THE CHAT ROOMS
HOME
MONEY

'The US needs India for an Asian balance of power'

Dr Marshall Bouton, in India for only a few days and with a heavy schedule, only sought one favour: that his Chat be postponed by an hour. And on the dot of time, he landed up at the rediff.com head office located in Bombay midtown. Though his area of speciality was Indo-US relations, he was flooded with questions on the state of the US presidential elections, which has thrown up a major constitutional challenge to the United States' electoral system. However, tempted as he was, Dr Bouton decided to stay away from the topic. "I really don't know what is happening since I have been in India, and second, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on the US elections," he said.

While he gamely took a question or two on the elections, he preferred to answer queries on the state of Indo-US relations: their prospects and difficulties.

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:16 IST)
Good Evening! I am delighted to be at Rediff!

Princess (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:9 IST)
hello mr bouton, so the florida twister has left your country ravaged, eh!

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:25 IST)
princess: Dear Princess, first, Florida gets hurricanes, not twisters by and large. I guess you could call this a hurricane of sorts, but there will be no lasting damage, in my view, to the US constitution or political system. I think it does raise the question about the procedures and technology about voting in the US. Presently, the balloting system are decided by state and local authorities, hence so the quality of the result is ultimately dependent on the weakest link; perhaps the country will want to consider adopting minimum standards for the balloting process and technology to avoid situation such as we are witnessing in Palm Beach. And the new administration whether under Gore or Bush, will take office under something of a cloud, because of the closeness of the result and the questions being raised about the validity. However, none of these factors is likely to raise questions about the legitimacy about our system. Please note, princess, that nobody is on the streets.

jhon (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:7 IST)
Hello sir, How it will affect India if Gore wins or Bush wins?

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:20 IST)
jhon: Whether Bush or Gore becomes president, Indo-US relations are headed in a new direction. The exchange of visits this year by President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee have signalled the change in direction. It is driven primarily by converging interests of the two countries, not by personalities of the two leaders. Although President Clinton and PM Vajpayee deserve much credit for bringing about this shift. Both, VicePresident Gore and Governor Bush have supported giving a higher priority to India and will support the new direction undertaken this year. However, a Gore administration might put more emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation than a Bush administration, and a Bush admin might be initially less inclined to give the same priority to India although I am confident that in time it would do so. However, it is important to realise that India will not be high on agenda of the new administration, whoever takes office.

Vijay (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:13 IST)
Sir, What do you think has been the major cause for a turnaround in Indo-US relations? Is it just the economy? Also, what do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the Indian economy vis-avis Chinese economy?

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:33 IST)
Vijay: First, as I suggested in my response to an earlier question, the turnaround, and I hasten to say it is a turning of the corner and and not a turnaround, has many causes. Most importantly, the two countries have finally recognised in the relations with each other that the Cold War is over. The US sees that India must be thought of a key factor in the Asian balance of power going forward; India looks to the US for economic partnership necessary to bring its economy into the global system. Of course the Indian American community has played a big role as a result of its affluence and influence in getting the attention of the US policy makers and politicians. Actually, I think much more needs to be done in terms of economic ties. The relationship, to be stable over time, must have substance and this can only come from growing economic ties, especially the two governments are bound to disagree from time to time on security issues. I'd like to compare this to the ballast in a ship; without the ballast of stronger economic ties, the ship of India-US relations gets too easily blown onto the rocks, even in small storms. But US companies and investors remain wary about involvement in the Indian economy.

This brings me to China. As you know US companies and investors are much more involved with China. US investment in China is many times greater than that in India. You ask why? To put it simply, it is easier to do business in China. The uncertainty of the stop and start reform process in India has been a disincentive to US companies and investors. Consider for instance that in the last several months, US power and telecom companies have withdrawn from India after years of effort. Of course, there are risks in China too and I always urge US companies to be involved in both countries. But India needs to do more to encourage foreign investment.

Kiran (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:27 IST)
Dear Mr. Bouton, all it took America to declare Harkat ul Ansar a terrorist nation was that it killed a American hostage in Kashmir. Indians, mainly minorities are routinely massacred in Kashmir, as per pakistan's directive, and the US does not even bat an eyelid? Is it that it does not matter to America as to who kills whom, or who gets killed, as long as the people killed are not Ameticans, US Americans? A case in pooint would be, Osanma bin laden, he just is a suspect, but the US went on a worldwide bombing spree to retaliate US embassy bombings in Africa. While we have concrete evidence of Pakistnai terroism in INdia, the US is just not willing to listen?

The question of declaring Pakistan or any other country a terrorist state is very complicated. First, there must irrefutable evidence that responsible senior officials of that government systematically and over time, sponsor terrorist activities. Second, especially if this evidence is not totally convincing, by declaring a nation a terrorist state, tthe US could make the situation worse. That is, once the US has declared a state to be a sponsor of terrorism, US relations with that nation are drastically curtailed, potentially alienating that government and nation from the US and certainly curtailing US influence. So it is a step that could be counter productive and must therefore be carelfully considered. Both the US and India agree that the stability of Pakistan are in the interests of both India and the US and are both are pursuing policies to try to preserve Pakistan's stability and integrity while at the same time urging the government of Pakistan to disassociate itself from any terrorist elements and to prevent cross-border terrorist activities.

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:48 IST)
Vijay: Let me address your interesting question about infrastructure and the impact of the opening of the insurance sector. It is long been widely believed that opening the insurance sector will be in India's interest because it will mobilise more fully and effectively India's savings and channel them into productive investments. It will thus make more resources available for long-term investments such as in infrastructure. This is because insurance companies look for long-term investments to provide stable returns necessary to meet their long-term commitments to policy holders. So the cost of capital for infrastructure and other investments should come down. However, other conditions must be met. The infrastructure must have a way of recouping the investments. Thus if the state electricity boards are not able to pay their bills, it is difficult to invest in power generation.

