April 27, 1998

A stream of high level US officials passed through Delhi last week to get a measure of the new Government.

By Manoj Joshi

For the past six months and more the El Nino has been playing havoc with weather patterns around the world. Fortunately, it has not rained on what appears to be a parade of goodwill and bonhomie that Indian and US officials have been periodically conducting in New Delhi in recent months. Neither Ghauri nor the change of government seem to have had any dampening effect as testified by what Indian officials are terming as "exceptional warmth" in the meetings with their US counterparts last week. The Americans, on the other hand, find great value in the candour with which both sides have begun putting across issues of their respective concern.

On top of the list was a high-powered American delegation led by US Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson, accompanied by Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Karl Inderfurth, and Bruce O. Reidel, director for South Asia in the National Security Council. They met Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Home Minister L.K. Advani on April 14 and Defence Minister George Fernandes the following day. In addition, there were talks between the officials of the two sides.

On the same day, April 14, Chief of the US Army Dennis J. Reimer, too, arrived in India on an official visit, though not as part of the Richardson delegation. A day earlier, having participated in a series of meetings with officials of the Atomic Energy Advisory Board in Mumbai, the head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Shirley Jackson, was in Delhi to talk to officials and opinion-makers on cooperation.

"Bill Richardson is one of the most articulate, sharp and clear-headed politicians I can think of," says former foreign secretary, J.N. Dixit, who has known him for the past decade or so. Because of his proximity to President Bill Clinton, the US ambassador to the UN, though formally under the secretary of state, has emerged as an important foreign policy adviser. He is a member of the US cabinet and the National Security Council which takes key foreign policy decisions.

Richardson, who gained fame for his skill in negotiating the release of Americans held captive abroad, is familiar with India, having been here twice before -- in 1996, to try his hand with the Kashmiri captors of five hostages, and earlier in the '80s. According to Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) officials, Richardson's visit is a significant signal of the decision of the US government to accord high priority to its relations with India. But, as one Indian official cautions, "This was a South Asia-centric visit, not an India-centric one," alluding to the fact that Indiawas but one leg of the tour that took the US delegation to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as well.

"This was quite clearly a preparatory visit," says a Foreign Ministry official, referring to Clinton's coming visit in November. "The US delegation went out of its way to convey warmth and steered clear of controversial subjects." However, as Dixit points out, this was also a "fact-finding mission" to get to know the new Government. mea officials say that Richardson was clearly taken up by the articulate and forceful approach of Advani. "What the ambassador found most interesting," says an American official, "was the BJP leader's explanation that his party had softened its ideological posture after realising, in 1996 that the key issue was governance."

A US official, who was present during the talks, says that the visit was a bit of everything. "We have a lot to talk about but we have not gone into the details of many subjects," he said. In particular, while the issues of nuclear and missile proliferation were discussed, India and the US have had only "preliminary exchanges" on the subjects. In this context, he said that the presence at some of the meetings of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Robert

E. Einhorn, who deals with nuclear proliferation, was coincidental. "Bob, in a sense, caught up with the delegation as it was due to leave for Pakistan," says the official, underlining the point that "he has some business there".

Notwithstanding all the talk of the "strategic dialogue", the US delegation provided little comfort to Delhi, which had been rocked by Pakistan's test-firing of the Ghauri missile a week earlier. The US official line, too, did not provide much comfort to India. Instead of condemning the missile test, Washington merely "regretted" it. "They said they had noted our very restrained reaction and went on to commend us," says an Indian official somewhat lamely. So soft was the US position that Pakistani daily Nation crowed that a new US "approach of equidistance is evident".

There are many who believe that the US has not changed its policy of overlooking Pakistan's acquisition of missiles to counter India. G. Balachandran, a Delhi-based analyst, points out, "When the US began talk of a changed relationship with India last year, it already knew that the transfer of the missile technology from North Korea to Pakistan had taken place. How can you have a 'strategic' dialogue in these circumstances?"

Many uncomfortable questions remain. Indian officials say that it is too early to judge the US reaction to Ghauri. The top anti-proliferation official, acting Under-Secretary of State John D. Holum told newspersons that the US was "actively reviewing" the issue. But, American officials have no answers as to what happened to a review, pending since 1993-94, of the case of the transfer of M-11 missiles by China to Pakistan. Leaks to the US press by disgruntled members of the US intelligence have made it more than clear that notwithstanding its promise not to export missiles and related equipment, China had supplied a number of short- and medium-range missiles to Islamabad in 1995 and 1996 and had also violated its commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in supplying material associated with the Pakistani nuclear weapons' programme. All these activities contravene US laws that mandate strict sanctions on the violators.

But the positive side is that India and the US continue to talk on issues that are not controversial. Among these are those relating to closer cooperation between the armed forces of the two sides. In this context, the visit of General Reimer is being viewed as significant. The US Army chief is one of the members of the joint chiefs of staff, who play a key advisory role to the US President. During their presentations to the US general, the Indian side focused on the dangerous consequences of the "proxy war" that India was facing in the main from a US ally, Pakistan. However, according to a general in the Army Headquarters, the effort was not so much to paint Pakistan black, "but to put the facts on the table in a mature and moderate fashion and allow the US officials to make their own judgement".

Stressing the role of defence diplomacy, Indian Army officials say that they learnt a lot from their US counterparts. Says a brigadier, "Reimer is a specialist in downsizing, a subject we are keenly interested in after our chief General Ved Malik's decision to cut the force size by 50,000." In his public address to the United Services Institution in Delhi, Reimer spoke of the US experiences in reorienting its army from a "threat-based" force to a "capability- based" one.

Jackson's visit was to initiate cooperation with the AERB. But in presentations in Mumbai and Delhi, she made it clear that while the US was willing to share public domain information on fire safety, emergency procedures and design-based validation of safety of nuclear reactors, there would be no change at all in the US ban on the supply of even the most minor of components to Indian nuclear power plants. Her message was that India ought to place all its reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency

restrictions without expectations of any quid pro quo from the US. Not all the shadow waltzing can hide that India and the US have some way to go before they can do the real thing.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd