• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

04 September 2001

Text: Blackwill on US-India Collaboration on International Issues

(Says Bush foreign policy based on shared values, coalition building)
(5600)
U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill said the Bush administration
seeks to intensify collaboration with India on a broad range of issues
confronting the international community.
In a speech to the Confederation of Indian Industry in New Delhi
September 3, Blackwill said "President Bush has a global approach to
US-India relations, consistent with the rise of India as a world
power."
The Bush administration is pursuing its international objectives in
the post-Cold War era by seeking to build coalitions with like-minded
partners, Blackwill said, "because no nation ... can promote its
values and advance its interests without the help of allies and
friends."
Blackwill said economic choices will play a decisive role in shaping
the future for nations and individuals, and "the most successful
governments have recognized that they must open up their economies;
minimize state control; root out corruption; and eliminate
protectionist barriers." The ambassador said economic freedom will
eventually bring greater political freedom.
Blackwill said the Bush administration's foreign policy begins with
shared values. "With this President, the primacy of values remains the
bedrock of America's policies overseas. His emphasis on liberty,
democracy, and free markets derives from America's most fundamental
vision of itself and its own history," Blackwill said.
The ambassador said that the United States needs partners to deal with
global issues such climate change and international security threats
from missiles and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Regarding the Bush administration's foreign policy in Asia, Blackwill
said the region has some of the world's most dynamic economies and
shows hopeful trends for democratic governance while harboring
dangerous tensions between North Korea and South Korea, between Taiwan
and China and between India and Pakistan.
Blackwill said the Bush administration seeks a productive relationship
with China that promotes U.S. interests and values and those of the
entire Asia-Pacific region.
The ambassador said the Bush administration wishes to develop a
"transformed relationship with India" to deal with international
concerns. He said he will speak in greater detail on that subject in
an address in Mumbai, India on September 6.
Following is the text of the Blackwill speech:
(begin text)
I wish to thank the Confederation of Indian Industry, its President,
Mr. Sanjiv Goenka, and Director General, Mr. Tarun Das for hosting
this lunch. CII is not only a leading business organization in India;
it has gone global. The professionalism of CII International is well
known in Washington and in other major world capitals. While I am the
America Ambassador to India, I will be looking for new opportunities
for cooperation between the United States and CII. Sanjiv, Tarun,
let's think big.
INTRODUCTION
Ladies and gentlemen, honored guests,
Themistocles thought that an individual's speech is like a complex
Oriental carpet. The beautiful patterns of the rug can only be shown
by spreading it out to its full splendor. When the carpet is folded
up, is reduced in size, the exquisiteness of these patterns is no
longer evident.
Having just modestly attempted to justify the length of my remarks
here today, I trust that you have noticed that your invitations to
this event indicate that my address is entitled "Bush Administration
Foreign Policy." The interest of the Indian business and professional
community in foreign affairs is well known, but some of you may be
asking why my first address in this country is not concentrating on
US-India relations.
Please let me explain. I want to discuss the broad topic of Bush
Administration foreign policy in this, my maiden speech in India,
because my President does not intend only to accelerate cooperation
with India on purely bilateral matters, although that will be
important. He does not want his Administration to engage more actively
with the Indian government and people here solely in the context of
the challenges of Asia, although that too will be consequential.
Rather, he is seeking to intensify collaboration with India on the
whole range of issues that currently confront the international
community writ large. In short, President Bush has a global approach
to US-India relations, consistent with the rise of India as a world
power. So in today's speech, I will concentrate on the global context
of American foreign policy within which the increasingly important
relationship between our two countries will take place. Having, I
hope, set the strategic stage here today, on Thursday in Mumbai, I
will address "The Future of US-India Relations."
In my Roosevelt House office, early each morning, I prepare for the
coming day by reading online newspapers and analytical websites first
from the United States, from around the world, from the rest of Asia,
and finally from India. This sequence is conceptually purposeful. I
initially review the latest policy developments in the United States,
as described in the major American newspapers and political websites.
This provides me with an overview of the progress of President Bush's
policy agenda at home, and highlights any US domestic events that
might affect the pursuit of the Administration's objectives regarding
India.
By next reading newspapers and analyses from elsewhere in the world, I
can better appreciate the international setting in which the President
is developing and implementing his general foreign and defense
policies and, again, how those events relate to US-India relations in
a global context. Then, I narrow my e-focus to Asia, and then to South
Asia. Finally, I look each morning at seven or eight Indian newspapers
online for developments here that could affect Indian policy and
especially the President's objectives with respect to the US-India
relationship.
You see what I am getting at. My morning e-methodology to prepare for
my day's official responsibilities in this country is a small example
of the evolving global character of the US-India relationship. The
organizing theme is not America, India and South Asia. Rather, it is
the United States and India in the world. And perhaps you will agree
with me that it is fitting that I study these matters early each day
through information technology and the Internet, that exquisite global
exhibit of American and Indian invention, energy and function.
THE STRATEGIC CONTEXT
For all of us who have reflected on the last decade of the previous
century, it is obvious that we witnessed the historically important
end of an era. As Vaclav Havel has observed with respect to the early
1990s, "Things changed so fast that we did not have time to be
astonished." A powerful empire, the totalitarian Soviet Union, has
gone into the archives of history. Even at omniscient Harvard
University where I spent my time in the last decade, few saw this
strategic earthquake coming. And it is important to stress that the
USSR's peaceful passing was anything but inevitable. Yet, for all the
dangers and burdens the Soviet period imposed on the United States, on
our Allies, on the nations of the Warsaw Pact itself, and on the
international system as a whole, it did produce a peculiar kind of
order and stability that we knew as the Cold War.
What constitutes the successor to this epoch is still somewhat
uncertain, but that has not prevented some back home from adducing a
variety of labels in an effort to capture the character of this new
age. As Thomas Hobbes argues, naming something gives it identity,
shapes its being, and predicts its fate.
Three of my former bosses from the White House -- all contemporary
American Wise Men -- have made significant contributions to this
endeavor. Henry Kissinger has suggested that this age represents yet
another phase in "the struggle for world order," one that will test
both American idealism and primacy and perhaps its very capacity for
the conduct of international relations. Zbigniew Brzezinski has called
it the era of "global turbulence," where the absence of central war
and global catastrophe is replaced by numerous regional conflicts that
are systemically difficult to resolve. And in 1992, Brent Scowcroft
thought that, "There will be a new world order to replace the Cold War
world order. The only question is whether the US will play a role in
shaping it in directions compatible to US interests, or whether we
turn wholly inward and let the pieces fall where they may." As I will
make clear today, President George W. Bush is answering that question
through a distinctly American internationalism.
With many competing visions, it is not surprising that commentators
have often simply settled for the term, the post-Cold War era. This
locution is true, but also trite. As my friend and Bush Administration
colleague Richard Haass has observed, this phrase "only reflects where
people know they have been, not where they are now, much less where
they are heading."
When some have tried to describe where we are now, they have used a
concept that I myself find intellectually numbing -- although it is
sometimes favored in academia and the media, in both my country and
yours. I have in mind the phrase -- "the current unipolar post-Cold
War world." Now that is a mouthful. Someone once said that metaphors
murder thought. This may be an example. I would argue that the word
"unipolar" not only jars the ears but it also deeply misrepresents the
actual dynamic of our age.
Those who claim the existence of a unipolar internationalist system
point to the comparative economic, cultural, diplomat and military
power of the United States. Given America's relative advantages, they
argue, can't the United States act however it pleases -- without
regard for the opinions and preferences of others? I want to assure
you that the vast majority of Americans disagree with that premise,
and one of them goes to work each morning in the Oval Office at the
White House.
This is because no nation -- not even one with the power assumed by
the adherents of unipolarity -- can promote its values and advance its
interests without the help of allies and friends. The history of the
last one hundred years illustrates the truth of this embracing
principle. After all, it was the United States that has so often led
democratic coalitions -- I repeat coalitions -- to ensure that no
nation is able to impose its will on another. This is why we fought
two World Wars, helped create the United Nations, supported Indian
independence, opposed Soviet expansionism, established America's
Alliance system, and more recently, joined with dozens of like-minded
countries to expel Iraqi military forces from Kuwait.
None of this was accomplished through the unilateral exercise of
American power, nor could it have been. Instead, enduring success
always derived from the actions of coalitions that came together in a
combination of democratic values, of national interests, and of
diplomatic and military capabilities.
In these convincing lessons of the past lies America's compass for
today and tomorrow.
ECONOMICS AS A DRIVER
I seem to be stuck on very old Oriental carpets today. Let me recall
another vivid passage, I think from The Arabian Nights, in which the
poet describes the exquisitely beautiful, but quite different,
patterns on each side of a carpet. Pull on a string on one side of the
rug to try to improve its beauty, and inadvertently destroy the
essence of the design on the other. This ancient image seems to me to
illustrate luminously the immutable interrelationship in the current
era between security issues and international economics.
Although in my view the classic concept of balance of power still
matters a great deal in current circumstances, leaders, peoples and
nations increasingly understand that their future will be decisively
defined by the economic choices they make, including in the
international arena. Critics of what is popularly known as
globalization sometimes speak as if this phenomenon were being
orchestrated and conducted entirely by a small number of elderly,
probably portly, men -- undoubtedly dressed in black -- in a back room
with the curtains drawn, in Washington or on Wall Street. Conspiracy
theories do die hard.
Rather, this astonishing activity mostly occurs outside of government
as tens, even hundreds, of millions of people each day across the
planet make individual economic decisions. Not men in black, but -- as
US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick pointed out in his speech here
-- Indian fishermen with cell phones looking for the best market for
their catch.
But government policies do count. To help their citizens take fullest
advantage of the startling speed and enveloping substance of these
global economic movements, the most successful governments have
recognized that they must open up their economies; minimize state
control; root out corruption; and eliminate protectionist barriers.
Although no country has a perfect record in comprehensively achieving
these four requirements, the lesson is clear. Open societies, free
trade and multiplying connections to the global economy are the
pathways to lasting prosperity and democratic political comity for all
nations. As you know, Gurcharan Das persuasively develops this theme
in his bestseller India Unbound.
President Bush continually emphasizes that expanding world trade is a
preeminent way to spur growth, to foster development and -- crucially
-- to alleviate poverty. Amidst all the economic statistics one
encounters, I know that you agree that we must always remember the
poorest among us are not faceless numbers. Instead, they share the
same basic concerns that we do -- the safety and health of their
families, the prospects for their children, the search for more
spiritual and fulfilling lives. Let me go further. Please let us not
forget that if our circumstances had only been slightly different --
say at birth -- we in this room might be they.
As I indicated above, open trade has more than just material benefits.
Unimpeded commerce between nations promotes freedom. Those regimes
that now imagine that they can increasingly open up their economies to
the world, and at the same time maintain their autocratic grip on
their people, are engaged in a losing struggle. Among other things,
the Information Technology revolution will speed their downfall. That
is because citizens who gained freedom to choose in the marketplace
will eventually want the same freedom in the political arena.
You can count on it.
TWO BUSH FOREIGN POLICY PRINCIPLES
In the context of the world I briefly characterized earlier, President
Bush has developed his foreign policy in much the same way that the
captain of a cricket team approaches an international test match.
Permit me to be blunt. This President is not interested in limited
overs. Instead, he has fielded a skilled and deeply experienced team
that is ready for more than one day matches. And like any good
skipper, he composes his game plan from strategic principles that will
guide his tactical decisions during any given point in the series.
That game plan was carefully set forth by President Bush over the long
course of the election campaign. As the President's National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently observed, "every new decision that
George W. Bush has set forth as President naturally flowed from what
George W. Bush the candidate said during the campaign." I too can
personally attest to that truth.
Let me now discuss just two of the principles of his game plan with
you today: theprimacy of values; and the emphasis on sustained
collaboration with allies and friends.
VALUES
With this President, the primacy of values remains the bedrock of
America's policies overseas. His emphasis on liberty, democracy, and
free markets derives from America's most fundamental vision of itself
and its own history. And freedom's tide is rising. Thankfully, it is
no longer the preserve of a few nations. Latin America, almost all of
Central and Eastern Europe, much of Asia and parts of Africa now
contain societies that emphasize the rule of law and respect for the
individual, governments that assume power through peaceful elections,
and markets that reward, as my former Harvard colleague Robert Nozick
puts it, "capitalist acts between consenting adults." Americans feel a
strong solidarity with all these democratic nations.
In this context, one is reminded of Kant's concept of a "pacific
union" binding pluralist states together, which also provides the best
possible foundation for strategic collaboration over the long term. I
will have more to say about how this notion applies to US-India
relations in my speech later this week in Mumbai. Here, let me only
stress that the spread of democracy helps enhance peace and stability
around the globe. As the President has said, "By promoting democracy,
we lay the foundation for a better and more stable world."
Our closest bilateral relationships bear out this emphasis on common
values. President Bush believes that good foreign policy starts with
one's own neighborhood. There are no finer models for international
political and economic cooperation than America's ties with its
closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. The US-Canadian border is the
longest unguarded frontier on the planet. Our economic cooperation
with Mexico has proven a boon to both our nations and Mexico is now
our second largest trading partner -- just behind Canada. President
Bush plans to build on the success of the North American Free Trade
Area (NAFTA) to construct a Western Hemisphere that shares democracy
and free trade from the Bering Straits to the Straits of Magellan.
In Europe, the United States is determined that its fifty-year
alliance with the democracies of NATO will continue to be strong,
cohesive and relevant to today's opportunities and threats. There is
no more potent enduring international bond than America's relationship
with its freedom loving European partners.
In Asia, as Secretary of State Colin Powell has observed, the
"bedrock" is "our strong relationship with our Asia-Pacific allies and
friends, particularly Japan." The United States, Japan, Australia, The
Republic of Korea, Thailand and the Philippines all share the
commitment to liberty and to the rule of law.
So let me stress again that common pluralist values are the foundation
of all these US relationships, near our borders and far away. As I
will discuss later, of course we do not always immediately agree with
one another on this issue or that. Sometimes the discussions can
become quite heated. Sometimes they even make the newspapers in a
sensational way. But please notice the enormous resiliency of
America's democratic relationships, a resiliency that always
eventually overcomes the disagreement of the day.
COALITION BUILDING
Now, may I say something about America and the creation of like-minded
coalitions? International collaboration remains a compass by which US
foreign policy will be conducted during the Bush Administration. As
the President has emphasized when discussing American leadership
during and after the Second World War: "We have seen power exercised
without swagger and influence displayed without bluster. We have seen
the modesty of true strength, the humility of real greatness. We have
seen American power tempered by American character."
The political and economic forces of change in our world are many and
relentless. No single country, no matter how powerful, can hope to
meet them all. America requires a concert of freedom-loving peoples to
achieve the "generations of democratic peace" of President Bush's
vision -- a concert that is sensitive to the new opportunities and
dangers in the international system, and the need for cooperative
efforts to address them.
Call to mind Afghanistan. When the specter of famine there loomed this
past spring, the United States was the largest donor of humanitarian
aid; at the same time, Washington worked tirelessly with concerned
nearby nations to censure the Taliban for the deteriorating political
situation and continuing human rights violations.
Watch the intensive US daily diplomatic effort with allies and friends
in the region, in Europe, and from all over the world to reduce the
tragic violence between Israel and the Palestinians.
See the United States play a central role in discussions between the
IMF and the government of Indonesia.
Look at NATO's efforts, under American leadership, to bring peace and
stability to the Balkans.
Notice the United States work with its partners within the
Organization of American States to develop a Democratic Charter which
we expect will be approved by the special assembly of the OAS in its
meeting in Lima, Peru on September 10-11.
Examine America's efforts with dozens of other nations, to stop the
transfer of sensitive technology associated with weapons of mass
destruction and missiles that can deliver them.
Study the July G-8 communiqué from Genoa, which committed the United
States and the other members to provide over $53 billion in debt
relief for 23 of the world's poorest countries.
Observe the United States with its European partners seeking to
advance stability and democracy beyond the eastern Polish border.
Consider global trade negotiations. The United States supports a new
trade round at the Doha ministerial this coming November. Bob Zoellick
visited New Delhi to discuss our position with the Indian government.
He has done the same with dozens of other nations.
Take a look at our efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs around
the world. The US Drug Enforcement Agency conducts counter narcotics
activities with 57 countries to prevent international drug
trafficking.
Review the American record on combating international terrorism. We
are cooperating with like-minded nations in the areas of diplomacy,
intelligence sharing and law enforcement. Together, we can identify
terrorist groups; prevent acts of terrorism before they occur; and
react effectively against acts of terrorism if they happen.
Finally, in this very short list of current Bush Administration
coalition activity, notice that the United States is leading by
example by being the largest single bilateral donor of HIV/AIDS
assistance, providing half of all international funding to fight this
pandemic disease in Africa and elsewhere.
