Links to U.S. official, academic and business viewpoints on US-India relations.

Sen. John Kerry: 'I will recognize the vital global role India will play in the 21st Century'

The Rediff Interview, October 12, 2004
India Abroad, October 15, 2004 (print edition pgs. 1, 6-7)

After scoring a scoop with his interview with US President George W Bush -- the only interview the president has granted any South Asian publication -- last month, Aziz Haniffa, National Affairs Editor at India Abroad, the leading newspaper for the Indian-American community owned by rediff.com, scored a unique double last week by interviewing Democratic Presidential candidate Senator John F. Kerry.

In an exclusive interview, published in this week's issue of India Abroad, Kerry refused to be nailed down to a commitment that if elected President he would appoint an Indian American to a cabinet or sub-cabinet level position.

He acknowledged the "extraordinary contributions to all aspects of American society" by Indian Americans and pledged that "as President, I will make every effort to involve Indian Americans at the highest levels of my administration."

In the interview, Kerry, evidently buoyed by his victory over President Bush in their first debate September 30, took some swipes at the president for what he believed was the Bush administration's zero-sum policy toward India and Pakistan.

Q. Why should Indian Americans vote for you?

A. The issues of concern to the Indian-American community will be priorities in my administration. They have been throughout my career. During my 20 years in the Senate, I have consistently fought for issues important to the Indian-American community -- economic and educational opportunity; a meaningful role in politics; justice and fair play; an end to discrimination, ethnic profiling and harassment; and a genuine partnership between India and the United States. We share the same goals.

Q. If elected President, would you appoint Indian Americans to senior positions in your administration, maybe even to a cabinet or sub-cabinet level position?

A. Indian Americans have made extraordinary contributions to all aspects of American society. It is time they are fully represented in the government. As President, I will make every effort to involve Indian Americans at the highest levels of my administration. The Democratic Party has historically done a better job than the Republican Party when it comes to making the government truly representative of the diversity of America. Still there is more we can do, and when I am President, we will.

Nearly 50 years ago Dalip Singh Saund, a Democrat, was elected to Congress. I was very disappointed to read (India Abroad, September 3) that President George W. Bush claimed Bobby Jindal would be the first Indian American elected to Congress. The President was wrong. He did a disservice to Saund. The Indian-American community and our relationship with India are too important to receive attention only at election time.

Q. If elected, would a trip to India be one of your foreign policy priorities?

A. Absolutely. Presidential visits to India should become a matter of tradition, as visits to European capitals are. Presidents (Bill) Clinton and (Jimmy) Carter went to India. Given the importance of our relationship, it makes sense for every American President to visit the world's largest democracy -- at least once. I am disappointed that President Bush has not made this a priority. A Presidential visit is important to support growing ties -- something that I believe to be in our national interest, and in India's interest.

I was in India in December 1999, a few months before President Clinton's visit, to participate in the World Economic Forum's India Economic Summit. I had an opportunity to meet a number of Indian officials, including then prime minister (Atal Bihari) Vajpayee, his national security adviser and the defense minister. During the course of these meetings, it became very clear to me that India wanted a better relationship with the United States.

Q. President Bush, in an exclusive interview with India Abroad, said he was 'absolutely committed to building an enhanced, comprehensive relationship with the government of India.' Will you be equally committed to such a relationship with India if elected?

A. Absolutely. It is vital we strengthen and broaden our relationship with India. Vajpayee rightly said our two countries are and should be 'natural allies.' When I gave a speech in the Senate in 2001 about the future of US-India relations, I used that same phrase. It is appropriate and important that we back the words with action. The time is long overdue for the United States to distinguish, once and for all, between India and Pakistan and to treat each differently and according to the demands of those bilateral relationships.

As President, I will recognise the vital global role India will play in the 21st century. I will work closely with New Delhi -- and with members of the Indian-American community -- to strengthen a relationship built on shared values and interests.

Q. President Bush told India Abroad that if reelected, he would move forward in his new initiative -- the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership -- with India to 'enhance our civil nuclear, space and high technology cooperation as India's export control and nonproliferation regimes are strengthened.' Will you pursue the initiative or do you have any fresh ideas in terms of a partnership with India – strategic or otherwise?

A. The Bush administration has talked a lot about the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership with India. I am in agreement with the need for our two countries to find ways to move ahead in concert with our mutual security needs. Despite the lofty rhetoric, the NSSP has been more talk than action. I'll try to bring genuine improvement, not only on this, but on a range of economic and technological issues.

We should explore ways to broaden and deepen the bilateral relationship between our nations. There is simply no reason why our trade and investment with India should not dramatically increase.

Q. India and Pakistan are engaged in a dialogue to resolve long-standing differences. The US and international community fears the differences could result in a nuclear conflict. How would you encourage the peace process if elected?

