Making A Difference

Stillness On The Sidelines

India still aren't favourites, but Vajpayee's visit may have helped push the country's case. At least you can't fault him for not trying.

Advertisement

Stillness On The Sidelines
info_icon

Wouldn't it have been lovely if Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee had landed in Washington and left two days later, leaving the Americans seeing things all India's way? But his lunch with President George Bush didn't make Pakistan any less useful to the US. And it didn't make India any more useful than many others. How could it? In the week Bush lunched with Vajpayee, he has met 19 heads of government, eight in Washington alone through the week and 11 at the UN in New York over the weekend.

At the White House this week, Bush held meetings with the leaders of Britain, France, Brazil, Ireland, Kuwait, Morocco and Algeria. At the UN meeting, Bush met President Pervez Musharraf and other leaders. The Vajpayee meeting was unique but so were all the others. Bush said many things India liked to hear but he's saying similar things to everyone, not least to Musharraf. And many leaders had things other than Kashmir to cry about. Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika told Bush that over 1,00,000 people have died there in the last decade in clashes between security forces and Islamic terrorists. Another government ally against terrorism, another alliance that perhaps provokes terrorism. It was a week Bush had a rush of problems to look at; India's problem is that it's almost not a problem to the Americans.

Bush spent the week meeting these leaders to strengthen the anti-terror alliance, seen to be faltering in the face of the continued bombing of Afghanistan. Some to win over, some to help him win others over. From India, Bush seems to have won promise of stillness on the sidelines.

"We have pursued the policy of restraint, and we continue to pursue it," external affairs minister Jaswant Singh told Indian media representatives. The US was however warned against any guaranteed passivity. "That was a very strong message given by the prime minister to President Bush," a senior official told Outlook. "We have no desire to overload the agenda of the international coalition against terrorism," Vajpayee told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "But at the same time, we need to ensure that we do not tamely accept terrorist acts against us from across the borders."

All the right things were said during Vajpayee's visit but his visit's success depends largely on what happens or does not in the US' relations with Pakistan. "The US has to keep the coalition with Pakistan going now and afterwards," said Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution, at the release of his book India, Emerging Power last week. But strains were showing as well; most immediately when Musharraf spoke again and again of ending bombing in Afghanistan in the Ramzan month. Bush and his team have emphasised that the bombing will continue. The success of Vajpayee's visit will be measured largely by how many self goals Musharraf manages to score.

US officials did everything they could through the week to insist there were no issues between India and Pakistan they wanted to think about just now. Christina Rocca, assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, played what they call the zero-sum game; to so balance India and Pakistan that neither could claim gains or losses.

Here's a sample of the balanced line drawn by Rocca: "The events of September 11 have brought into brutal focus the dangers posed by terrorism to all of us. The countries of South Asia are prime targets of this menace. India and Pakistan are key partners in the global coalition against terrorism and we are cooperating closely with both". It couldn't get safer than that. Bush followed an extension of this line in meetings with Vajpayee and Musharraf.

In the immediate future, little will alter for India despite the brave words with Bush. But little was expected to. To fault Vajpayee for not achieving something spectacular probably says more about unreal expectations than about unimpressive efforts. If there were gains through the visit, they were more subtle than spectacular and they probably came not so much at the White House as on Capitol Hill next door.

Attendance at a lunch meeting with members of the Indian American caucus was a record. Close to 90 of the 130 or so members attended. This included senators with a powerful political voice and members of the House of Representatives (together they constitute the Congress) with their close control over finance. The money, the arms, the support Pakistan hope to get will have to go through Congress. The international relations committee, a new sub-committee on South Asia, is a powerful policy voice in Washington. It was this panel that mounted pressure within the US for Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil. The 90 who came are not for that reason India supporters. But there has never before been such keen interest in hearing what India has to say.

"It was very above-excellent turnout," Senator Jim McDermott, who heads the Indian American caucus, told Outlook. "The Prime Minister's speech was excellent," he said. "It was a signal to a lot of US leaders that they have to think about India. He was able to raise the consciousness level of almost a quarter of the Congress." A chairman's enthusiasm here, but then this is the name of the great game that gets played out in Washington day after day. It's about throwing an idea into the marketplace.

The powerful many may not pick it up. But if they just get to see it, that's achievement enough. Conversions don't come that easy in Washington.

Vajpayee's visit did not alter the strong view for support to Pakistan; that country is just too useful. But if a quarter of Congress wants to know what he thinks about it all, then many see Pakistan as at least a doubtful ally. Vajpayee played on those doubts. "If indeed it has made the correct strategic choice to change, it'll be a major advance towards peace in the region," Vajpayee said at the meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was lobbying in a city of lobbyists. It was the most he could do.

A day before Vajpayee's meetings with Congressmen, an article appeared on Page A26 of the Washington Post by Chandrika Kumaratunga. To South Asians, a familiar name. A single line in italics at the end said "the writer is president of Sri Lanka." That's how Washington treats PMs and presidents while giving them attention. For Vajpayee to draw 90 Congressmen to lunch is a lot of lobbying well done. It might not add up to a lot—but it's all about winning some attention and planting a thought. This is after all power city, where ideas can become triggers.

Day after day, Rocca praises Musharraf for "doing a 180-degree turn on the Taliban". India isn't that kind of favourite and Vajpayee seemingly didn't want it to be. His success came in double negatives. In a city where lobbying pushes ideas, he couldn't lobby. Maybe Washington isn't listening. But at least some of the influential many heard something from India. Vajpayee's just trying, he really is.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement