M K Narayanan
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, India
Ambassador Robert Blackwill
President, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, US
Pierre Lellouche
President, Franco-Indian Group, French National Assembly; President, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, France
Professor Xiaojun Heng
Vice President, China Foreign Affairs University, People's Republic of China
Questions and Answers
(Provisional transcript as delivered)
Siddarth Varadarajan
Mr Narayanan, there is a subliminal feeling globally that no major problem can be solved without India being involved in some way. One of the biggest issues confronting the world in terms of global security is the Iran nuclear issue. Why is India not playing any role? It is not part of the P5+1 arrangement, and it really seems to be on the periphery. Why are we seeing as the world, and particularly the United States, taking the Indian position for granted on this?
To Ambassador Blackwill, I do not think the US-UK special relationship is a very good model to advertise the future of the Indian bilateral relationship with the US. It is less a partnership than a one-way communication process, and we have seen how within the UK itself this special relationship is contested. There are some in India who probably find that attractive, and you have others who perhaps look at the US-France relationship as a better model. There are others who probably think that the US and India need to chart an entirely different kind of relationship. I am not sure that is necessarily a very helpful analogy.
Participant
Ambassador Blackwill said that he would like to see a lot more Indian diplomacy and a lot more US diplomacy towards Southeast Asia. Is that meant particularly in relation to the issue of Myanmar, or more broadly in terms of issues such as maritime security? Or, was he talking about competing with China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia? What are the mechanics of such an approach to Southeast Asia?
High Commissioner Shahid Malik
My question is also for Ambassador Blackwill. Objectivity should not be lost sight of. You commented on the recent elections in Pakistan and a return to democracy. Elections in Pakistan by all accounts have been extremely fair and transparent. You say that nobody knows what is going to happen and that the future looks uncertain. My suggestion is please not to jump to such hasty conclusions. Things are falling into place, so please be patient with us. On Pakistan-India relations, my advice is to let both Pakistan and India conduct our relations bilaterally. We are quite capable of doing so. The dialogue process is proceeding well and is on track. Next month, the foreign minister will be travelling to Pakistan to carry the process forward. I would also suggest that now that you are India, please visit Pakistan, where I am sure that you will be able to see for yourself all that has happened in the last few months.
Manish Tewari
Last year at the Shangri-La Dialogue I had asked the German defence minister why NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. He went to great lengths to explain how NATO was actually winning. Now we hear that NATO is not doing so well. What would it take to win? What are the implications for the region in the event that NATO does not win? Given the history of US engagement/disengagement in Afghanistan, would it be wise to speculate that it is time for NATO to pack up?
Robert A Manning
One thing in our discussion that has not taken a more prominent role is how to adjust the international system to emerging powers. If we think about it, the international system has not changed very much since 1948, whether you are looking at Bretton Woods institutions to the UN Security Council, and so on. One of my favourites is the IAEA, which does not have the presence of the two countries driving global oil demand. Subsequently, they are free riders on that system. Does the panel have any thoughts about how we adjust the international system to reflect these emerging realities and to empower the rising countries to be responsible stakeholders both in abiding by the rules, but also in shaping the rules of the future?
Evgeny Kozhokin
[loss of audio] how to diversify relationships with India. In many fields, it is quite possible to have cooperation, including in such political and intellectual spheres as understanding better the Indian experience of constructing democracy. I suppose that for quite a long time, we thought that democracy was only in the West, which was a mistake. To create democracy not only in Russia, but also in other countries such as Iran and China, we should take into account the Indian experience, which is very important for our region.
Speaking and thinking about democracy, we should concentrate not only on internal democracy, democracy of the state, but also democracy of international affairs. It is very important for India, China, France, and Russia to cooperate in this field, as we all need space for freedom in international affairs.
Now one of the key issues, not only in global affairs, but also in Asian affairs, is the issue of Iran. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish the problem of the regime in Iran and the problem of the nuclear issue. These are absolutely different questions, and we should not be able to improve the situation around Iran without these distinctions.
Finally, I do not think it is possible to come to a normal situation in Afghanistan without the active involvement of regional countries – India, China, Iran, and Russia. The collapse of NATO’s operations would have negative consequences not for the United States, but for the regional countries.
General (Retd) Jehangir Karamat
It is up to India to [loss of audio]. The India-Pakistan dialogue is far more important than any dialogue with Washington. On Islamic extremism, my point is the same: Islam is within India, and India knows more about Islam than anyone else.
