Much Hype but Little Gain

…Of these five issues – Indo-Pak ties, Kashmir, controversial pacts, America’s economic priority and the climate change – all are diplomatically taken US positions, expressed implicitly, except pacts, not literally binding on us. But all are matters of equal diplomatic necessities for India, as well. Where did India gain diplomatically in these five days?…

Saurabh Dharmeshwari

The US is back in Asia. This is what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in Bangkok, a day after she wrapped up her five day visit to India; critics here, though, knew the fact beforehand. The statement is indicative of success of her Asia visit and a pointer to her country’s intentions to re-engage in the region, after years, after many years of US neglect, as she puts it. It is as if someone you’ve so long sincerely struggled to keep out of your business is now your business manager. More or less.

We entertained our guest from Washington well for all these five days, inking the treaties that Obama Administration desperately wants – needs – at the moment for its brighter political future back home, construing the lady’s words the way we’d like them to mean, that kind of things. On some issues, there is a little discomfort, a bit of doubt even in our ruling establishment, let alone Opposition’s familiar hue and cries and a dramaturgic walkout of Lok Sabha. We’re an incredible India. Indeed.

Critics have already declared the Indo-Pak Joint Statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh last week as an apparent sellout to Pakistan. Then suddenly came Pak-is-syndicate-of-terror-no-US-pressure-on-India-perpetrators-of-26/11 kind of media campaign of Clinton’s visit. Is this all she said, and more importantly — meant?

The Congress leadership’s decision to back the government on any controversy arising out of the outcome of Clinton’s visit might take its own time to go well with the congressmen down the party hierarchy; but our media, it has yet to recover from the mesmeric of those singular proclamations: ‘Pak is syndicate of terror’, ‘no US pressure on India to resume talks with Pak’, ‘the US wants perpetrators of Mumbai terror Attacks meet their day of reckoning’…This journalistic rhetoric, it is nothing but our own inability to guard ourselves against such inanities.

In these five days, what did Madam Clinton attempt and what did India achieve anyway? She tried, somewhere expressly and else implicitly but being diplomatically correct and pleasant, to convey Obama administration’s position to Indian ruling class on five key spheres – Indo-Pak ties, Kashmir, sovereignty of Indian defence setup (or the supremacy of US defence setup in the region), its economic priorities and climate change.

Let’s begin with Indo-Pak ties, the American stand number one under Obama’s leadership. Discussed, and disputed by commentariat, critics have already declared the Indo-Pak Joint Statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh last week as an apparent sellout to Pakistan. Abrupt appearance of Baloch issue, delinking terror from composite dialogue, all such offensive stuffs, forwarded successfully by Pakistan and readily accepted by India. Then suddenly came Pak-is-syndicate-of-terror-no-US-pressure-on-India-perpetrators-of-26/11 kind of media campaign of Clinton’s visit. Is this all she said, and more importantly — meant?

Excerpts from what couldn’t qualify to become headlines: Clinton expressed satisfaction over the way Indo-Pak talks went in Sharm-el-Sheikh (hopefully, she knows appearance of Baloch issue and delinking of terror happened there); by syndicate of terrorism in Pakistan she implicitly meant Taliban and Al-Qaida (both the outfits more a danger to the US than India), give an ear to what she said about punishing perpetrators of 26/11: Washington is watching actions taken by Islamabad and I’ve given the message clearly to Pakistan. And then she adds, articulately, the US had seen an evolving commitment in Pakistan both at government and at public level against terror.

This commitment, acknowledged by the US following Pakistan’s military offensive against Taliban, undoes everything Washington says about 26/11.  We already have the results. Hafiz Saeed is released and a weak case is filed thereafter to challenge his release.

Sadly, in Clinton’s words, we still sense that the US, coincidentally or under a diplomatic compulsion, wants to steer clear of commenting on the discrimination Islamabad has observed while fighting global war on terror, cracking down on Taliban but softening on Saeed and Lakhvi. There is no evidence suggesting American coming back to morality on war on terror that Washington abandoned with regard to Islamabad.

