Inderfurth, currently professor of international relations at George Washington University and, according to insiders, either the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the next administration or the next United States ambassador to India, says too much is being read into Obama's recent remarks on Kashmir.
The president-elect in a letter to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh September 23, on the day of Dr Singh's arrival in the US to attend the United Nations General Assembly session, also mooted increased collaboration with India on non-proliferation issues, and said the subject would be one of his top priorities as President.
'I will be committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and will make this a central element of US nuclear weapons policy. I will work with the US Senate to secure ratification of the international treaty banning nuclear weapons testing at the earliest practical day, and then launch a major diplomatic initiative to ensure its entry into force,' Obama wrote to the prime minister.
Inderfurth argues that the concern in New Delhi over these and other reported remarks are baseless.
What's your prognosis for US-India relations and on the broader question of US-South Asia relations in an Obama administration? Do you anticipate any hiccups?
There will be hiccups in any relationship between two countries that are friends and allies that happens. We've been having hiccups with our friends the French for hundreds of years, but we're friends and we are allies and it will always be that way.
What I see are two things--one, relations with South Asia characterized by policy continuity, especially in our relations with India. There is no question that there has been a major transformation in our relations in a relatively short period of time going back to President Clinton. President Bush accelerated that, and Senator Obama wrote in his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in September, and I am quoting, that 'deepening and broadening the friendship between our countries will be a first-order priority for me in the coming years.'
I believe this 'deepening and broadening' will extend across the board into all areas-- strategic, military, economic, agriculture, public health. It will also be characterized by deeper engagement with the countries of South Asia, including Pakistan. US relations will no longer be uni-dimensional as they were during the Bush years, with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. They will be multi-dimensional, trying to reach out to all important sectors of Pakistani society and to have a more comprehensive approach toward engagement with Pakistan as signalled by the Biden-Lugar legislation, where Pakistan will be provided with massive economic and development assistance and less military largesse. I also see an Obama administration reaching out more to the other countries in the region that are deserving of US help and involvement, including in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
New Delhi has expressed some concern over Obama's statements on Kashmir. Do you see a shift in US policy in this regard?
I see US policy on Kashmir as one of supporting the two parties in their efforts to bring about a resolution of that long-standing dispute. Clearly, for some time, efforts have been underway in the so-called back channels between India and Pakistan; serious discussions about Kashmir have taken place, and most recently we saw evidence of that in the front channel with General Durrani, the national security adviser of Pakistan, travelling to New Delhi to speak with his counterpart M K Narayanan. That is where the action should be in addressing Kashmir, and what the US should be supporting are those efforts.
I believe too much is being read into the statements Obama made recently. He has made clear in statements that he has made that he believes that the US should encourage the existing and ongoing dialogue between the two countries, and that the US should be a strong supporter of this process. He has also said that if ultimately successful, these efforts would have enormous benefits for both India and Pakistan and the region as a whole, and I believe that aproach will guide his policy.
So will it be the usual policy refrain, that goes if the best offices of the US are required by both parties, then it will be made available?
If our good offices are requested, we will be there and we will certainly be a strong supporter of that process. Obama has also made another point that is absolutely on the mark: that is, that Pakistan needs to recognize and I believe they have--that their greatest threat comes from extremist elements within their own society in the tribal areas than it does from their neighbor India, and to reorient the Pakistani threat assessment away from India to those threats that are active, alive and are trying to undermine the Pakistani state. I think this is something an Obama administration will try to help Pakistan understand. That's a very important point, and he's been saying that, and it has not gotten anywhere near the attention that some of these other interpretations have.
Another issue consuming Indian minds is Obama's stand on the nuclear deal, and his advocacy of the poison pill amendment during the earlier debate on the Hyde Act.
They should pay attention to Senator Obama's strong support for that agreement, his vote in the Senate and his statement that we have now entered into a new era of cooperation with India on civilian nuclear cooperation and that this should also provide us an opportunity to expand our agenda to address other common threats and opportunities, and some of those common threats are nuclear proliferation. We are now a partner with India on nuclear cooperation. We should also be a partner with India on addressing the many threats that are there concerning nuclear proliferation, and that I believe is a partnership that Senator Obama will pursue with the Indian government once he takes office.
The letter Obama wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh September 23 was never released by the Indian government, and there is acknowledgment that it was kept under wraps because the government of India was concerned over his talk of pushing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Clinton administration had earlier attempted to pressue India into signing that treaty, so is there a likelihood of the Obama administration taking a similar tack?
I don't see any tensions on those particular aspects. I believe that the first step that will be taken, and one that will break the ice on these matters, will be to see if the United States leads by example. It was the US Senate then controlled by the Republicans that defeated the CTBT when it came to a vote for ratification. We have to get ourselves back on the right track on this issue. We have to get ourselves in a posture of supporting a Fissile Materials Cut off Treaty that includes verification provisions, which the Bush administration opposed. We have to get on track in terms of pursuing deeper nuclear reductions with Russia, where the Bush administration said that we were not going to go any further in meeting these requirements of Article 6 of the NPT. Senator Obama has endorsed the concept proposed by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn of a nuclear-free world. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the United Nations also endorsed the concept of nuclear disarmament. So, that should provide a basis for discussion between our two governments working as partners, and with others in the international community. That is an exciting and vitally important issue for the world and for our two countries.