M K Narayanan
I am glad I have the opportunity to talk about Iran. I do not think the only dialogue with Iran should be between the P5+1. I think Iran is an ancient civilisation which has relationships across the globe with many countries. There are differences of opinion, and I think India has a relationship with Iran which goes back several hundreds of years. Today, we have the second largest population in the world. For Iran, it is not merely a foreign policy issue, but a domestic issue. What happens in Iran, or what others do with Iran, has a major impact on us. I think there is a great deal taking place between Iran and India which is not in the public realm. What we have avoided is getting into the kind of conflict diplomacy which is taking place. At the level of the Iranian clerics and Shia clerics in India, the Shia clerics in India are some of the most erudite and respected clerics in the Muslim world. I think there is a lot taking place. President Ahmadinejad is coming here on his way to Sri Lanka, and there will be discussions.
We are not involved in the P5+1, and we do not wish to be.
There is a great deal happening, and I stick to my point: I think there are few issues where India is not involved, but India will never thrust itself forward. We have always tried to do what we do within our own limits; we have never thrust ourselves forward. We have capabilities and we have capacities, and in dealing with Iran perhaps India is better poised and better placed than anyone else, but we do not necessarily have to be part of a compact of certain countries. We believe we understand Iran better, the number of Iranians who are present here, other than Shias, are far more than in many other parts of the world, and there a meeting of minds is available. Please do not treat Iran in the manner that you treat Mugabe, it is a big country, it is a major country, with tremendous influence, and you need to deal with it diplomatically. The negotiations should be done at the level or erudition and understanding of an evolved mind, otherwise the world will have to pay a heavy price. Since we have a very large Shia population we are concerned that the mistakes that others come to will impact on us. That is all that I have to say on the Iran issue.
Regarding the Indian example of democracy, this is a case of induction. We do not want to thrust democracy, and we have never tired to impose on other regimes. Each nation chooses the kind of system that it likes. We would prefer democracy, and whenever there is an option we do that. But it is not for us to say that democracy has to be of the Westminster form; is there only one form of democracy? President Putin mentioned this very succinctly in a discussion that he had, asking why people think there is only one form of democracy, but we do not want to get into semantics. India has a very open democracy, and it is widely recognised as a very inclusive democracy. If others are willing to follow that we will, but we do not wish to thrust democracy at them.
The world will pay a very heavy price if it does not ensure that Afghanistan is saved from the Taliban. I am saying that as a basic point, because I mentioned it briefly in my comments. All of us have a stake, India and Russia have had discussions on what needs to be done, and India has helped in opening the Afghan-Russian dialogue. There are relationships that China has with the Afghan leadership. I think things are in place. That covers the two points that were made, so I will leave the floor to Ambassador Blackwill.
Ambassador Robert D Blackwill
First, when I talked about the US-UK relationship, what I meant was that the British government and its diplomats are extraordinarily entrepreneurial in Washington. Through that entrepreneurship affect American policy, probably more than any other country. I am not making a point about Tony Blair or Iraq, I am talking about the last half century. I believe that it would be in India’s interest and in the American interest if, over time, some similar habits of consultation occurred, not least, as someone else said, because we can learn a great deal from India, for example, about Iran, if we are willing to ask and listen.
Second, Southeast Asia, I did have in mind Myanmar; I do not agree with the administration’s policy on Myanmar, and I came from seeing the top of the Thai government a few days ago. There is a great deal of identity of view between most ASEAN countries and India about a more quiet approach, and China has the same view, a more quiet approach to trying to deal with Myanmar. I was thinking more expansively. The American administration has not had the bandwidth to deal with South East Asia with any intensity, given it is preoccupations in the Middle East, and I hope the next administration will improve that record.
On Pakistan, I am sorry if I was not understood. I was not proposing that the US get between Pakistan and India. I am absolutely against that. I will go further and say that in the gloomy, if not grim, international period in the last several years, one of the few bright lights is the bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan. I do not think America has a role to play in trying to improve it or manage it, or anything like that. I do not think I was jumping to a conclusion when I said that the future of Pakistan is uncertain. That does not qualify as a conclusion, and given the stakes that both the US and India have in the future of Pakistan, they ought to talk about it. I do not have the slightest hesitation in Pakistan talking to the Americans about India. So, making such a boundary is artificial and unhelpful.
In Afghanistan three things need to be done in my opinion. First, we have to deal with the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan. Second, to reinforce what my old Russian friend said, we need to involve the neighbours much more than we do, including Iran and Russia. Third, we need to do better on nation building. As N K Narayanan said, we cannot lose in Afghanistan, the strategic consequences of a victory by the Taliban – these days the Taliban / Al Qaeda – would be devastating for the region and far beyond the region.
Finally, to agree with my Russian friend, the objective of the international community, including the US, regarding Iran, should be for it to cease its enrichment programme, not regime change. Those are completely separate, and we have a total identity of view on that. Thank you.
Dr John Chipman
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your comments. To the four panellists, thank you very much for your interventions.