A. Clearly it's in everyone's interest to promote this easing of tension. More than a year ago India extended a 'hand of friendship' to Pakistan, and Pakistan responded. Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh and President (Pervez) Musharraf recently held their first face-to-face meeting at the United Nations. We should do all we can to support the leaders of India and Pakistan as they demonstrate the political will to move this process forward.

My administration will focus on developments in South Asia on a consistent basis, not only when crises arise. I agree with a recent report of an independent task force, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society, that 'short-term crisis management' in the region is not enough. The task force said we should adopt a 'more active, and more forward-leaning American approach' to help India and Pakistan sustain efforts to normalise relations. As President, that is the approach I will take. I will work to promote intra-regional trade, including a normal economic relationship between India and Pakistan -- this is an important confidence building measure.

But we must keep in mind one fundamental fact. It is up to the two countries to reconcile long-standing differences, including Kashmir. The process must be 'homegrown.' But we should do everything we can to support it.

Q. US policy over the years has been to encourage India and Pakistan to resolve differences, including Kashmir, bilaterally. Washington has made it clear it will not mediate unless asked to by both sides. Pakistan has been imploring the US to do so while India has said no and asked the US and the international community only to facilitate a peace process. If elected, what policy will you put in place? Will you take a proactive US role in helping to resolve differences, particularly Kashmir?

A. We all have an interest in seeing the Kashmir issue resolved in a fair and equitable and - this is essential - peaceful manner. The Indians, and Pakistanis, have an even more direct interest in wanting to ensure this problem does not impede the progress made over the past year. The solution rests in New Delhi, Islamabad, and Srinagar. No solution can be imposed from the outside.

The US role over the years has been largely passive, reactive, and - with one or two exceptions, as when President Clinton persuaded Pakistan to turn back at the time of the 1999 Kargil crisis - secondary. We must view the Kashmir issue as something other than a crisis-management issue. We should not seek to impose any plan. We should be willing to give India and Pakistan as much help as they might jointly request. To give one example, we might provide technological assistance to help monitor cross-border activities.

In addition, we will push Pakistan to cutoff support for cross border terrorism.

Q. How would you - if elected President - convince India to join in a peacekeeping role in Iraq and help stabilize the country by internationalizing the coalition troops there, which is largely a US-led force with mercenaries a close second?

A. We must reclaim our country's standing in the world by leading in a way that brings others to us. We must be respected, not simply feared, around the globe.

India has a significant interest in a stable Iraq. But this administration has not made the case to India. Instead, the Bush administration has alienated friends. The President's rush to war without a plan to win peace has left our troops to pay the price. The failure to reverse course and come up with a plan for success means other nations don't even know the role they would be asked to fill. I will ensure our engagement with India involves issues and concerns that India cares about. I will discuss ways we might cooperate, and proposals that India might have. The dialogue will include relatively low-risk but critical roles, such as training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders.

This administration refused or waited too long to take concrete steps that would make clear our commitment to a truly international effort. Throughout, this administration has made lackluster efforts to bring other nations to the table. This is a tremendous failure of leadership and diplomacy. I will reach out to friends in New Delhi and and across the globe.

Q. India has been not only disappointed but quite peeved over President Bush's decision to designate Pakistan a Major Non-Nato Ally. What was your reaction?

A. This was another case where the President botched diplomacy. Time and again, the President has damaged our nation's friendships. Ironically, in moving to build our relationship with Pakistan, the President needlessly damaged our relationship with India. I am troubled by the way the administration implemented the decision - Secretary Colin Powell was in New Delhi before going to Islamabad. He didn't even give India the courtesy of a heads-up before dropping the bombshell. The administration seems to take India's goodwill for granted. As President I won't. I will give the US-India relationship the attention it deserves. This is important to our nation and it is important to our relationship with the world's largest democracy.

Q. Will you put pressure on President Musharraf to return Pakistan to civilian rule? How do you feel about massive American military largesse flowing into Pakistan? The Bush administration considers Pakistan a front-line ally in the global war on terror but India fears the weapons could one day be used against it?

A. Pakistan, like India, has been an important American ally in the war on terrorism. A secure, democratic, economically vibrant Pakistan is in everybody's interest - ours, India's, and, most of all the people of Pakistan. As President, I'll work hard to help Pakistanis build the kind of government and society that President Musharraf promised in his speech January 12, 2002.

I will work with President Musharraf's government and use American assistance and prestige to help Pakistanis build the political, economic and social institutions that are the foundation of democracy.

One key area is supporting moderate education. We have seen the dangers of radical madrassas that preach hatred and intolerance. But we have not done enough to support moderate alternatives. Pakistani youth need a good education to give them job skills and hope. The 9/11 Commission has recommended that we support education in Pakistan. I have endorsed the recommendation and called on the President to implement it immediately. Doing so is absolutely vital to prevent the emergence of a new generation of terrorists. It is a step I will take immediately.

