Challenges for US- India Relations: Divergence on Global Issues shows no signs of abating
Following is a perceptive analysis of the looming challenges for US-Indian relations following the recent Clinton visit to India. This brief was prepared for Oxford Analytica by Harsh V Pant of King’s College, London.
EXCERPTS:
**The recent visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed that US-India relations have deepened and are on a firmer footing today, probably the strongest they have ever been. However, the relationship faces a difficult test later this year because of looming negotiations on a range of issues, including how to apportion the costs and responsibilities of tackling climate change, the Doha trade negotiations where a bold compromise on world agricultural trade currently appears distant and on non-proliferation: though Washington has made it clear that it will honor the commitments of the nuclear pact, the text remains open to interpretation and Delhi fears that the US will opt for a particularly restrictive reading of the text.
**Delhi has a well-established ability to play the role of ‘spoiler’ in global negotiations promoted by the US, and it may do so again if it feels that its material interests or wider principles are compromised. On none of the above-mentioned critical issues, the US can get a global agreement without first taking Indian concerns into account. India can play the role of a ‘spoiler’ very effectively and it has wielded its veto power on these global issues so far. It is important for the Obama Administration to get India on board before proceeding with its global agenda. Clinton’s recent visit notwithstanding, the divergence between the US and India remains as stark as ever.
The full brief (reproduced below) was sent to me by the author himself. (There is no URL).
US/INDIA: Divergence on global issues shows no sign of abating
Friday, July 31, 2009
SUBJECT: Challenges for US-India relations
SIGNIFICANCE: The recent visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed that US-India relations have deepened and are on a firmer footing today, probably the strongest they have ever been. However, the relationship faces a difficult test later this year because of looming negotiations on a range of issues, including how to apportion the costs and responsibilities of tackling climate change.
ANALYSIS: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured several concrete agreements during her July 18-21 visit to India:
**The two countries agreed to finalize an End User Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) that paves the way for US companies to sell sophisticated arms systems to India.
**Space cooperation got a boost with the signing of an agreement facilitating the launch of US satellites and satellites with US components on Indian launch vehicles.
**As a framework for future talks, Clinton announced a six-pillared bilateral strategic dialogue covering issues ranging from defense and non-proliferation to education and agriculture, the most wide-ranging and comprehensive dialogue “that has ever been put on the table” between the two countries.
Bilateral diplomacy: The visit pointed towards a relationship that is deepening on several levels. The defense relationship is deepening as India looks to modernize a largely Russian-made military arsenal that is widely criticized as inadequate. Bilateral trade is growing. Clinton’s trip was supported by the Indian community in the US, which is becoming more effective at leveraging its influence in favor of closer ties.
Nonetheless, controversy was mounting before Clinton left India, particularly on EUMA. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has encountered strong parliamentary opposition on this point, prompting him to deny that the agreement violates Indian sovereignty by allowing ‘intrusive’ inspections of Indian military installations.
Looming Challenges: More broadly, as Clinton found during her talks in New Delhi on climate change, the divergence between the two democracies is growing on three critical issues of global significance, all priority areas for the Obama administration:
1. Climate Change. With a new United Nations climate treaty due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December, Washington and Delhi are trying to bridge their differences on how to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Negotiating positions differ:
**The United States wants developing countries such as India and China to agree to control the emissions being produced by their rapidly growing economies, setting time-bound targets to this effect.
**The previous UPA government introduced an eight-point action plan to address emissions from domestic transport, industry and power generation. Yet during Clinton’s visit. Indian Environment Minister reiterated India’s position that ‘legally binding targets’ are out of the question.
**The government emphasized that India has one of the lowest per capita emissions rates in the world. In this context, it insists that the developed world take the lead by making large emissions reductions while transferring funds and technologies to help developing nations address their own carbon intensity.