COALITION BUILDING SOMETIMES TAKES A WHILE
As I indicated earlier, from time to time there are policy differences
between the United States and some of its closest democratic allies
and friends. This must be shocking to you all since I am sure that you
never have disagreements within your families, or with your friends.
Such occasional disputes between America and its democratic partners
are to be expected, given infrequently contesting perceptions of
national interests; differing domestic political contexts; and most
often, differing conceptions about the best strategy to address an
objective we have already agreed upon.
It is this context that I briefly wish to discuss global climate
change and the President's new strategic framework.
THE UNITED STATES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
As you know, the Bush Administration does not believe the Kyoto
Protocol is an effective way to address the problem of climate change.
This American attitude is not new. As long ago as 1997, the US Senate
in a bipartisan act voted 95-0 to reject any such agreement that did
not include developing countries.
This does not mean that we Americans are not concerned about climate
change. We believe climate change is occurring and we believe that the
international community must do something about it. Indeed, the US has
spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990 -- three times as
much as any other country, and more than Japan and all 15 nations of
the EU combined. On June 11, President Bush announced that his
Administration "will establish the US Climate Change Research
Initiative and instructed the Secretary of Commerce, working with
other agencies, to set priorities for additional investments in
climate change research, review such investments, and to improve
coordination amongst federal agencies. The US government will fully
fund high-priority areas for climate change science over the next five
years and provide resources to build climate observation systems in
developing countries and encourage other developed nations to match
our American commitment."
Finally, in addition, the President has proposed a joint venture with
the EU, Japan and others to develop state-of-the-art climate modeling
that will help us better understand the causes and impacts of climate
change. America is the leader in the development of clean technology
and we believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce
emissions.
So, we do take this problem seriously. The question is what to do
about it? The Bush Administration believes that an effective response
to climate change requires an approach that:
1) Is consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse
gases,
2) Is measured and flexible in order to take advantage of changing
circumstances and improving technology,
3) Ensures continued economic growth in the US and elsewhere around
the world,
4) Pursues market-based incentives and spurs technological innovation,
and
5) Is based upon global participation. 
Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol falls short in all of these
categories. As President Bush said in early June, "The United States
believes that climate change is occurring but we do not believe that
the Kyoto Protocol is the appropriate solution to the challenge posed
by global warming." At the same time, the Bush Administration remains
fully engaged in discussions under the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change. I am confident that, over time, the United States and
its allies and friends will deal in concert with this important
problem.
THE PRESIDENT'S NEW STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
My second example is also an issue of global importance in which my
government has been transparent in its efforts to engage and
collaborate with the international community.
President Bush has, in the context of his constitutional obligations,
called the protection of the American homeland "an urgent duty." For
most of our history, the United States was sheltered by its geography.
But with the invention and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their delivery systems, distance no longer defines
security.
We must recognize that in a strategic sense, the world of 1948, or
1968, or 1988 no longer exists. Then, the United States had a single
nuclear-armed adversary. Now, according to a recent speech by John
McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
possibility that a long-range ballistic missile tipped with a weapon
of mass destruction may be used against the United States, its armed
forces, or its national security interests "is higher today than it
was during most of the Cold War." McLaughlin predicts that the missile
threat "will continue to rise as the weapons and missile capabilities
of potential adversaries mature."
Confronting these fresh and growing dangers, and mastering them, will
require a new understanding about the nature of what the distinguished
American strategist Fred Ikle has called the "second nuclear age." It
requires the world community to think boldly-as a previous generation
of theorists had done during the last "golden age of nuclear strategy"
in the 1950s and 1960s. Most importantly, it requires us to realize
and accept the profoundly humanist proposition that defendi
ng life on this planet is a better foundation for strategic stability
than threatening to obliterate it.
Missile defense has drawn the most attention to the President's new
strategic framework. He elaborated US policy on missile defense in a
speech on his framework at Washington's National Defense University on
May 1. On this subject, I can do no better than quote the President
directly:
"Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The Wall is
gone, and so is the Soviet Union. Today's Russia is not yesterday's
Soviet Union. Its government is no longer Communist. Its president is
elected. Today's Russia is not our enemy, but a country in transition
with an opportunity to emerge as a great nation, democratic, at peace
with itself and its neighbors. The Iron Curtain no longer exists.
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are free nations, and they are
now our allies in NATO, together with a reunited Germany.
"Yet this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a less
predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have
nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some
already have developed the ballistic missile technology that would
allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances
and at incredible speeds. And a number of these countries are
spreading these technologies around the world.
"Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of
the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's
most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in
the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of
these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.
They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors,
and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from
helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.
"We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to
counter the different threats of today's world. To do so, we must move
beyond the constraints of the 30 year old ABM Treaty. This treaty does
not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the
past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today's threats, that
prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves,
our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of
world peace." So has said President Bush.
Let me conclude this subject by asking what I realize is a provocative
question. It is this. Is there anyone in this room who wishes to
defend morally the retention of a 30-year-old system of strategic
stability that is fundamentally based on the prospect of the nuclear
annihilation of millions of innocent men, women and children? Please,
you decide.
THE UNITED STATES IN ASIA
I have structured my speech here today just as I begin my morning
reading -- with the United States and the world before narrowing the
focus to Asia and finally in a few moments to India. The American
Department of Defense has identified Asia as an "absolutely critical"
region for my country's future.
My earlier mention of America's Asian Alliances should reinforce the
Pentagon's assessment. Asia hosts some of the world's most dynamic
economies and best markets for American products. It also exhibits
many of the most hopeful trends in democratic governance. However,
Asia still contains one dangerous legacy from the Cold War: the threat
North Korea poses to South Korea and the region. It is also home to
the continuing tensions between China and Taiwan, and between India
and Pakistan. Other problems, such as Indonesia's continuing struggle
for a peaceful, democratic transformation, exemplify Asia's continuing
ferment. In all these areas, the United States actively seeks the most
positive outcomes, even though our ability to influence events varies
widely.
That brings me to China, a country I have studied in an especially
careful way. China is one of the two great rising powers of our age.
The United States seeks a constructive relationship with the PRC that
is both firmly grounded in US national interests and contributes to
the promotion of peace, stability, and prosperity in the region.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has been clear about our vision of
this relationship, stating that "China is a competitor and a potential
regional rival, but also a trading partner willing to cooperate in the
areas, such as Korea, where our strategic interests overlap. China is
all of these things, but China is not an enemy and our challenge is to
keep it that way."
From promoting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, to
combating narcotics trafficking, to protecting the environment, to
trade, we share common interests with China that are best served by a
productive -- and forward-looking -- relationship. But, we clearly
have some serious differences. Taiwan has long been one. Human rights
and the rule of law are another. Beijing's arms sales around the world
and its proliferation of the technology of weapons of mass destruction
are also important issues about which we have repeatedly expressed our
concern to China. Indeed, on Saturday, the United States imposed
missile proliferation sanctions on the China Metallurgical Equipment
Corporation (CMEC) and the National Development Complex (NDC) of
Pakistan. The sanctions will send a strong signal that the US opposes
missile proliferation and will take the necessary measures to curb
proliferation-related trade.
Finally, you may have seen stories in this morning's press suggesting
that the United States might agree to a Chinese nuclear build-up in
return for the people's Republic of China acquiescence to American
plans for missile defense. This is not true. As Condoleezza Rice said
over the weekend, "The United States is not about to propose to the
Chinese that in exchange for Chinese acceptance of missile defense, we
will accept a nuclear build-up."
Beijing is in a position to chart a mutually beneficial course for the
future US-China relationship. We want that to be the case. The Bush
Administration seeks a productive relationship with China that
promotes our interests and values and those of the entire Asia-Pacific
region.
CONCLUSION
I hope the threads of this speech have implicitly indicated why the
Bush Administration wishes to develop a transformed relationship with
democratic India. Such an evolution will promote American national
interests and values. Indians and Americans believe that democracy,
freedom and human dignity should be universal. Both our constitutions
allow our citizens to say what they think, worship as they wish, and
elect those who govern them. America encourages political freedom and
gains when democracy advances. Indians believe the same is true for
them. And the United States thinks that bilateral and international
cooperation among democratic nations encourages regional and global
stability. So does India.
This all seems to me to be a good starting place for an examination of
the future of the US-India relationship, a subject to which I will
return in detail on Thursday in Mumbai.
Thank you for your attention.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)