The Government of India believes the Obama visit and developments in Myanmar give cause for satisfaction and hope, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao tells Karan Thapar on the CNBC-TV18 channel’s India Tonight programme, to be telecast on Monday. Edited excerpts:
What is the government’s view of the Obama visit?
A great success, a reflection of the relations between two of the world’s largest, biggest, most successfully functioning democracies. We have a global strategic partnership.
For many, the key point was his commitment to support India’s candidature to a permanent seat in the (United Nations) Security Council.
It was a political statement, with symbolism. What the US was conveying was that it is prepared to contemplate a moderate expansion of the Security Council and that it sees a role for India in the expanded body.
There was a marked difference in the language Obama used, compared to the one used earlier for Japan. In Japan’s case, the Americans unambiguously said they supported a permanent seat for Japan.
There are always nuances in such statements. But there is an underlying subtext to what President Obama had to convey to our people.
What is that subtext?
That India is a democratic great power; India and the US share a defining partnership. The national security strategy of the US, unveiled a few months earlier, spoke of India, Russia and China as big powers. There is no questioning of India’s arrival on the global stage.
The American President has not committed himself to actually working to achieve that expansion of the Security Council, leave aside expediting it.
Back in New York, our two Permanent Missions are closely in touch with each other. After Obama spoke in Parliament and made this expression of support, the two Permanent Representatives have exchanged notes, been speaking of the very positive nature of this development. They are working together. And, within the UN, from the floor of the General Assembly, there is a ground swell of opinion and support building on expansion of the Security Council.
More From This Section
How strong is the support you have from Moscow for a permanent seat in the Security Council?
Russia and India have a very time-tested relationship; it goes back over the decades. The bandwidth is so strong and wide-ranging, we are very confident that Russia will be supportive of our candidature.
You have just come back from Beijing. Did you get any favourable expression of support?
In the joint statement in January of 2008 when PM Manmohan Singh visited Beijing, there was this vision of a shared partnership between India and China in the 21st century. China had stated it understood India’s aspirations to play a larger role in global affairs, including in an expanded Security Council. Obviously, we need to discuss this further. One of the signal developments in recent months and weeks has been China’s readiness to discuss with India on UN-related matters. And, multilaterally there is a great deal of cooperation between India and China. It is going to be a process, tied to the evolution of our dialogue and discussions with China.
The Pakistanis have said it (the move) is bereft of morals and ideals, with implications for peace, security and stability in South Asia.
We have reached out to Pakistan on a number of occasions in the recent past. We have offered dialogue on all issues. I do not think we should be receiving lessons from Pakistan on morality. Their response is a reflection of the trust deficit between our two countries.
President Obama followed his endorsement of India’s candidature for a permanent seat in the Security Council by adding, ‘with increased power, comes increased responsibility’. He went on to express a certain admonition for India’s failure to speak out in defence of democratic forces when they are being suppressed. A particular example he gave was Burma.
Between friends and partners, we can afford that degree of candour. In recent months, we have had extensive discussions with the US in the context of our strategic dialogue. The US is aware of our concerns about terrorism, about the need to take our fight against terrorism forward, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have also discussed the other situations in our neighbourhood, including Myanmar, the Asia-Pacific, Southeast Asia.
On Myanmar, we have been very open in relaying to the US what it is that drives our relationship with that country. We share a contiguous border. We have concerns of security. We would like to build connectivity because, really, Southeast Asia begins in Northeast India. Therefore, obviously we would like inclusive political change in Myanmar. You are aware of the statement our foreign minister made, welcoming the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
So, you can agree to differ?
We can, in a perfectly open and friendly and mutually confident way.
What do you say to Indian people who believe that by failing to speak out in defence of democratic forces in Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi in particular, India has betrayed its own principles and values?
Every policy move is based on realpolitik, the defence of the national interest, on the definition of our security and strategic concerns. We have a very close and enduring relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi. She grew up in India. We have wonderful memories of her stay here. She did her doctoral research here. So, her association with India and her ties with India can never really be fractured. The situation in Myanmar today is very, very complex. India has sought to engage the leadership of that country and in the process, convey our view that we are in favour of inclusive political change, of reconciliation between different groups in the country.
In her first interview to the BBC after her release, she actually did express disappointment that India was not more forthcoming and open in support of democracy in Burma.
Our ambassador in Myanmar was one of the select group of ambassadors who met Suu Kyi and he had a brief conversation with her. What came through was her very deep and enduring, positive, feelings for India and how these should be preserved and continue to develop. This is what she had to say. As I said, we welcomed her release and conveyed that to the world, because we see it as part of the process of gradual, inclusive political change in the country.
Did India have any role to play behind the scenes?
Whenever we have had the opportunity to talk to the Myanmarese leadership, we’ve spoken about the need for reconciliation, for peaceful change.
How do you view the elections recently held in Burma but the results of which have still not been announced?
Our policy dovetails into what the Asean countries also say, seeing this as part of a significant process. Obviously, a political change is happening and that change has brought to the forefront a number of parties, of new and younger leaders. Obviously, there is an undercurrent of change within Myanmar, and we hope this is a movement that would lead to positive and inclusive political change and reconciliation.
Let us come to some economic aspects of the Obama visit. In large measure, his administration has lifted export controls and removed practically all Indian companies from the Entities List, except for those connected with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). How significant is this?
A significant development. We have been telling the US that given the defining nature of our strategic partnership and the enormous improvements in it, that India should be treated as a partner. This has been echoed in the statements from the US administration on this issue. This (lifting of controls) is an important and substantive step in that direction. Over recent months, we have engaged in very detailed discussion with the department of commerce in the US administration on this subject, on the removal of export controls on dual technology items, of our entities from the Entities List, and also the inclusion of India in these major export control regimes. On all these, we have progress.
DAE-related companies remain on the Entities List.
This is a work in progress. Isro, DRDO and BDL are off the List, country-specific categories are being amended, the US will assist in the inclusion of India in these export control regimes.
On those four major non-proliferation control regimes, the decision will have to be by consensus. Can America deliver?
On the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement, the process is fairly uncomplicated. On the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime arrangements, yes, we will have to move in a phased manner. The US has signalled its readiness to help take this process forward, and I believe the compass is set in the right direction.
Corporate India was concerned about what the American administration had done vis-a-vis H1B and L1 visas, about outsourcing and the sort of protectionist rhetoric, his claim that jobs were being taken away from America.
There was a deep concern, in the IT industry particularly, about recent measures on the visa front. But when President Obama came here and interacted with our captains of business and industry, he himself spoke of the need for both countries to work together and to avoid kneejerk reactions.
Has the fear that America was turning protectionist under the pressures of its own economic problems receded?
That is very much a factor of domestic politics there. There is a high rate of unemployment in the US and a crescendo of concern about trends within that country. Obviously we would like the US to grow because the growth of the US economy impacts very positively on the global economy.