President Bush Interviewed by Aziz Haniffa of India Abroad
"Relations with India will be high priority during second term"
India Abroad (print edition), pgs. A1, A4
September 3, 2004
Highlights:
- There is a general consensus in India about the need to continue reforming
the economy.
- Ties with India and security on the subcontinent will be high priorities
during a second term.
- India and Pakistan are going to have to keep talking and we have no
mediation role.
- Our relations with India have many dimensions; they do not rest on
one decision.
- Designation of Pakistan as Major Non-NATO Ally does not mean an infusion
of sophisticated weapons.
- Indian Americans have taken their place in the American mainstream.
President George W. Bush has said he is "absolutely committed to
building an enhanced, comprehensive relationship" with India, including
moving forward the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership and looks forward
to working with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who he is scheduled
to meet later this month on the margins of the United Nations General
Assembly in New York.
In an exclusive interview with India Abroad, his first with a South Asian
newspaper, on the eve of the Republican National Convention in New York,
the president lauded India for being "an outstanding partner in the
global war on terror," and said he sees India playing "an important
role in consolidating democracy and peace in South Asia and the rest of
the world."
Q. With the advent of a new government in India, led by the Congress
Party but a coalition comprising leftist and Communist parties, are you
still committed to a long-term strategic partnership with India? Do you
intend to implement the next steps in the strategic partnership that you
announced in January, after you and then Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee
committed yourselves to such a partnership three years ago?
A. I am absolutely committed to building an enhanced, comprehensive relationship
with the government of India. The United States and India have common
interests and we need to pursue a healthy, long-term, mutually beneficial
relationship. I believe there is broad agreement with that point of view
in India and the United States.
Q. If you are still committed to that partnership, what are the specific
areas where you see the most progress in the next few years?
A. India has been an outstanding partner in the global war on terror,
and we expect that will continue. I believe there's a general consensus
in India about the need to continue reforming the economy. This will benefit
both our countries in the longer term. We will also continue to work hard
together on moving forward the new initiative the Next Steps in Strategic
Partnership, to enhance our civil nuclear, space and high technology cooperation
as India's export control and nonproliferation regimes are strengthened.
I also believe that India, as the world's most populous democracy, should
have an important role in consolidating democracy and peace in South Asia
and the rest of the world.
Q. And, in this regard, do you believe the United States and India
can be a unified catalyst in pushing for democratization in the world?
A. Yes. India is a good example to other developing countries that democracy
can withstand and defeat terrorism, assassinations, wars, and poverty.
Q. When you last met with Vajpayee on the sidelines of the United
Nations General Assembly session in New York and hosted a luncheon for
him at the Waldorf, you told him how much you were looking forward to
visiting India and mentioned to him that every time you run into Indian
Americans, they keep urging you to visit India at your earliest [opportunity].
If reelected, would a visit to India be one of your foreign policy priorities
and if so, will it be an exclusive trip to India or will it also include
other South Asian countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka?
A. Certainly relations with India and security on the subcontinent will
be high priorities during a second term. I very much hope I will have
the opportunity to visit India.
Q. A few days after the new government came into office in India,
you spoke to the new prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to congratulate him.
Besides offering him your best wishes, what were some of the other things
the two of you discussed on your 8-minute call?
A. We had a good conversation. My intention was to congratulate him,
to get acquainted, and to reinforce our desire to continue our very positive
relationship with India under his government. I look forward to working
with him.
Q. As you know, since Vajpayee extended an olive branch to Pakistan
to begin a peace process in South Asia, both countries have engaged in
a dialogue to seek rapprochement, which could ultimately lead to a resolution
of their differences and the tensions that have existed for decades. You
have been lavish in your praise over this development. But besides lauding
both sides, how do you propose to encourage this peace process to build
up momentum and resolve some of the contentious issues like Kashmir?
A. India and Pakistan are well aware of the stakes involved in the bilateral
relationship. We are particularly concerned about the nuclear risk, and
we want to be helpful. India and Pakistan are responsible for their relationship.
These tensions have existed for many years. I believe that steady progress
is possible as long as good faith exists on both sides. We continue to
urge both sides to work together towards peace and have offered help as
required by both parties.
We are not a mediator, and it is up to India and Pakistan to maintain
the momentum. The recent bilateral dialogues are a positive sign and we
are hopeful that the two parties will continue to work together as they
have been in recent months.
