The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Continuity in foreign policy

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jul 19, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Continuity in foreign policy

By K.K. Katyal

There are various ways of looking at the recent discussions in New Delhi of the two visiting dignitaries — the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, and the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, but one point was striking — observance by the Indian side of the foreign policy parameters, set by the Common Minimum Programme. This was done without sacrificing the continuity — on the contrary, by enriching it.

True, the External Affairs Minister, Natwar Singh, had met the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, during his journey to Washington for the Reagan funeral, but this was his first substantive interaction with the Western leaders. From all accounts, it achieved the three objectives, enunciation of the new government's policies, stress on the bilateral ties and expression of India's core concerns.

Let us recall the CMP's formulation on ties with Washington and Europe (and Russia): "Even as it pursues closer engagement with the U.S.A., the UPA government will maintain the independence of India's foreign policy position on all regional and global issues. The UPA is committed to deepening ties with Russia and Europe as well". Then there was a reference to the resolve to "pursue an independent foreign policy," seeking to "promote multi-polarity in world relations and oppose all attempts at unilateralism."

To take the discussions with Mr. Armitage first, the re-assurances by the two sides served to dispel doubts and misperceptions about the course of bilateral relations. The Indian side spoke of the new government's commitment to the "Next Step in Strategic Partnership" (N.S.S.P), decided upon in January by the U.S. President, George Bush, and the then Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee. Though there was no uncertainty about it, an explicit re-statement was needed in view of the change of guard in New Delhi. On its part, the U.S. side said it regarded India an important partner and that mutual relations would continue to be on a sound footing, irrespective of the political complexion of the government in New Delhi. The government and the Opposition, it was noted, were agreed on the importance of ties with Washington. The U.S. was greatly impressed by the functioning of the democratic processes in India.

On the delicate issues, arising out of the current situation in Iraq (and Afghanistan), the perceptions differed, as was known. But what was not public knowledge was the respective viewpoints were expressed without causing any misunderstanding. Mr. Singh suggested that Iran be brought on board in the efforts for restoration of normality in Iraq and total transfer of sovereignty. He, thus, demonstrated, "independence of India's foreign policy position on all regional and global issues." Also, India wanted itself and Iran to be associated with the political and diplomatic moves on Afghanistan. New Delhi would not like any postponement of the elections, scheduled for September, despite the problems facing the Kabul regime. Sensing India's sensitivities against the stationing of its troops in Iraq, Mr. Armitage chose not to raise the issue. However, New Delhi, reiterated the decision to take part in the reconstruction activities in Iraq (for which a sum of $20 million was to be given through bilateral channels and $10 million as part of the multilateral efforts).

India-Pakistan affairs, too, figured at some length. Two years ago, Mr. Armitage had conveyed to New Delhi the Pakistan supremo, Pervez Musharraf's assurance to put an end to India-specific terrorist activities "completely." This was taken as a promise to completely dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the areas under Pakistan's control. It was, natural, for the Indian side to draw the U.S. official's attention to the fact that Islamabad had not fulfilled its assurance. Mr. Armitage agreed and promised to take up the matter with Gen. Musharraf in Islamabad, his next port of call — which he did. More important, Mr. Armitage stuck to his position (on Pakistan's non-fulfilment of its assurance) in Islamabad. He took note of India's complaint against Pakistan for creating problems in New Delhi's dialogue with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. The latest evidence was available last month when the Pakistan's Foreign Secretary, Riaz Khokhar, while in New Delhi for talks with his counterpart, Mr. Shashank, began the stay with a meeting with Hurriyat representatives where he "advised" them to give priority to unity in their ranks over the dialogue with New Delhi. Mr. Armitage must have conveyed this to Gen. Musharraf but whether there is a change in Pakistan's stand is difficult to say. On human rights violations, India remained on the defensive.

An early conclusion of the talks on the transfer of high technology by the U.S. to India was unlikely. There were no differences on the concept but an agreed basis for implementation was yet to be found. The conditions, set by Washington for the end-use certification of the technology, were not acceptable to India. The two sides had exchanged several documents on their positions but an agreed basis was yet to be found.

Mr. Fischer's talks, too, focussed mainly on bilateral ties. It was proposed to update the 2000 declaration, setting forth the agenda for 21st century partnership during the visit here of the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, in October. Apart from the political content, the visit will have a strong economic dimension, with Mr. Schroeder planning to bring with him a group of leading industrialists.

The visiting minister flung two pleasant surprises. One, he wanted India to be involved in the activities of G-8, the group of industrialised countries. This, obviously, was an endorsement for the plea by Italy for the inclusion of India, China and Brazil in the grouping. Two, he regarded India and Germany as the "natural candidates" for permanent seats in a reformed U.N. Security Council. This was a significant observation, implying as it did the resolve to support each other and pool their resources to press their claims. India is a "bright star" and Germany will like to have close relations with it, said Mr. Fischer.

Both India and Germany noted their decision not to send troops to Iraq, with Mr. Schroeder speaking approvingly of the move for U.N.'s central role there. The exchange of views on the developments in their respective regions, was marked by identical approaches.

Some five years ago, Germany used to follow the U.S. lead on its India policy. Germany, like other major countries, reacted sharply to India's nuclear tests in 1998, and imposed sanctions. The following year, it chose to relax the restrictions. During an interview with him in Berlin then, I enquired as to what had weighed with Germany in deciding on the relaxation. "We followed the U.S. lead," he replied. Now, however, Germany takes the initiatives in forging new ties with India, rather than following the other's example. A major change indeed.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATIONS

TESTING THE WATERS

Peace on the guillotine, again

Intelligence loses its reputation

China and SAARC

AICC revamp: reward and punishment

Continuity in foreign policy

Kumbakonam tragedy

Thatched roof

Teachers' responsibility

Disturbing images

Protest in Manipur