Sreenivasa Rao (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:40 IST)
Can US be trusted as a mediator for honest resolution of the Kashmir problem?

chintu (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:43 IST)
Does the US sincerly believe kashmir is a bilateral dispute between India--pak

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:53 IST)
Chintu & Sreenivasa Rao: On the US role in Kashmir: first, the US does recognise that this is a bilateral dispute, although it also points out that the larger international community has a concern for resolution of the dispute because of its potential for a wider conflict. It is precisely because the US recognises that it has put so much emphasis on India and Pakistan resuming their dialogue and the US does not, repeat not, propose to mediate. However, President Clinton has repeatedly made clear that the US is prepared to assist the governments of India and Pakistan in resuming in carrying on a dialogue. The US has constructive relations with both governments and perhaps is in a position, should both govts be willing, to help move down the path of dialogue and accommodation.

Kiranshenoy (Thu Nov 9 2000 4:2 IST)
Dear Mr Bouton: Why does US insist on India capping/ abandoning its nuclear wepons, while there is absolute proof of Chinese nuclear machinations towards india, we have demonstrated impeccable credentials, as far as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned, while china has sold nuclear weapon technology to any country willing to pay, but the target seems to be only India? is there a hidden message here?

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 4:3 IST)
Kiranshenoy: Let me first underscore that I am not a spokesman for the US govt! And I believe that the US should have acted sooner to protest Chinese nuclear and missile assistance to Pakistan. However, the US did in fact raise this issue with China and in the first Clinton administration from China that transfers of missile technology and certainly of missiles themselves would be stopped. It is my understanding that in fact the Chinese have kept this pledge. These are matters that by their nature must be dealt with quietly rather than in the public domain, so we will not know what has actually be said and done. But it is certainly not in the interests of the US to have nuclear and missile technology transferred by China to Pakistan or any other country.

Siddharth Deshpande (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:48 IST)
Don't you think many american companies are exploiting India's biodiversity just because the Intellectual Property and bio-wealth protection laws are lax in India?

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 4:8 IST)
Siddharth Deshpande: It is a matter of public record that a few American companies and some other Western companies have sought to patent indigenous Indian biological substances. This is simply a result of the marketplace; it is not some conspiracy to rob India of its biodiversity. Nevertheless, it certainly requires a response and in fact India has responded through the courts and has stopped the appropriation of biological material and names such as 'basmati' rice. I would be sorry to see India adopt policy that constraint scientific and techical excange as a way of trying to counter this problem. India would only be cutting itself off from the benefit of open scientific communication.

Siddharth Deshpande (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:39 IST)
The voting pattern analysis of the U.S. presidential election shows that Mr Bush is completely out of favour with the minorities,which include indian-americans.So do u think that a Bush victory would be a bit of a dampener to the bonhomie that was seen between the two countries under Mr Clinton?

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:59 IST)
Siddhartha Deshpande: I don't think there is really a relationship between the support of US minorities, including Indian Americans, for one or the other candidate, and policy towards India or any other country. The Bush campaign came out early -- in fact, in his first foreign policy address, candidate George W Bush spoke for the need of greater attention to India. Historically, perhaps Indians and Indian Americans have seen the Democratic party and the Democratic administration as more "friendly". However, this is not really borne out by the historical evidence. It was under Jimmy Carter that the US sought to force India to accept fullscale safeguards for its nuclear plants. It was under then president George Bush that the US did impose the Pressler Amendment on Pakistan. Yes, of course President Clinton gets much credit for promoting better relations with India, esp in his second term, but as I mentioned earlier, this is a goal which the Bush campaign has also endorsed.

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 4:18 IST)
Kiranshenoy: Because of its commitments under the NPT, the US will continue to call for India to give up its nuclear weapons programme. However, no US policy maker realistically expects that India will do this without a wider disarmament process. And many in the US have been urging that the next US administration shift the focus of its dialogue with India on nuclear matters to an understanding of the challenges that India faces in developing a nuclear doctrine force structure, and command and control arrangement that will minimise the dangers of a nuclear exchange, accident, or theft. This will require the US to publicly step away from its emphasis on the "non-proliferation" rhetoric, but it is high time, in my view, that we accept that India's nuclear weapons status is an international fact and that we seek open communication on nuclear issues.

Kiranshenoy (Thu Nov 9 2000 3:56 IST)
Dear Mr. Bouton: How does America explain, its inaction in face of absolute proof of Chinese nuclear and missible aid to pakistan. While CIA and other reports were leaked, all the US administration did was ask India to Ignore the reports?

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 4:18 IST)
Kiranshenoy: Because of its commitments under the NPT, the US will continue to call for India to give up its nuclear weapons programme. However, no US policy maker realistically expects that India will do this without a wider disarmament process. And many in the US have been urging that the next US administration shift the focus of its dialogue with India on nuclear matters to an understanding of the challenges that India faces in developing a nuclear doctrine force structure, and command and control arrangement that will minimise the dangers of a nuclear exchange, accident, or theft. This will require the US to publicly step away from its emphasis on the "non-proliferation" rhetoric, but it is high time, in my view, that we accept that India's nuclear weapons status is an international fact and that we seek open communication on nuclear issues.

Dr Marshall Bouton (Thu Nov 9 2000 4:19 IST)
To everyone, thank you for your excellent questions and comments. I have enjoyed Chatting with you.

Disclaimer