Q. In this regard, the U.S. policy has been to encourage both India
and Pakistan to resolve their differences including the Kashmir issue,
bilaterally. You have made this clear in your meetings with Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf, including in your meeting in New York last
year and earlier when you hosted him at Camp David, despite Pakistan's
imploring the US to get involved and mediate this problem. Will this continue
to be your policy, or do you see the US playing a more proactive role
like in the Middle East or Northern Ireland to generate momentum in the
peace process, perhaps, with a road map of sorts?
A. Every conflict in the world has its own dynamic. I don't view our
involvement in Northern Ireland or the Middle East as a template to be
rigidly applied to all other areas of the world. Kashmir is a disagreement
of long-standing, and feelings about it in the two countries often run
deep. India and Pakistan are going to have to keep talking and working
to see how they can reduce tensions and build confidence in the short
run and where they can reach agreement in the long run. We have no mediation
role here. We are however a friend, urging both sides to work together
to achieve peace in the region.
Q. With the recent passage of the US and British-sponsored resolution
in the United Nations giving the world body a supervisory role in Iraq
and the turning over of power and sovereignty to the new Iraqi interim
government, will you once again request India -- as you have in the past
-- to provide peacekeeping troops in Iraq and be part of the coalition
forces to help stabilize the situation in that country?
A. We would like all the great nations of the world to participate in
the multinational force that will help Iraq complete the transition to
peace and democracy. That would include India, of course, which has a
great deal of skill, experience, and credibility to contribute to the
multinational force. With the new Iraqi interim government in place, it
is their prerogative to determine their security needs.
Q. If India still refuses to do so, are you confident that U.S.-India
relations will not be adversely impacted and the growing relations would
continue unabated? Can you assure India that this will be the case and
that the blossoming U.S.-India relations are irreversible and India's
refusal to commit troops to beef up the coalition forces will not dislocate
this envisaged U.S.-India strategic partnership?
A. There are many ways that other nations can contribute to the development
of democracy and stability in Iraq. While we greatly appreciate India's
participation as an ally in the war on terror, we certainly respect India's
sovereign right to make its own choices. Our relations with India have
many dimensions; they do not rest on one decision. I believe the Government
of India takes the same view, and we look forward to developing our strong
relations. I also note that the force in Iraq today, to which other nations
are considering contributing troops, is a multinational force that is
now explicitly sanctioned by the U.N.
Q. Mr. President, India was hugely disappointed and angered when Secretary
of State Colin Powell announced in Islamabad in March that Pakistan would
be accorded Major Non-NATO Ally status, which you officially announced
by your statement on June 16. India was particularly disappointed because
before going to Islamabad, Mr. Powell had been in New Delhi meeting with
the then-prime minister and other senior officials and did not breathe
a word of this pending announcement to the Indians. Is this the way to
consolidate a friendship and treat a future strategic partner? India still
considers this a slap in the face and a huge insult, and some analysts
and commentators have gone so far as to say that this was also a contributing
factor to the defeat of the last government.
A. Our relationship with India exists on its own merits and is independent
of our relationship with Pakistan. This is good for India, Pakistan, and
the United States. We are well aware of the sensitivities in the Indian-Pakistani
relationship and we will continue to build strong bilateral relationships
with both countries. Again ours is a mature and multifaceted relationship
that is not dependent on one issue or one event.
Q. And in this regard -- designating Pakistan and Major Non-NATO Ally
which essentially means that Pakistan can receive sophisticated weapons
and enter into a defense and security partnership with the United States
-- won't this increase instability in South Asia and lead to an arms race
as the Indians argue?
A. Absolutely not. Our position on stability on the subcontinent has
been clear, and it would be wrong to assume that designation of Pakistan
as a Major Non-NATO Ally automatically means that there will be an infusion
of sophisticated weapons into Pakistan.
Q. Mr. President, as you know, India was the first country to unequivocally
declare its support for the US global war against terrorism following
9/11, and has been in the forefront of this war on global terrorism. However,
India continues to be very disappointed in what it sees as a "double
standard" by the US in what it believes is your administration's
pandering to Pakistan despite what India says is Pakistan's fomenting
of cross-border terrorism in India, particularly Jammu & Kashmir.