For Delhi, a key stumbling block is the developing world’s failure to create effective and predictable mechanisms to transfer technology and funding. This is the subject of continuing bilateral talks, with India seeking an understanding with Washington that could serve as a model for an agreement between the developed and developing world at Copenhagen.
Yet climate change talks not only involve competing economic interests but also raise matters of broad principle for the West’s relationship with developing nations. India has shown itself ready to lead coalitions of developing nations in the past, vetoing those global agreement they see as discriminatory. The issue of the West’s ‘historical responsibility’ for atmospheric pollution is being cast in similar terms and Indian agreement will be hard to secure.
2. Trade negotiations. The United States and India have both signaled that they are ready to re-launch negotiations under the Doha round of world trade talks. These stalled last year largely because of differences between Washington and a group of emerging economies, in which India played a leading role, on agricultural policy. Led by then Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, India insisted that its farmers be accorded protection against supply surges under the planned liberalisation of agricultural trade.
The Congress party’s election victory raised hopes that a bolstered UPA government would be more willing to make unpopular concessions at home, for the sake of collective economic gains, than its predecessor. However, this can happen only if the developed world provides reciprocal concessions by phasing out its own agricultural subsidies -- something that is highly problematic in the present economic climate.
The Indian government’s own ability to take on domestic constituencies is also in question. Advanced negotiations towards a free trade agreement with the ASEAN appear to have foundered on objections from just one Indian state, Kerala, where cultivators of crops such as coconut and palm oil were threatened by cheaper Indonesian and Malaysian products. With the UPA forced to defend itself against accusations of ‘selling-out’ farmers, a bold compromise on world agricultural trade currently appears distant.
3. Non-proliferation. The recent G-8 leaders’ summit concluded with a statement that caught India by surprise in terms of its language on nuclear non-proliferation. In September, the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) had agreed to grant an exemption to India, allowing it to import a range of nuclear technologies despite not being a signatory to the NPT. Yet the G-8 statement committed the advanced industrial world to strengthen controls on enrichment and reprocessing technology in-line with a November 2008 NSG agreement. As widely interpreted in India, this would amount to banning exports of key items to non-signatories of the NPT.
Reactions in India were strongly unfavorable, While India will still be able to buy nuclear fuel and reactors from the G-8 or NSG countries, questions are being raised about whether the Obama administration intends to dilute the bargain contained in last year’s NSG waiver. Though Washington has made it clear that it will honor the commitments, the text remains open to interpretation and Delhi fears that the US administration will opt for a particularly restrictive reading.
Outlook: The US-India relationship is entering a difficult phase as pressure mounts on Delhi to make constructive contributions to these three critical issues. Although the UPA government’s re-election has paved the way for more active engagement, apprehensions have mounted in Delhi about Washington’s agenda vis-à-vis India. Under former President George W. Bush, Indian officials became accustomed to the idea that their country was treated as a great power in the making and a ’balancer’ in the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama administration will have to overcome Delhi’s suspicion that, in US eyes, India has reverted to the status of a regional player whose main utility is in dealing with Pakistan.
CONCLUSION: Delhi has a well-established ability to play the role of ‘spoiler’ in global negotiations promoted by the US, and it may do so again if it feels that its material interests or wider principles are compromised. On none of the above-mentioned critical issues, the US can get a global agreement without first taking Indian concerns into account. India can play the role of a ‘spoiler’ very effectively and it has wielded its veto power on these global issues so far. It is important for the Obama Administration to get India on board before proceeding with its global agenda. Clinton’s recent visit notwithstanding, the divergence between the US and India remains as stark as ever.
_______________________________
Please also read:
1) G Parthasarathy: "Post-Clinton visit, the key issues ", The Hindu Businessline, August 6, 2009 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/08/06/stories/2009080650270800.htm
2) Paul Beckett: "A Different Take on the U.S.-India Climate Change "Spat"", The Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124944699955607103.html
and
3) Peter J Brown: "India and US build stronger ties in space", Asia Times Online, August 7, 2009, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KH07Df02.html
_____________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment