The Hindu Business Line : Bush-Singh Summit: Worthwhile mission, despite loose ends

While there is the feeling that the US President, Mr George Bush, has only agreed to work towards whatever India wants of him, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, has burdened the country with a lot of obligations which may or may not result in commensurate benefit, the latter's visit to the US was, no doubt, worthwhile as such meetings have certain intangible dimensions, imparting a much-needed fillip to the follow-up, says B. S. Raghavan.

FOR ALL practical purposes, the visit of the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, with the US President, Mr George W. Bush, (to borrow an American usage) is over with the issue of the joint statement. The rest — the banquet speeches, the address to US Congress, the Indian Ambassador's bash and the meetings with the media barons — are just frills, yielding no more than paraphrase and annotation, the crossing of the t's and dotting of the i's, of the official documents and elaboration of the formally declared positions.

Intangible dimensions

Has the outcome of the visit justified the build-up given to it and was it worthwhile for Dr Singh to go all the way to Washington for parleys with the President? The answer is yes. Apart from the specifics, such meetings have certain intangible dimensions as well, imparting a much-needed fillip to the follow-up.

Face-to-face exchanges of views and perceptions at the very summit contribute to a unique alchemy of their own which cannot be explained in words. The atmosphere of rapport and goodwill that they are capable of generating, provided they are handled with finesse, as they were in this case, predisposes the minds of the participants to arrive at agreements on substantive and concrete proposals later.

There is also an element of auto-suggestion in the sense that the very phrases employed and feelings conveyed bind the participants to act in tune with them. Finally, the discussions between the principals are not usually confined to what is expressly included in statements, and extends to exploration of areas which may not be divulged because of their sensitivity, but on which they might broadly agree on pointers for action without reducing them to writing.

Reinforcing these factors in the case of Dr Singh and Mr Bush, is the way they have taken to each other. To all appearances, they vibe exceedingly well as mutually compatible personalities, and strike a chord in each other on most matters of moment. Further, Mr Bush has been effusive in his admiration for India, which he sees as "the most fascinating democracy in the world", and which has turned its diversity into an asset and successfully managed to meet the challenges confronting it, including (what impresses Bush Administration the most) terrorism.

From all these standpoints, the investment in time and effort was undoubtedly worth it. But there is not a great deal to show for it in terms of immediate tangible benefits.

No doubt, the joint statement issued by the two leaders after their meeting mentions a number of dialogues and initiatives such as the US-India Economic Dialogue, US-India Energy Dialogue, US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, US-India Global Democracy Initiative, US-India Disaster Relief Initiative, and US-India HIV/AIDS Initiative — all as part of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) Initiative, launched in January 2004.

No significant breakthrough

It also envisages the signing of a Science and Technology Framework Agreement, building on the US-India High-Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG), to provide for joint research and training, and the establishment of public-private partnerships, and the activation of the US-India Working Group on Civil Space Co-operation to build closer ties in space exploration, satellite navigation and launch, and in the commercial space arena. But in themselves, they do not represent a breakthrough except that cumulatively they may bring about a synergistic thrust to ongoing exercises, and forge relationships on several planes and fronts. Indian media commentators have gone to town exulting over the meeting opening the doors to civil nuclear cooperation. The part of the joint statement referring to it is more in the nature of nebulous promises than firm commitments. Those who know the esoteric art of drafting such communiqués know that the statement cleverly side-steps any acknowledgement by the US of its obligation to fulfil India's expectations. The President only agrees to "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realises its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security.

The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur." In return, the Prime Minister, having expressed readiness "to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States," undertakes to carry out the following commitments:

filing a declaration regarding its civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

taking a decision to place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities;

continuing India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing;

working with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty;

refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and supporting international efforts to limit their spread; and

ensuring that the necessary steps have been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonisation and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines. No wonder, "the President welcomed the Prime Minister's assurance". The result is that yet another working group comes into being "to undertake on a phased basis in the months ahead the necessary actions mentioned above to fulfil these commitments," so that the President and the Prime Minister could "review the progress when the President visits India in 2006."

One is unable to shake off the impression that while the President has only agreed to work towards whatever India wants of him, India has explicitly burdened itself with a lot of obligations which may or may not result in commensurate benefit.

What might happen in the end is that India's arms will be twisted to deliver on its commitments, but the US will wriggle out in a manner reminiscent of John F. Kennedy who was reported to have told an eagerly expectant dignitary from another country pleading before him the case on some issue of great importance to him, "I agree, but I do not know whether the US Government will!"

Stale, old mantra on terrorism

Next to energy, terrorism is the one scourge that is draining away India's resources, diverting its attention from the vital tasks of rebuilding its economy and from addressing the imperative needs of education, health care, drinking water, infrastructure, housing and employment.

Here, again, the joint statement simply repeats the stale, old, generally-worded mantra about combating terrorism "relentlessly", applauding the active and vigorous counter-terrorism cooperation between the two countries and supporting more international efforts in this direction.

It is not clear why the two leaders should affirm, knowing that it is impossible, the mission of concluding by September of a UN comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

This kind of airy-fairy wording is neither here nor there without Dr Singh securing from Mr Bush a commitment that the US will do all it can to force Pakistan to close the recruitment and training camps for terrorists still continuing with impunity in that country and the madrasas which have not ceased preaching hate and violence against infidels.

These are the breeding grounds for present and future catastrophic terrorist attacks, but the joint statement passes them by. However, as the adage goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the next few months will make clear what substance there is in all the resounding rhetoric that has preceded and followed the summit.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Bush-Singh Summit: Worthwhile mission, despite loose ends

Of mandi and teji at the bourses — Remain calm and do not be greedy to make money from the market, speeding or not

Damp squib at Dalian

Information has all the answers to questions we have not asked

Aid effectiveness

I. G. Patel — Passing of a humane economist

Oil-price hike

Freedom of the press