitment that despite these the momentum of bilateral relations over the last year should be sustained and expanded.

How far this objective is met is the most relevant question about this visit. Though Vajpayee has met Clinton before, this is his first visit to Washington after India's nuclear weaponisation. It will be the first occasion for him to interact with a cross-section of the US power structure, especially the legislature and the media. He will have to cope with a critical and questioning evaluation of India's policy orientations on non-proliferation and security matters. Arms control would be the top item on the agenda. There will be a fair amount of expectation even if India does not announce a decision to sign the CTBT. India may give a clear indication of commitments to move towards becoming a party to this agreement.

Given US policy pronouncements, developments in disarmament and arms control matters, and the recent political and technical content of the CTBT debate in India, it would be difficult for Vajpayee to fully meet US expectations. Albright's statements at the NPT Review Conference in New York this summer and the American inclination to deploy a National Missile Defence system, combined with the US Senate's refusal to ratify the CTBT, weakens Washington's advocacy. Russia and China, nuclear powers both, may dilute their commitment to the more recent disarmament initiatives.

Leaving aside Indian public opinion and political parties' arguments against the CTBT, serious technical objections have been raised by top-ranking Indian scientists. The Vajpayee-Clinton discussions are therefore bound to be problematic, requiring high levels of patience and understanding by both leaders to prevent an impasse.

The removal of US sanctions and restrictions on transfers of technology remain a major Indian concern. American non-proliferation legislation and global policy stances will make it difficult for Washington to remove these sanctions, though some steps could be taken under the discretion allowed to the US President. The question is whether Clinton would lift sanctions with the presidential elections just two months away, making concessions that could become a political argument and weaken Democratic candidate Al Gore.

Issues on which there is a convergence of interests and possibility of cooperation include countering terrorism, upholding human rights and strengthening the UN's peace keeping role. (This implies no categorical US support for India's candidature for a permanent Security Council seat). One is sanguine that both in his discussions and in his address to the joint session of the US Congress, Vajpayee will highlight these.

Kashmir and Indo-Pak relations will be a major item of the talks. The US will be stronger in its advocacy of India resuming dialogue with the Musharraf government despite the uncertainties that affected the Hizbul Mujahideen's ceasefire offer and the Indian government's initial steps for a dialogue with the militant groups. This process is bound to be complex, long drawn out and attended by Pakistan-sponsored violence. India may not be able to give an unqualified response to likely US advocacies.

In economic relations, differences with the US persist on some issues under the WTO regime, though India has taken steps to open up agricultural imports and goods and services. But the more disturbing fact is about ten US companies having pulled out of India since Clinton's visit because of procedural delays by the government.

Above all, one has to keep in mind the fact that a new US President will take over within four months of Vajpayee's visit. While some continuity may be sustained, a new administration will examine and recast America's India policy. Clinton would be logical to refrain from any long-term decisions about India. Despite this, Vajpayee's trip will constitute an important landmark, particularly if it is utilised to open up lines to those who would be at the helm in the US from the beginning of 2001.