Rushed transcript, courtesy: Council on Foreign Relations
A Conversation with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh at the Council on Foreign Relations presided by Richard N. Haass, President And Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars
Richard N. Haass: I want to thank the prime minister for presenting such a comprehensive talk. I'll just ask a few questions and then we'll open it up. I do the easy ones, they do the hard ones. That's the division of labour here.
Several times, sir, you talked about the United States and India, and you used the phrase "strategic partnership," which is a phrase that resonates very well here. But the question I would ask is whether there is sufficient overlap of viewpoints in order to allow one to go forward.
And two of the most pressing questions or issues that are sure to come before us are Iran and Afghanistan, so let me begin with Iran.
The United States believes that it would be unacceptable for Iran to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. Is that a view shared by India? And would India be prepared to support robust sanctions against Iran in order to discourage it from going down that path?
Manmohan Manmohan Singh: Can I go there?
Richard N. Haass:You can go there, or you can sit here, because we're going to have a few. It's up to you. Because you have a microphone here, it might be easier to sit.
Manmohan Singh: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.) Well, as far as Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions are concerned, I have stated it unambiguously on several occasions that we do not support the nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran. Iran is a signatory to the NPT. As such, it has all the rights that got with this membership of the NPT, that is use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
At the same time, it has obligations that go with its membership, and this rules out the nuclear weapon part. So there is no ambiguity in our position. They're quite clear in our thinking that Iran should not go the nuclear weapon path. That is inconsistent with its obligation as a member of the NPT.
Now, as regards the sanctions question, let me say that if the Security Council, in its wisdom, passes any resolution, we have, in the past, abided by the decisions of the Security Council. And as I see President Obama's approach has opened up a new pathway of engagement without precondition, our hope is that it will yield results.
A few days before I left New Delhi, I had the privilege of meeting the Iranian foreign minister, who is an old student who studied in our country for many years. He was there. And while talking, he mentioned explicitly to me that Iran is encouraged by the messages it is receiving from the new Obama administration and that he was hopeful that they would lead to constructive, productive results.
I hope that part, if it does yield productive results, that would be for the good of humanity at large.
Richard N. Haass:On the question of Afghanistan, I think the phrase you used was that the world should put its weight behind the country and government of Afghanistan. You've obviously arrived in Washington in the midst of a public debate as well as the internal deliberations of the Obama administration which, in some ways, is trying to define what putting its weight or putting our weight into Afghanistan might mean.
Do you believe that a large increase or a significant increase in American troops levels or,more broadly, international troop levels should be an element of the policy?
Manmohan Singh: Well, I'm not an expert on military affairs. It would be much too presumptuous on my part to claim that I know what's the right size of troops that ought to be deployed to Afghanistan. But I am quite clear in my mind that Afghanistan requires the sustained support of the global community if it is to return to a path of peace, freedom and an environment in which fundamentalist terrorist elements do not have the sway of the type that they had some years ago before 9/11.
Richard N. Haass: Just to follow up, do you believe that what happens in Afghanistan will be decisive for Pakistan's future?
Manmohan Singh: There is no doubt in my mind that if the Taliban and the al Qaeda group of people succeed in Afghanistan, that would have catastrophic results for the security and stability, not only of Pakistan, but for the security and stability of all of South Asia. And please don't forget we are talking about nearly 1.8 billion people living in South Asia.
Also, I believe it will also affect the course of evolution in the Middle East as well as in Central Asia and maybe, I think, beyond, I think, these regions as well.
Richard N. Haass: To build on what you just said, when you look at your neighbor Pakistan and you look at its difficulties with maintaining order, with governance, economically, do you harbor concerns that Pakistan could fail? And if that were to happen, if Pakistan were to fail in certain ways, could India succeed?
Manmohan Singh: Well, we don't want Pakistan to (fail ?). The emergence of democracy in Pakistan is something we welcome. But at the same time, we have to recognize that there are forces at work in Pakistan, the terrorist groups that are active there, until now, they were active only in the federally administered areas along the borders of Afghanistan.
Now they are, I think, have a grip over several parts of mainland Pakistan. If that process is not controlled, I think it has, I think, phenomenal consequences for the security and stability of Pakistan as well as our own security.
Richard N. Haass:Speaking of which, you mentioned the anniversary of the terrible events in Mumbai a year ago. India exercised what I believe most observers would say was rather remarkable restraint.
