Lectures & Speeches

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Alumni
• Press

Remarks made on the occasion of the Asia Foundation Conference on
AMERICA'S ROLE IN ASIA: CHALLENGES FOR A NEW ADMINISTRATION
San Francisco, California
January 28, 2005

A Second Term Agenda for South Asia

Remarks as prepared by Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth
John O. Rankin Professor of the Practice of International Affairs
Elliott School of International Affairs
The George Washington University

Thank you for this opportunity to take part in The Asia Foundation's conference "to assess critical challenges and leading opportunities in America's relations in Asia to be faced by the new Bush administration."I am especially pleased to be addressing the question of "America's Role in South Asia,"a region of growing importance to the United States and of great professional and personal interest to me.

RICE'S INSIGHTS

A good place to begin would be to ask how the new Administration sees those challenges and opportunities. At her Senate confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State (which I attended) Condoleezza Rice shed some light on this subject. In her opening statement she had this to say about South Asia, beginning with U.S. relations with India.

"As we move forward,"Rice said, "America's relations with the world's global powers will be critical."First mentioning Russia and China, she then turned to India: "The United States is cooperating with India, the world's largest democracy, across a range of economic and security issues. "Then she segued to Pakistan: "This, even as we embrace Pakistan as a vital ally in the war on terror, and a state in transition towards a more moderate and democratic future."

She also spoke about a third South Asia nation, Afghanistan, and linked it with the current challenges being faced in Iraq. "By standing with the free peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan,"she said, "we will continue to bring hope to millions, and democracy to a part of the world where it is sorely lacking."

• Although brief, these references do provide some useful insights into how the new Secretary of State—and a second Bush administration—will view South Asia in the weeks and months ahead. Specifically:India is to be seen as one of "the world's global powers"
• "Economic and security issues"are our top priorities with India
• Pakistan is seen first and foremost as a "vital ally in the war on terror"
• Pakistan and its president, Gen. Musharraf, are given the benefit of the doubt on his plans to restore democracy and a civilian government—saying Pakistan is now in "a state of transition towards a...democratic future."
• And finally, as for Afghanistan, the new Secretary placed that country (along with Iraq) in the broad context of President Bush's Inaugural speech of bringing freedom and democracy to peoples around the world, thereby placing it at the top of the President's second-term foreign policy agenda.

Condoleezza Rice's remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee set the stage for how one can expect the new Administration to address South Asia's challenges and opportunities in a second term. Now let me offer my own assessment and recommendations for a second-term Bush agenda for the region.

MAINTAIN THE UPWARD TRAJECTORY IN RELATIONS WITH INDIA

Let me begin with India and the need to maintain the upward trajectory in our relationship that began during President Clinton's second term in office and continued—indeed expanded—during President Bush's first four years.

Some of you may have read about a recently issued report entitled "Mapping the Global Future."It's an unclassified study done by the CIA's think tank, the National Intelligence Council—known by its acronym, the NIC. The report by the NIC's "2020 Project"is based on consultations with nongovernmental experts around the world.

Let me read you an excerpt from the report that will help to explain why both the Clinton and the Bush administrations decided it was high time to get our long estranged relationship with India on the right track.

This excerpt is contained in a chapter entitled "Rising Powers: The Changing

Geopolitical Landscape":

"The likely emergence of China and India as new major global players—similar to the rise of Germany in the 19th century and the United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape, with impacts potentially as dramatic as those of the previous two centuries. In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the ‘American century,'the early 21st century may be seen as the time when some in the developing world, led by China and India, come into their own."

And on what basis does the NIC reach that conclusion? Here's what the report goes on to say:

"A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, active promotion of high technologies, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries."

Finally, in another section of the report, the NIC states that, taking various factors into account, "India could emerge as the world's fastest growing economy as we head towards 2020."

Like the National Intelligence Council, others in government (including myself) finally took note of the role that India has the potential to play in the 21st century—and how that role can enhance the political, economic and security interests of the United States. I therefore believe that the most important challenge the Bush administration will face with respect to India in its second term—and its greatest opportunity—is to maintain the current upward trajectory in this critical relationship.

