Indo-US touchdown

The US President George Bushacirc;euro;trade;s description of Americaacirc;euro;trade;s friendship with India as quot;one of the mo...

The US President George Bushacirc;euro;trade;s description of Americaacirc;euro;trade;s friendship with India as quot;one of the most exciting and promising relationshipsquot; in a reply to President K.R. Narayananacirc;euro;trade;s congratulatory letter, could be interpreted as a mere formality. So could Secretary of State Colin Powellacirc;euro;trade;s statement that the US should quot;engage more broadlyquot; with a powerful India. That was only a reply from Powell to Senator Sam Brownback, while addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing recently. Although it is too early to jump to any conclusions, these statements contain the seeds of a major policy formulation on India. In fact, Powell has elaborated quot;it is time to move forward to remove all the remaining sanctions post-Pokharan against India.quot; He even indicated that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBT a rather ticklish issue in Indo-US relationship will not be brought up in the next session of the Congress. After all, most Republicans are not very convinced about the virtues of theCTBT.

The reasons for viewing the unfolding of future Indo-US relations optimistically are several: The most important is the legacy of the former president, Bill Clinton. His Indian trip at the fag end of his second term repositioned New Delhi in the US scheme of things. Aside from admiring the Taj Mahal and reshmi kebabs, Clinton saw India as a strategically significant partner in the post-Cold War era. The contribution of the Silicon Valley Indians to Americaacirc;euro;trade;s longest peacetime boom certainly helped the process. The new Republican administration could build on that foundation, indeed, go a step further. Powell could take take a cue from Henry Kissingeracirc;euro;trade;s ping-pong diplomacy that transformed Sino-US ties in the early 1970s by taking Indo-US relations to new heights.

Although India and China are not inversely proportional to each other in terms of American national interest, but they are the two major competitors within Asia even from an American standpoint. All the fact indicate that the Bush administration is likely to be less accommodative to China compared to their Democratic predecessors. The Rumsfeld Commissionacirc;euro;trade;s recommendations to develop a National Missile Defence is largely based on Washingtonacirc;euro;trade;s assessment that Chinese missile and nuclear proliferation will continue. Robert Rumsfeld, the new defence secretary in the Bush administration, is unlikely to have changed his attitude towards the perceived Chinese threat. Further, the overseas Chinese businessmenacirc;euro;trade;s campaign contributions for the Democrats would not have endeared them to the new regime. The realisation, even by conservative US think tanks, that acirc;euro;tilde;acirc;euro;tilde;democracies have never gone to waracirc;euro;trade;acirc;euro;trade; is likely to create a favourable image of India. In terms of trade and environmental policies, the Republicans have alwaysbeen more liberal compared to Democrats. If New Delhi plays its cards well, Indo-US relations is bound for a promising future.