On Kashmir, too, there seems no American respite, though our neighbour gets a pie. In spite of its parroted rhetoric of no third party meddling, the US continues to have an opionated stand judging by what Clinton said on the issue during her visit. ‘India and Pakistan should decide about the Kashmir issue taking into account Kashmiri people (disputed theme of plebiscite with no consideration for decades of Pakistani infiltration into valley)’. The statement drew an instant reception and greeting from Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman of separatist All Parties Hurriyat Conference, who pleaded the Indian side that Clinton’s remarks should not be considered narrowly as victory of one country.

Noticeably, the US can argue a wrong case merely because if Kashmir is settled as per wishes of Pakistan, Islamabad can instruct its army to fully focus on Taliban and Al-Qaida with no concerns on India border. The US wants us to be fooled because it is capable of being fooled itself to any limit and we’re happily prepared to fall in its line. It is indeed a celebration time for those militant ideologues – the modern troglodytes – holidaying in the mountainous labyrinth of Tora-bora, for the global war on terror will go on, but they will always be safe.

There are still reasons to smile, of course, you might say, for the above two, the Indo-Pak talks and Kashmir, are merely Clinton’s opinions, howsoever unpleasant or biased, not binding on us.

Time to talk controversies now, pacts binding on us. The End-User Agreement Pact (EUAP), Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and Technology Safeguards Agreement (AST) – all squeals to the Indo-US nuke deal and IAEA Safeguards Agreement, and inked during the recent visit. One allows US experts to inspect hi-tech military hardware sold to India to prevent their misuse and other prohibits the further production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to make the world a safer place, to prevent nuclear terrorism, that is. And the last one, it allows USA to launce non-commercial satellites containing US components on India space launch vehicles so that the US can do monitoring against diversion or misuse of equipment.

The UPA government’s only defence in above treaties is that the pacts are not unilateral and India won’t allow its military bases to be inspected by US experts, rather inspections will take place elsewhere.

Sideline the nitty-gritty of the issue and the political controversy it has drawn, note the inexplicable, ridiculous contradiction of the matter: Pakistan, for it has no nuke deal, is not a party to US inspection, to measures of prevention of nuclear terrorism, to US monitoring despite being a historical contributor to terror.

All these five days Clinton did not even once talk about making India a global super power as her predecessor Condoleezza Rice would often do when she visited India. With change of guards, with the US being hit fiercely by economic recession, it needs China to bail it out now. So Clinton’s first Asia visit to China as Secretary of State in February.

Talking of Indian dream of being an economic power, all these five days Clinton did not even once talk about making India a global super power as her predecessor Condoleezza Rice would often do when she visited India. It was during George W Bush when the US wanted to contain China. With change of guards, with the US being hit fiercely by economic recession, it needs China to bail it out now. So Clinton’s first Asia visit to China as Secretary of State in February. India bided its time till July to receive what has already been mentioned above.

As for climate change, what Clinton eventually delivered to India was a sermon. Our Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh argued that developing nations would not bow to climate change rules – requiring reduction in their carbon emissions – imposed by a country that spent the last 200 years ignoring the environment while it built up its economy, for it might have adverse affect on their developing economy.

Clinton’s response to that. She said Ramesh presented a “fair argument”, adding quickly India’s case “loses force” because the country’s absolute carbon emissions is going up, and dramatically.

Of these five issues – Indo-Pak ties, Kashmir, controversial pacts, America’s economic priority and the climate change – all are diplomatically taken US positions, expressed implicitly, except pacts, not literally binding on us. But all are matters of equal diplomatic necessities for India, as well. Where did India gain diplomatically in these five days? We didn’t get a clear US diplomatic support on any one of these issues. Even the only pleasant US position of bringing perpetrators of 26/11 to book is quickly, astutely followed by a declaration of Pakistan’s evolving commitment to fight terror to appease our neighbour.

In my opinion, Clinton’s visit put us a step backward on diplomatic scale than Condoleezza Rice’s visit last time. So why this celebration, this hype?