Most recently we saw our relations further strengthened by our close cooperation—along with Japan and Australia—in responding to the tsunami disaster. Our new military-to-military ties with New Delhi helped make this cooperation possible and effective.

Another important step for us to take is to move forward on implementing the so-called "Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership"agreement, or NSSP. And a third step would be one of enormous political and symbolic value—a visit by President Bush to India in his second term, something White House officials have said will take place, preferably this year. President Clinton's five-day visit to India in 2000 has been described by Indian officials as the "turning point"in opening a new chapter in our relations. President Bush's visit can add another important chapter to this story.

GREATER ENGAGEMENT WITH THE INDIA-PAKISTAN PEACE PROCESS

Even before the president travels to India, I would hope the new Bush administration would take another step. It is time for the United States to signal that it wants to become more engaged—more proactive—in supporting the peace process that has been unfolding between India and Pakistan, albeit rather fitfully in recent days.

As you all know, more than a year ago, India extended a "hand of friendship" to Pakistan. Pakistan responded by proposing a cease-fire along the Line of Control, which separates the two countries' forces in Kashmir. India accepted and the guns remain silent, although just this past week both sides alleged violations. India also pulled a small number of troops out of Kashmir, the first such cutback since the anti-Indian insurgency began there in 1989. For its part, Pakistan's pledge not to allow Islamic militants to use its territory as a base to mount attacks inside Indian-controlled Kashmir appears to be holding.

Today, a formal schedule of talks is underway, on all subjects including Kashmir. In February, in New Delhi, there will be a meeting of the commerce secretaries of the two countries—which will be their first round of talks on trade matters at the experts'level.

Meanwhile, what role should the United States play? The answer is, more than the Bush administration has been willing to so far.

An independent task force, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society, commended the Bush administration during its first term for "swinging into action [in 2001 and 2002] whenever some egregious terrorist act threatened to spark a wider India-Pakistan conflict," but added that "this has been short-term crisis management, not part of any longer-term effort or strategy to help India and Pakistan manage their tensions, reduce the chances of nuclear war, and progress toward a modus vivendi."

The task force recommended—as did the panel of experts convened by the Asia Foundation for its report "America's Role in Asia"—that the US should adopt a "more active and more forward leaning" approach in support of the peace process that is currently under way.

A first step in this regard would be for the new Secretary of State to establish a special working group among those dealing with South Asian affairs in Washington. Its purpose would be to better track developments and discussions between New Delhi and Islamabad—and in Kashmir itself—and to provide ideas and guidance to US officials in India and Pakistan, and senior visitors to the region, on how progress can best be achieved.

Clearly the Bush administration's second-term foreign policy agenda will be very full, as we see with the Iraqi elections. But room should be made in that agenda for the promising opportunity for peace that presents itself today between India and Pakistan.

DEMOCRACY ALSO COUNTS IN PAKISTAN

The report by the 9/11 Commission identified three countries that are most critical to the US in countering the terrorist threat. First was Pakistan. The commission correctly listed the most pressing issues on the US agenda in Pakistan: countering the al-Qaeda and Taliban threat, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan; preventing leakage of nuclear weapons technology on to black markets (this, of course, refers to the A.Q. Khan affair); and shoring up Pakistan's weak political, judicial and social institutions so it can become a properly governed and hopefully democratic, moderate Muslim state. As I have already stated, encouraging moves toward peace with India belong on this list as well.

Unfortunately, during its first term the Bush administration adopted a largely one-dimensional policy toward Pakistan, focusing its high-level attention on the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Bush administration has similarly stressed its personal relationship with President Pervez Musharraf on the argument that only he has real authority and that the alternatives are worse.

During its second term, the Bush administration should broaden its policy. Pakistan's current leaders are of course critically important. But US policy needs to reserve some of its attention for the people and institutions who will still be around in the event that Musharraf is replaced. It needs to be working more directly with Pakistan to open up the political process well in advance of the national elections which are to be held in 2007.

The US should also provide generous economic and social development aid, indeed more that the $1.5 billion over five years that the Bush administration has offered. Education should be the principal focus of this aid, along with projects aimed at strengthening the country's faltering political institutions.