Q. How much of pressure would you exert on Pakistan to eschew fomenting cross-border terrorism in India, particularly across the Line of Control into Kashmir?

A. Cross-border terrorism must stop. Period. I cannot say that often enough. The support Pakistan has given to terrorist actions in Kashmir - official or unofficial - must cease.

Q. If elected, would you support India's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council? Three of the Permanent Five - Britain, Russia and France - have said they would support India's candidacy. China has acknowledged it favors a larger role for India in the UN, though not committing to full-fledged support for a seat on the Security Council. Only the US has remained noncommittal on the issue.

A. India certainly merits serious consideration for a permanent seat in any Security Council expansion proposal. It is a thriving democracy. Its billion-plus people, its expanding economy, and its long-standing contribution to UN peacekeeping are important reasons that should be considered in the context of any Security Council reform. A high-level panel appointed by the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan will soon report on how to reform and revitalize the UN so that it will be capable of responding to threats we face today, including the grave threat of global terrorism. The panel's proposals as well as candidate support for international institutions and norms in a broad range of areas, will be carefully studied.

Q. Virtually all of your foreign policy advisers have indicated that nuclear and ballistic non-proliferation will be a top priority on your foreign policy agenda and you will resurrect the Clinton administration's top foreign policy priority of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Does this mean you will encourage India to sign the CTBT?

A. The CTBT promotes a vital interest shared by America, India and the rest of the world: stopping nuclear proliferation and preventing nuclear terrorism. The objectives are advanced when as many nations as possible fully embrace international non-proliferation norms and standards. I will work towards that. Ensuring our safety is about more than just the CTBT. India and the US have a very similar view of the need to implement a comprehensive international approach to prevent the transfer of nuclear materials and know-how to irresponsible governments and terrorists. I will work to strengthen cooperation with India in all vital aspects of nonproliferation This is where my priorities will lie.

Q. Your unambiguous and unequivocal stand against outsourcing has concerned India and by extension the Indian American community, which feels it is a case of targeting India as the whipping boy for political expediency even though facts belie the rhetoric. How can you allay these apprehensions? Your rhetoric have been seized upon by the Republican National Committee and even President Bush says you are anti-free trade and opposed to globalization and nothing but a protectionist at heart.

A. This is an issue about which some in the community are concerned. There have been misrepresentations of my position on the issue. What I am against is unfair tax laws that practically compel US companies to move operations overseas. I'm against a distorted tax code that rewards business leaders for shutting down American factories and laying off American workers, including those in the Indian American community. They have been hit particularly hard by job losses in the information technology and medical diagnosis sectors. Look at my record over two decades in the Senate. I have consistently supported free, fair and expanded trade. The outsourcing I oppose results from distortions and inequities in the tax code and other failures of a level playing field. I believe in a trade policy that builds jobs and improves the lives of of working men and women. I advocate a trade policy that is good for America and good for the world.

As an advocate of free and fair trade, I will make sure criticism of business practices which harm American workers doesn't generate a backlash against Indian Americans, the same way trade disputes with Japan in the 1980s led to incidents of anti-Asian bigotry. I have absolutely no use for anyone who uses the outsourcing debate as an excuse to fan flames of intolerance.

Q. Post-9/11, several innocent South Asian Americans and Indian Americans have been racially profiled and subjected to hate crimes. You have come out strongly against Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, arguing it is unconstitutional and un-American. Will you remove some of the draconian measures if elected? How will you remove concerns by Muslims, Arabs and South Asians that they are being unfairly targeted?

A. One of the great tragedies arising out of 9/11 is the way in which intolerance and discrimination have increased in this great land of ours. The effects of the post-9/11 climate of fear have been particularly severe on the South Asian community. Indian Americans have been targets of vicious slurs, heightened suspicions and even heinous hate crimes. The victims have included Sikhs and Hindus as well as Muslims. The administration does not appear to think hate crimes represent a serious threat to American values They are wrong. Such despicable acts have no place in our country.

In the Senate I have been at the forefront of the fight to strengthen hate crimes legislation. I have backed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which offers protection to workers from on-the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. I have supported legislation to end racial profiling. I have worked to provide real remedies for victims of the discriminatory practice.

I believe in an America that is safe and free. As President, I will defend our liberty and our security at home and appoint an attorney general who values and protects civil liberties. Like the eight justices of the US Supreme Court, I have rejected the Bush administration's policy of detaining American citizens indefinitely, without access to a lawyer or chance to prove innocence. Some provisions of the Patriot Act - like the money laundering provisions - must be made stronger. Others - like the library and 'sneak-and-peak' search provisions - must be made smarter, to better protect privacy and freedom while allowing our government to do everything necessary to track down terrorists and defend America.

As President, I will ensure the government is open and responsive to the needs and inquiries of Congress and the public, offering enough information to hold the government accountable without compromising security.