As you look back on that decision not to respond or retaliate militarily, do you believe it was the right decision? And God forbid, if it were to happen that there were future terrorist acts against India, do you think that that restraint may have come at a cost?
Manmohan Singh: Well, let me say, there was enormous pressure on me at that time. I resisted that pressure, and I think the decisions that I and my government took was, on balance, the right decision.
As regard to the future, I hate to speculate. I sincerely hope that that sort of eventuality does not arise. And that's why I believe the world community has an obligation to impress upon Pakistan that it must use all its influence to curb the power of the terrorist groups.
Pakistan has done something to control the activities of the Taliban terrorist groups in federally administered areas. But it is our sincere belief that it has not acted as it should have acted in dealing with terrorist elements who are using their energies to target our country, nor has Pakistan used all its machinery to bring to (book ?) all those murderers, gangs who perpetrated the horrible crime in Mumbai in which 2,000 citizens of our country, innocent citizens, lost their lives, several nationals of foreign countries, including six from the United States, two from Canada that lost their lives.
Pakistan, in our view, should be pressurized by the world community to do much more to bring to (book ?) all those people who are responsible for this horrible crime. After all, there is now impeccable evidence that a conspiracy was planned in Pakistan. It was executed with the active -- (inaudible) -- of peoples who are still roaming around freely in Pakistan.
And therefore, I respectfully request the world community to use all its influence on the power that be in Pakistan to desist from that sort of behavior.
Richard N. Haass: I just have two last questions and then I'll open it up, and they actually both deal with China.
At the recent meeting between President Obama and President Hu, there was obviously, as everyone in this room knows, a reference to China's role in your part of the world. Is that something that India would welcome?
Manmohan Singh: Let me say, what happens between President Obama and President Hu is not our direct concern. We want the world to prepare for the peaceful rise of China as a major power. So engagement is the right strategy, both for India as well as the United States.
We, ourselves, have tried very hard to engage China in the last five years. And today, China is one of our major trading partners.
But we also recognize that we have a long-standing border problem with China. We are trying to resolve it through dialogue. In the meanwhile, both our countries have agreed that, pending the resolution of the border problem, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the border line.
Having said that, I would like to say that I have received these assurances from the Chinese leadership at the highest level. But there is a certain amount of assertiveness on the part of the Chinese. I don't fully understand the reasons for it. That has to be taken note of.
Richard N. Haass: Last question about China. There has been a lot of talk in the literature about the comparison of the Indian and the Chinese approaches to development. A question I had is, why do you believe that India's is preferable, assuming you do, given that China has grown at a higher rate for more years?
Manmohan Singh: Well, there is no doubt that the Chinese growth performance is superior to Indian performance. But I've always believed that there are other values which are important than the growth of the gross domestic product. I think the respect for fundamental human rights, the respect for the rule of law, the respect for multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious rights, I think those have values also.
There are several dimensions of human freedom, which are not always (caught ?) by the numbers with regard to the gross domestic product. So I do believe that even though the Indian performance with regard to GDP might not be as good as the Chinese, certainly I would not like to choose the Chinese, but I would prefer to stick to the India part.
Also, I believe India may appear as indecisive democracy at times. And it does, because many democracies are short-term maximizers. They're not able to take a long-term view.
But I have also believed that once a democracy decides on the basis of a wide-ranging consensus, any reforms that are undertaken will be far more durable, will be far more effective than reforms introduced by the writ of a ruling group in a non-democratic setup.
Richard N. Haass: Ladies and gentlemen, you've just been treated to an economist saying there's more to life than GDP. (Laughter and applause.) This is an important moment. (Laughs.)
That was a wonderful answer, by the way.
Let me open it up to questions. Please, wait for a microphone. Speak directly. Let us know who you are and with whom you are affiliated. The shorter, the better.
Yes, ma'am.
Questioner: Beverly Lindsay, Penn State University. My question in terms of your being a former professor as well as prime minister, you mentioned the idea of partnerships, particularly in higher education. Are there new areas that we should be considering? And do they include areas, like public engagement?
And because you have such diverse populations, like the United States, can we both learn from each other?
Manmohan Singh: Well, because of our diversity, I believe there are enormous opportunities for us to enter into dialogue, how to manage diversities. We have many (cause ?). We have great regional disparities. And we certainly can learn a great deal from each of those experience of the type of exchanges that you have mentioned.
Richard N. Haass: C. Fred Berkston.
Questioner: Mr. Prime Minister --
Manmohan Singh: That's an unfair advantage. I -- (inaudible) -- able to answer your question. (Laughter.)
Richard N. Haass: Oh, I think you're okay.
Questioner: He's afraid I'm going to revert to the economist mode. (Laughs.) An easy question, Mr. Prime Minister. In your earlier speech today, at the outset of it, you talked about economics being at the foundation of relations between countries. And I wanted to ask you a question in that vein.
Your government has negotiated free trade agreements with a number of your trading partners -- ASEAN, Korea. And you're now talking with the European Union, Japan, Canada and others. My question is, what about the United States? Would you be interested in a free trade negotiation with the United States, particularly since, in the absence thereof, if you do complete trade agreements with all your other major partners, you'll be discriminating against the United States, and it might make it more difficult to carry out the kind of relationship we all want?
Manmohan Singh: Well, there is no easy answer to your question. I do recognize the trade diversion effects of (these free trading ?) agreements. And to your question, would we like to have a free trade agreement with the United States? Let me say, my first preference is that the multilateral trading system itself should evolve in a direction where there is a reduced role for trade distortions, represented by tariff and non-tariff barriers. So I sincerely hope that the Doha round can succeed.
We belong to a region where we cannot have tight regional arrangements like the European Union have. In our regions, for various historical reasons, we're not able to have a reasonable tariff union of the type that exists in some other parts of the world.
So our first preference would be that the multilateral trading system should evolve in a direction in which there is a reduced amount of tariff distortions which distort the flow of trade and goods and services.
But I do have to recognize that today that more than 50 percent of world trade takes place behind regional tariff walls and tariff agreements. And if so, I've not studied this question, but the ambassador was telling me this morning that the United States has some hesitancy in talking about a free trade (agreement with India ?). I don't mind exploring the possibilities of a free trade agreement with the United States.
Richard N. Haass: Mr. Gadbaw.
Questioner: Prime Minister Singh, it's great to see you again. My name is Michael Gadbaw, I'm with Georgetown University Law School. My question is, in 20 years, almost 20 years, since you introduced some very significant reforms, we've seen a very dramatic change in the relationship between the Indian government and the Indian economy. As you look down the road, do you think, in the next years, we will see as dramatic a set of changes in that relationship?
Manmohan Singh: Well, I have no doubt about that. I said in my speech that our ambition is to ensure that the Indian economy grows at the average annual rate of about 9 percent per annum, which was the growth rate preceding the current years and the previous years of the last five years.
And if our economy grows at the rate of 9 percent -- and 72 divided by nine, eight -- in eight years, we will double the national income of our country. And therefore, by 2020, India should join the ranks of middle-income economies if we do succeed in growing at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
And I am confident our growth is, unlike China, not dependent on external stimulants. Our growth is largely fueled by our domestic demand. And our savings rate is as high as 35 percent per annum. Our investment rate in recent years has been as high as 37 percent per annum.
As an economist, I know the rough rule of (thought ?). I think that a capital output ratio of four to one, if you save 35 percent of your GDP, you should be able to reach a growth rate of 9 percent per annum, that that's our vision. And I am confident that the Indian economy will move in that direction in the next two, three decades.
Richard N. Haass:What is the biggest impediment? What concerns you most that could get in the way of that?
Manmohan Singh: Well, I think that the concern that I have is the quality of our physical infrastructure. We need a lot more investment in infrastructure. We need a lot more investment in human resource development, in education, in skill formation. These are the three critical, I think, constraints which we are trying to address. And I am confident, over a period of time we will be able to address them.
And I invite the United States investors and the members of the academic communities and the university system to work with us so that we overcome these disabilities.
Richard N. Haass: Since we started a few minutes late, is it okay if we run a few minutes over? Is that all right? Not too long, I promise.
Yes, sir.
Questioner: Thanks. David Gartner with the Brookings Institution. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister for your remarks, especially around the partnership between the United States and India, around responding to global poverty and enhancing education for all children.
And my question is, given India's leadership now within the G20 as well as the bilateral relationship, do you see the G20 as a forum that could take on these issues of development?
And might, given the Indian experience might initiatives around something like education and education for all be something that could be a first-development initiative of the G20?
Manmohan Singh: Well, the G20 is a very helpful evolution. And I compliment President Obama for having taken the initiative at Pittsburgh to bring it about.
