THE Indian nuclear tests and the subsequent sanctions announced by the US have highlighted sharp rifts in the American establishment. These, it is clear, are not just along party lines, with differences of opinion also surfacing within the Clinton administration. And with the Indian American community lobbying with Congress to lift sanctions, there is considerable optimism that things may brighten for New Delhi.
Support for India has come from some unexpected sources. The Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who had not normally been considered a great friend of India, has spoken out in favour of India and blasted the Administration for its double standards vis-a-vis China. Noting that the Administration knowingly transferred nuclear missile technology to China, Gingrich declared: "In stark contrast to the Clinton policy of accommodation toward Communist China, the Administration roared with outrage when a democratic Indian government chose to test its nuclear capability. India faces a potential threat from China. China has deployed nuclear missiles in Tibet, improved its missile capabilities with US assistance, and never renounced its claim to part of eastern India. As India's defence minister recently noted, 'China is potential threat No 1'."
Gingrich added that the Administration would much rather confront an Indian democracy than risk angering a Chinese dictatorship. "This double standard in the Administration's actions—disregarding China's far more dangerous actions while sanctioning India—is appalling. With one hand the Clinton Administration gives China access to sensitive missile technology, while the other slaps India for trying to protect itself from the consequences of this improved technology."
A legislative aide at Gingrich's office sent Outlook a study by the Congressional Research Service, which documented nearly two dozen transfers of missile technology and materials by China to Iran and Pakistan. Transfers, Gingrich says, that are "clear violations of US law and international treaties... these dangerous, illegal and destabilising transfers have gone almost completely unacknowledged and not responded to by the Clinton Administration."
Democrat Frank Pallone, who co-chairs the India Caucus in the House, also spoke up in India's favour. On May 19, he made a statement before the Rules Committee opposing the Markey Amendment to the Defence Authorisation Bill, seeking to revoke most favoured nation status from India for textile and apparel products. According to Pallone, the amendment would have "an entirely inappropriate and counter-productive approach, with the unintended consequence of punishing poor and working class people in India who have nothing to do with nuclear testing" and that "in light of the extremely severe sanctions already imposed on India" the Markey amendment would constitute "a form of piling-on".
Indeed, the anti-sanctions mood is discernible even among commentators perceived to be anti-India—one of them former secretary of state Henry Kissinger. A diplomatic source says he finds it ironic that the man who "invented the infamous pro-Pak tilt is now advising the Administration not to deal too harshly with India".
However, a source at the State Department denies that there was wrangling within the Administration over the sanctions issue. "I understand the seductiveness of this notion that there are many people within the Administration who are opposed to sanctions, but it is not true," he clarifies. "Of course, there is a natural bureaucratic tendency to save one's programmes and I am sure that officials at the Agency for International Development have been lobbying for this purpose. They do not want their programmes axed."
He points out that it is the business community that is really opposing sanctions: "It has never been happy with restrictions on exports. They don't want bureaucrats arguing against exports." In fact, the officials take pains to emphasise that this anti-curbs lobby has nothing to do with any Indian sympathies: "These people are opposed to the sanctions simply because these things always cut two ways. For instance, are the sanctions going to wipe out the US banking industry in India? There is a big debate on the interpretation of sanctions."
But aren't there US legislators who had come out strongly against the sanctions? "One knows where Pallone is coming from. He is on the India Caucus. It is safe to say that the position of legislators has been completely partisan on this issue. For them it is an opportunity to attack the president and his upcoming trip to China. If the sanctions issue provides them with the excuse they need, they will use it. (People like Gingrich) don't give a damn about India. This is their way of getting at Clinton for befriending an autocratic regime like China." The official notes that a day or two after the tests there was a meeting on Capitol Hill organised by the Indian American community where only 30 per cent of invitees showed up and no Congressmen at all. "They did not want to be associated with India and felt it safer to keep their distance."
Asked if he thought that Washington was divided on the sanctions, Indian ambassador Naresh Chandra told Outlook: "The Administration feels they should have more latitude because the present law does not allow much flexibility. There are three streams of thought. The main one is that US business is getting hurt. They are being denied use of Exim Bank and Opic credits and loans, which is hurting them while there are no obstacles being put in their favour and have thus bypassed the sanctions. And lastly there are the legislators who are thinking about how a future Asia would look. They are wondering whether it is in the best interests of the US to be coming down hard on a democratic country like India, while backing China, which is authoritarian and does not support democratic values."
BESIDES Gingrich and Pallone, Chandra says there are other legislators too who opposed sanctions on India, such as Richard Lugar and Patrick Moynihan. But he is quick to caution: "These are Americans and it should not be seen as sanctions busting. But the embassy is not in the mobilisation game. We have developed a web page and the information is out there. The Indian community is a source of great strength to us and has been very supportive. At the same time, diplomatic limits should not be crossed." He adds that the embassy is "not indulging in too much lobbying work. The government of India is not allowing much propaganda here."
Ramesh Ravella, a community activist who heads a Virginia-based software development company, agrees that there is no pro-India lobby working on Capitol Hill on this issue. "I don't think people have become passionate about sanctions," he said. Ravella notes that, strangely enough, the Democrats, who at one time were accusing George Bush of coddling China, are now guilty of it themselves—and the Republicans who were the ones holding out for good ties with China are now attacking the Administration for not dealing with China sternly enough. In short, India is just being used as a stick to beat Clinton with.
Where does the fault lie, then? Ashok Parameswaran, an investment banker who was previously developing an India studies program at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, feels there is "very little organised community action" on the issue so far. "People are troubled by it. But I don't see a great deal of activism on the part of the Indian community. I am not aware of them talking to their legislators."
Meanwhile, it is obvious that Clinton himself is not especially pleased over having to impose sanctions. He complained in an interview recently that the US seems "to have gotten sanction-happy" in punishing countries around the world for behaviour Americans do not like. He said sanctions, usually mandated by Congress, reduce the president's flexibility to conduct foreign policy. "We're in danger of looking like we want to sanction everybody who disagrees with us and not help anybody who agrees with us," Clinton said. But question is, what will he do about it?