Colin Powell recently said about Pakistan and its political development that, "you have to keep some perspective about where they were and where they are now and where you hope they are heading in the future." It is this "future" that has been missing in the Bush administration's first-term policy. Pakistan will be crucial to US security for many years to come and it is for that reason that America must treat all its objectives in Pakistan—including democracy and non-proliferation—with the same seriousness of purpose it now accords to the war on terrorism. A second term provides the Bush administration with that opportunity.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN AFGHANISTAN

Turning to Afghanistan, much unfinished business remains to be done. Three years after U.S.-led forces removed the Taliban from power, grave challenges remain. The drug trade threatens to turn the country into a narco-state. Remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda continue to undermine the peace and stability of the country. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still at large. Local Afghan warlords defy the authority of the central government in Kabul. And economic development remains a distant hope.

But, fortunately, recent news from Afghanistan is encouraging and, in some cases, even inspiring. Over 8 million Afghans, 70 percent of registered voters, went to the polls in October to cast their ballot. Forty percent of those who voted were women. Hamid Karzai, the first democratically elected President in Afghanistan's history, took office in December.

But for Afghanistan to respond to the multiple challenges it still faces, it must receive high-level attention and resources during the second Bush term. The most pressing issues are combating the narcotics trade, the upcoming parliamentary elections—for which Karzai has recently requested more NATO forces, the continuing demobilization of warlord militias and the buildup of the Afghan National Army and police, the eradication of landmines, and an acceleration of reconstruction efforts in a country that was virtually destroyed during three decades of war and internal conflict.

But even here there is a glimmer of hope. The first pocket tourist guide for Kabul was recently published by Bradt Travel, with a smiling young Afghan girl on the cover. The guidebook includes sections on where to stay, where to eat, shopping, what to do, what to see, and excursions beyond Kabul.

Clearly, times have changed in Afghanistan—and there is hope for the future.

OTHER CHALLENGES

Before proceeding to my final point, let me add that the critical challenges the new Administration faces in South Asia go beyond those presented in my remarks on India and Pakistan and Afghanistan. First, there is the continuing effort to bring relief and reconstruction assistance to those who suffered so tragically in the tsunami disaster. Here the Bush administration must be prepared to stay the course—with the international community—for the long haul, and not turn its attention and resources away once the region's immediate needs are met.

The other two urgent challenges in the region are the increasingly violent Maoist insurgency in Nepal and the stalled peace process in Sri Lanka, involving the government and the Tamil Tigers. During its first term, the Bush administration was involved in both these issues at a high level—Secretary Powell was the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Nepal and Deputy Secretary of State Armitage devoted considerable time and effort to Sri Lanka.

It is hoped that the State Department under Secretary Rice and her team will stay as directly involved as their immediate predecessors.

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND SOUTH ASIA

Let me conclude with where I began my remarks—the opening statement of Condoleezza Rice at her Senate confirmation hearing. Of the many issues she addressed, one I believe has a special resonance for South Asia—and that is public diplomacy.

The Asia Foundation's report on "America's Role in Asia: Asian Views"contains this very pointed and disturbing statement:

"The widening gap between the present conduct of U.S. foreign policy and the lofty principles and values that American diplomacy is known to be built upon such as pluralism, civil liberty, social justice, rule of law, and human rights is a matter of grave concern to the friends of America in the region."

Among its recommendations, the report called on the U.S. to expand and diversify its public diplomacy efforts to bridge this widening gap in perception and understanding between the U.S. and South Asia. The report specifically urged the U.S. to pursue new initiatives to improve its relations with Muslims in South Asia through "regular dialogues and exchanges with civil society, media, academics, and think tanks."More scholarship programs for students from South Asia were also urged, as well as insuring that U.S. immigration laws avoid targeting Muslim students.

On these issues, it would appear the new Secretary of State is on the same page. In her statement to the Committee, Rice said:

"...We will increase our exchanges with the rest of the world...Americas should make a serious effort to understand other cultures ... Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue...America must remain open to visitors and workers and students from around the world...If our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot close ourselves off from the world."

And then Rice pledged to the Committee: "...if I am confirmed, public diplomacy will be a top priority for me and the professionals I lead."

In this fundamentally important mission of greater international understanding, I am sure all of us at this Asia Foundation conference wish Secretary Rice and the new Bush administration great success.

Thank you very much.