FEATURES NEWS THE RISING NEPAL (DAILY)

Vajpayee’s America Visit
U-Turn By US?

By M.R. Josse

INDIAN Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee returned to New Delhi recently after an extended visit to America combining participation at the UN Millennium Summit in New York with a four-day official visit to the United States.

NEW TILT? By all counts, they constitute important diplomatic milestones not only for India but also for South Asia and beyond.

That is even truer of Vajpayee’s America visit which, as readers will recall, follows UP President Bill Clinton’s high-profile, high-rhetoric trip to India in March.

Although it is correct that the Indian prime minister’s official visit to the United States did not command the same international media attention as Clinton’s journey to India, it did dominate the Indian media for days on end.

And, if it is true that much of the Indian media attention was-amazingly— focused on the condition of Vajpayee’s knees and on his utterances having a bearing on his RSS affiliation, much more meaningful were comments/assessments offered on what the visit achieved—or did not —as far as India’s national interest is concerned.

On the one hand, there were roseate assessments such as Dileep Padgoankar’s who was convinced that, as a result of the visit, the US has now titled towards India — away from Pakistan.

Thus, while not too long ago, "India could do nothing right" now it would seem that "India can do nothing wrong." More specifically, as he made out, "it is all too clear that America now regards India as one of its key interlocutors to shape the world in the new century."

An enthused Padgoankar expounded further, thus: "India and America now treat each others as partners, as ‘natural allies’ who will work together in all fields of endeavour for their mutual benefit and, by extension, for the benefit of the world.

"What this means, in substance, is that henceforth America would want India to play a critical role not only in South Asia but in Asia as a whole and indeed at the global level as well."

Though that, of course, remains to be seen, it is notable that Padgoankar’s own newspaper, The Times of India, takes a far less effusive view on what the Vajpayee diplomatic foray achieved.

In an editorial, for instance, it pointed out that the timing of the visit was less than opportune: Vajpayee’s joint address to the US Congress, 53 days before American elections, was very poorly attended (with only some 45-55 Senators and Congressmen in attendance).

LAME: An editorial wondered "is official India reading America correctly? Or is a case of India over-reacting to a friendly American president on his way out?" It cautioned that the era of "tilting" towards Pakistan may "not be entirely over."

Contrasting with Padgoankar’s judgement, C.P. Surendra, (Times of India, 17 September, 2000), came out with this sarcastic assessment: "So, then, the PM has brought back with him his wounded knee. As of today, that seems to be the only thing that he has brought back from his US trip. A lame trip on the whole. You don’t spend close to a fortnight in US burning up opportunities to exude leadership to sake a first at a pathologically infantile Pakistan.

"Whether it is the United Nations Millennium Summit or the PM’s address at the United States Congress, India could have made use of those forums to make a sensible vision statement. Instead the PM frothed at Pakistan."

At another level, it was notable that Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush Jr., did not find time to meet Vajpayee — contrary to what had been reported in the Indian media prior to the start of the visit.

While Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore admittedly did, it must not be forgotten that Gore is still a political subordinate of Clinton, Vajpayee’s official host.

More substantively, on the very eve of the Vajpayee visit Clinton, speaking to journalists, expressed the view that the Kashmir dispute is at the core of difficulties between India and Pakistan and hoped that the US can play a positive role in its peaceful resolution (TOI, 16 September, 2000).

The argument that Kashmir is the "core issue" between India and Pakistan is, as all know, a staple formulation of Pakistani diplomacy — and has always been anathema to India.

Besides, it can hardly be argued that America’s loudly proclaimed hope to play a positive role in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute is in keeping with India’s persistent opposition to any attempt at third party mediation over Kashmir.

No less meaningful is that US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, publicly expressed disappointment over India’s (and Pakistan’s) refusal to sign the CTBT vowing that "we are going to keep nuclear non-proliferation on the agenda of the overall relationship." (TOI, 16 September, 2000).

C Uday Bahaskar’s op-ed piece (TOI, 19 September, 2000) pointed out that "despite all the hype" on the Vajpayee visit "India still accounts for less than a percentage point of total US foreign trade." Nothing very substantial would emerge unless India’s role in US strategy were to be enhanced, in his view a tall order, at this time.

OTHER VIEWS: One American opinion — of Richard Hass, Brookings Institution — may be noted in the above context: Haas argued that India cannot emerge as a "true partner" of the US or as a "global actor" unless it first deals with the situation in South Asia, specially in relations with Pakistan.

From the above, it would thus seem that if a new vibrancy has been injected into Indo-American relations, the jury is still out on whether it is tantamount to a U-turn in US foreign policy, specially as the Clinton administration is beating a retreat.

Other Stories