Interview of US Secretary of State 
Mr. Karl Frederick Inderfurth

By Chidanand Rajghatta,
The Indian Express - May 17, 2000


---

What is the US assessment of the President's trip to India?

It exceeded our expectations and indeed our hopes. We always felt it would be a successful visit, that the times are right to move into a position of natural stronger closer relationship. That the personalities, President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee, are right. But the trip do go even beyond our expectations and reaffirmed the view of many of us that it wastime to get the relationship back on the track, time to get our quarterback on the field.

So on a scale of one to ten, how much of US objectives were achieved and how much of India's aspirations were met?

In terms of tone and quality, I would say we had a perfect ten. But just because the tone and quality of exchanges were right on the mark does not mean that the US and India have reached an agreement on all outstanding issues. No two nations can do that no matter how close they are. These things require more time. The President was very open in his views here but he was open in a respectful sort of way. So I think we have turned a new page in our relation. I think Dennis Kux will have to change the title of his book or its sequel from Estranged Democracies to Engaged Democracies. We cannot forget the years of estrangement so this has made the engagement all the more well-received. As Secretary Albright said there is something unnatural about two countries that share so many values not being closer.

That's all atmospherics. What about objectives on the scale?

I would not want to quantify it but the objectives were also met on this trip. We would certainly have a very high score. There is no question thatwe are moving forward in strengthening the relationship. The vision statement and the institutionalising of dialogue is already beginning to show the effect even thought it has just been a few weeks after the President's visit. We are working together on terrorism, nuclear export regulation, economic issues, Asian security, child labour and a whole lot of issues. All this points to what was a fundamentally overriding objective of this trip which was to establish a broadbased multifaceted relationship with India.

But on issues like the test ban treaty there does not seem to be any progress. It wasn't even on the table during the President's visit.

I don't agree that there has been no progress. The Indian government did announce immediately after the testing a unilateral moratorium on further testing and that was an important first step.

But all those endless rounds of talks between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I think the talks have laid a foundation for better understanding of the problem from both sides and the way we approach the issue. We clearly desire to see India sign the CTBT. I think our approach (of talks) shows that we are listening to what India had to say. It has opened the process to further progress because it is not the US lecturing to India. We also recognise that there have been interruptions in the ability of the government to address the issue because of the elections, the tragedy of the hijacking and so on. We will be watching what further progress can be made.

So do you recognise the rationale of India's nuclear deterrence?

We have said very clearly that we recognise the issue of India's defence requirements and the issue of how it will define these requirements are India's right and sovereign decision and nothing could be more fundamental than that. The US will not set itself up as the judge and jury of decisions taken. We will express our views but the fundamental rights of a sovereign nation to determine its own defence requirements are there.

So you don't agree with India's view that it needs a minimum nuclear deterrent but you recognise that it is India's decision.

That's precisely right.

But you have asked India to define what its minimum credible nuclear defence needs are.

We think that India and its national security establishment are still in the process of how best to define its future defence requirements. Now keep in mind that this is no different from what every country in the world is doing whether it is with respect to conventional or other requirements. We ourselves are in the process of defining our nuclear deterrence because of our Start II negotiations with Russia. It will always be helpful to have a better sense of future direction. You often learn this in this country through Congressional hearings, through reports issued by the Pentagon etc. It is our hope and expectation that when India does more formally present its requirements to fulfil its minimum credible deterrence, it will meet those standards (of public disclosure and debate).

Besides how can India do this in a changing security environment.

We agree that is a problem. It is the same problem we face. But as thePresident and all our senior officials have said, we are hopeful that in the world that we are in today and the direction in which we are going, it will be a world defined by fewer rather than more nuclear weapons.

Undersecretary Tom Pickering said recently that India should transcend Kargil and talk to Pakistan and Pakistan should also take steps. So where exactly does the US stand on this? Who makes the first move?

I think our position is very clear on this. We want to see a dialogue but for that dialogue to take place we believe it would be important for steps to be taken that will generate a positive environment. We do believe that India has recently taken some very important steps with the release of the Kashmiri leaders. So we are watching very closely to see if the President's message on his visit to Islamabad was received and if the authorities will be able to take actions with respect to the President's message on democracy, terrorism, and non-proliferation.

Do you think enough has been done on the ground in Pakistan for talks to take place?

In terms of whether enough has been done, that will be a determination that New Delhi will have to make. It's a dialogue with New Delhi not with Washington.

Does the US see merit in India's case for a permanent membership of the UN Security Council?

We recognise the case that India is making for permanent membership based on its size, democracy, contributions to the UN including peacekeeping. We have said for these reasons we will give serious consideration. We believe that India can further enhance its case for membership by moving towards the international community on issues like non-proliferation.