INTERVIEW: STROBE TALBOTT
"We are keen to put
sanctions behind us"Soon after
the eighth round of Indo-US talks, in an exclusive interview, Strobe Talbott, 52, US
deputy secretary of state spoke to Deputy Editor Raj Chengappa on where the dialogue is
heading. Excerpts:
 There has been criticism that the Indo-US
dialogue that Jaswant Singh and you have been engaged in is too much of a slow march. Some
even call it a crawl. Do you agree?
I noticed that the new year issue of your magazine classified public personalities of 1998
as heroes, zeroes and villains. Although Jaswant and I made it to your zeroes, I am glad
we didn't fall in the third category. Maybe I should say my aspiration during 1999 is to
see that we graduate from zeroes to heroes. But seriously, it is not correct to suggest
that we have been just spinning our wheels.
So why hasn't progress been visible so far?
We are dealing with very tough issues. It shouldn't surprise anyone that it takes a lot of
work. We can't sweep under the rug the fact that the US and India have a profound
disagreement about nuclear weapons. It would be a very easy dialogue and it would last one
round if our purpose was to stake out maximalist positions. If we were not determined to
make progress we could have done this in a shot or two.
How are you trying to reconcile these positions?
What we are trying to do is preserve the integrity of each government's deeply held
positions and long-range strategy while at the same time advance the cause which is also
important for both governments. And that is finally getting the US-India relationship
right. There is an irony lurking here. While the tests brought the relationship to a low
point -- and the relationship alas never achieved its high point -- we may, I underscore,
jujitsu the problem. That is, take an adversity and make it a basis for qualitative
improvement in a relationship. That's the essence of what we are about. Also, Jaswant and
I have orders from our bosses: don't throw in the towel. Be patient. Stick to your guns on
fundamental problems. But see if you can find ways to manage them so that we can get on
with the good things that India and US can do together.
How far has the US and India moved on their
original positions since talks began last June?
I don't want to give you a score card. I don't want to say we are 6.2 on the Richter scale
now whereas we were 4.3 one round ago. I will tell you that we have in this round made
some real, though not conclusive, progress on several issues. I think the remaining work
to be done could, with imagination and political will, be accomplished in a matter of
months.
You apparently indicated in speeches before your
arrival here that the US is now willing to lift sanctions.
There has been some misunderstanding over the substance of the US position. When we
started the dialogue last June we had an option. We could have put India-US relations on
ice until India sees the light and abandons the policy that it consummated in May.
President Bill Clinton thought that would be profoundly foolish and contrary to US
interests. But we also cannot, when pursuing an improvement in Indo-US relations, abandon
our non-proliferation policy or do anything to unravel the NPT. I see myself as a helmsman
in a raft navigating between this diplomatic Scylla and Charybdis. I feel fortunate that
Jaswant Singh is on board the craft helping me steer the course. Because India has a
comparable dilemma. The principle that guides both of us is getting Indo-US relations
right and, for us, it is still work in progress.
What will it take for you to lift the sanctions?
We are seeking breakthrough progress on the so-called benchmarks we have made public (on
India signing the CTBT, on controlling fissile material, restraining nuclear arms, export
controls and improving relations with India and Pakistan). I feel it is an eminently
feasible set of targets. Please note we are not saying India must untest the weapons. Or
it must join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. We don't want it to be taken off the
table but we are prepared on an open-ended, interim basis to reach a mode of understanding
with each other that would allow us to put sanctions behind us. And the terms of reference
of such an understanding are not for public record.
But India has already made the right noises like
indicating that it would sign the CTBT. So isn't it time for the US to reciprocate?
What is puzzling is the impression the US has hunkered down, stubbornly refusing to budge
ever since the sands shook in Rajasthan. It is factually incorrect. President Clinton used
the waiver authority to alleviate sanctions in several respects which we have already done
in areas of private investments and military training. So there was a give-and-take. But
it is also a fact, viewed from an American perspective, that some of the gestures or steps
that have occurred on the Indian side are more qualified, less certain. It is still a kind
of lens between us. That is one reason it has a diminishing effect on how we look at what
the other is doing.
In the strategic nuclear restraint policy that the
US is advocating how many weapons are enough for India?
I can't be forthcoming because that is India's business and decision. We are not going to
say, Mr and Mrs India here is a recipe, now go and cook up a nuclear policy. Your prime
minister on several occasions used the phrase "credible minimum deterrence". Now
the two adjectives, credible and minimum, need to be reconciled. It needs to be credible
in order to deter. But it needs to be minimum in order not to provoke a devastatingly
expensive and dangerous arms race.
Isn't testing and deploying missiles by India part
of the negotiations?
There is a misperception that US is saying to India that if you want to get out of the
sanctions box you have got to ban flight-testing of ballistic missiles. Not true. We
understand you are going to test missiles. But we hope the way in which India pursues that
aspect of development will fit in a supportive way its credible minimum deterrence.
For too long Indo-US relations have been dominated
by a single-issue agenda -- the nuclear question. Are you making it more broadbased?
There is certainly some merit in the complaint that the relationship is unfulfilled and it
goes back 50 years. What could have been and should have been wasn't in Indo-US relations.
Now the low point has provided us a chance to not only create a better but more
diversified relationship. And President Clinton will come here looking for a positive,
forward-looking conversation. There is a sense that if we can just get this under control
we can move on other aspects.
Indo-US
Ties: Signs of a Thaw |