India has been deeply disappointed that the US has not been able to get
Pakistan to permanently halt this cross-border terrorism, which although
now significantly reduced, still continues. How do you assuage India's
hurt feelings and concerns on this score, and also on what India sees
as lukewarm pressure on President Musharaff by your administration to
return Pakistan to democratic and civilian rule?
A. Both India and Pakistan are major allies in the global war on terror
based on the very different positions they find themselves in. Pakistan
has a very important role to play in the global war on terror under very
difficult circumstances, and Pakistan has made and continues to make indispensable
contributions to the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
India too has played a significant and important role in the war on terrorism.
As you have noted, the situation on infiltration has improved, and we
expect it to continue to improve. Pakistani success in the war on Al Qaeda
and other Islamic terrorist organizations is in India's interest. Defeat
of these groups will enhance security for the whole region and the world.
Q. Coming to domestic issues, the role of the Indian American community
and the contributions they have made in all areas from medicine to education
and from high technology to business, etc., which you have acknowledged
and praised on several occasions. If reelected, would you appoint Indian
Americans to senior positions in your administration? Maybe even a cabinet
or sub-cabinet level post and not simply token appointments on various
boards and commissions? As you know, they not only have the qualifications
but impeccable credentials and all of the wherewithal to serve at senior-level
jobs.
A. I plan to continue to name the very best people to senior positions
regardless of race, religion, or national origin, as I always have. I
am proud of my administration's record in naming Indian Americans to high-level
positions. No administration has a better record than we do, and we are
proud to be the first administration to recognize Diwali, the Festival
of Lights, in the White House. My White House Office of Faith-based and
Community Initiatives was fortunate to have an Indian American as its
White House fellow, and he offered the Hindi prayer at one of our conferences.
And I am very pleased that we may have our very first Indian American
member of Congress in Bobby Jindal whom I previously appointed as an assistant
secretary of Health and Human Services.
But I think this all represents something important -- that Indian Americans
have taken their place in the American mainstream and made themselves
part of the fabric of this country through their hard work, their patriotism,
and their contributions.
Q. One issue that has evoked much controversy in recent months, although
the rhetoric has eased somewhat now, with the improving economy, is the
outsourcing issue, with India virtually serving as the back office of
the US Several bills have been introduced in Congress to curb or restrict
outsourcing and also restrict or eliminate the H-1B visa and the L-1 visa
program that has for decades brought highly skilled professionals, especially
from India, to this country. What are your views on outsourcing? Do you
believe that what some of these lawmakers are proposing is totally contrary
to the free-market and free trade views that the US continues to espouse?
A. The right way for America to respond to the challenges of our growing
and changing economy is not a retreat to economic isolationism but a pro-growth
economic agenda, a strong education system, and a helping hand for American
workers to gain the skills to secure good jobs. I know that economic changes
can cause painful dislocations for some workers and their families, and
I am committed to help ease these transitions and assist workers in preparing
for the global economy and the jobs of the future.
Global trade is vital to the success of our economy and job creation.
We need to continue to expand trade and work to open markets for American
goods and services. Millions of high paying American jobs depend on trade.
American farmers, who plant one in three acres for export, depend on trade.
And foreign-owned firms in the United States employ over six million Americans.
Q. Finally, even though you have been not once, but twice to the Islamic
Center after 9/11 and also met with Arab, Muslim and Sikh groups, the
paranoia and xenophobia after 9/11 continues and several South Asians,
including Indians in the US, have been subjected to hate crimes and racial
profiling, and some argue that the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II
that you keep pushing for have exacerbated the situation. Are you, and
your administration, committed to absolutely and unequivocally not tolerating
such racial profiling and hate crimes and how do you intend to stop this
rising incidence of attacks?
A. I have made it absolutely clear that we are waging a war against terror
and not against any group or religion. I am proud of the fact that communities
across the country have rallied to the support of people -- their friends
and neighbors -- who have been victims of prejudice, ignorance and fear
since the 9/11 attacks. This is the real spirit of the American people
and the spirit that guides my administration. We have a responsibility
to protect all the American people against attack, but we will not discard
our values of justice, tolerance, and respect for the dignity of the individual
in the process. My Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives has
reached out to all faiths, including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and other
faith-based organizations representing minority faiths in America.
|