But it is in a state of infancy. It is still grappling with the macroeconomic problems and ensuring that the idea of a peer review of the performance of the macroeconomic performance of the 20 countries takes root. But it could evolve. I have no doubt that it will evolve. But in which direction, I think it is too early to predict at this stage.
Richard N. Haass: Since it may be a while before India can get a seat on the U.N. Security Council, would you favor, at least as an interim measure, the idea of the G20 taking on a political as well as an economic role?
Manmohan Singh: I'm sorry, I have not thought it through. As of now, the G20 forum is a purely economic forum. And from whatever I have heard other members of the G20, I don't think they are prepared to give political, I think, muscle.
I was with the Canadian prime minister a few days ago. He was our guest in Delhi. And I raised this issue with him. He said, no, no, no, as far as the G8 is concerned, we want to maintain it, because we want to discuss political issues. As far as G20 is concerned, we will discuss economic issues. (Laughter.)
Richard N. Haass: Canada has a special reason to keep the G8 going. (Laughs.) I think it's one-eighth of it.
Advertisement
Manmohan Singh: (Inaudible) -- is willing. (Laughter.)
Questioner: Mr. Prime Minister, I'm John McCormick with the Energy Policy Center. It's an honor to be addressing this question to you.
Mr. Prime Minister, when I think about the tensions in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, I look 20 years out, and I see that the common enemy for all these countries will be water. Now, I have a feeling that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation could be a focal point for bringing all the Himalayan nations together to talk about their common enemy, that is, melting glaciers.
And I'm wondering if the SAARC might find a way to expand its portfolio to include some very aggressive adaptation, because South Asian nations are victims, they are not perpetrators of climate change.
Manmohan Singh: I entirely agree with you that water is going to be probably the most critical (dynamic ?) of our growth profiles in the 21st century. And therefore, the common Himalayan river system, which provides -- (inaudible) -- the water resources both of India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Afghanistan, I think we have to take a holistic view.
But politics is the art of the possible. The way the SAARC region has evolved, it has not, I think, grown, I think, to the extent to which one can say that we are ready to take on this additional burden of water management. But I sincerely hope that in due course of time I think water will be one area where our nations of South Asia will have to think together, think collectively to find effective, practical, pragmatic solutions to the problems of water management in our region.
Richard N. Haass: I'm getting the proverbial signal, so we've got time for one last question. After the prime minister answers it, I ask that people remain seated while the prime minister and his delegation have to depart.
Yes, ma'am, you had a question there. Yes.
And let me apologize for having alienated so many of you who I was unable to call upon.
Questioner: Thank you very much. And it's a privilege to have the last question. Thank you for your remarks.
Richard N. Haass: You have to introduce yourself.
Questioner: Sorry. (Name inaudible) -- I work as an independent consultant on gender equality.
It was encouraging indeed to hear your emphasis on factors other than hardcore economy and finance. In this regard, you talked about democratic values, human rights. And one sees India playing a leadership role in that region, on so many fronts. And I just wondered if you could tell us a little bit on the kind of role that you envision for India in terms of promotion of human rights, in particular women's rights, minority rights, and some bold steps for poverty alleviation.
Manmohan Singh: Well, human rights are enshrined in the constitution of India. And we're very proud of the fact that our codes are very jealous of protecting the human rights of our citizens.
With regard to women's rights, I think our constitution gives men and women equal right. At the age of 18, all men and women can vote in all elections in our country. And it is our ambition, as a party, to bring about constitutional changes where at least 33 percent of all seats in our Parliament would be reserved for women. We have not been able to evolve a broad-based consensus, but that's a commitment that we made in our election manifesto of the Congress Party. We will make every effort to fulfill that.
But today, we have a situation where the president of our ruling coalition is a woman of extraordinary qualities, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. The president of India is a woman. The speaker of the lower house of our Parliament is a woman. So women are playing an increasingly important role. But I do agree with you that much more needs to be done, could be done, should be done. And that's our commitment to our people. We owe it to them, we owe it to our women to improve their lots a lot more than we have done in the past.
Richard N. Haass: A wise comment from any gentleman.
Mr. Prime Minister, on behalf of both the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, we just really want to both thank you for honouring us with your presence. We appreciate both your insights and your candor.
And I know I speak for everyone in wishing you every success, both in this state visit to the United States and, perhaps even more important, in the work that still lies ahead of you when you return to the wonderful country of India.
So thank you very much. And again, all the best. (Applause.)
