• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

21 January 2003

U.S. Envoy Addresses U.S.-India Relationship

(Speech by Ambassador Blackwill in San Jose, January 18) (4630)
U.S. Ambassador to India Robert D. Blackwill told an audience in
California January 18 that President Bush is "determined to move
U.S.-India ties to new heights." Ambassador Blackwill was speaking in
San Jose to alumni of the Indian Institute of Technology.
"Close and cooperative relations between America and India will endure
over the long run most importantly because of the convergence of their
democratic values and vital national interests," Blackwill said.
Blackwill went on to say that these shared vital national interests
include promoting peace and freedom in Asia, combating international
terrorism, and slowing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
"Defeating terrorism for the United States and India is a matter of
survival," Blackwill said. He described those who murder innocents and
who seek to bring down the pillars of democracy in New York, in
Washington, at the Assembly in Srinagar, and at the Parliament in New
Delhi as terrorists.
"These murderers are not misunderstood idealists. They are not
disadvantaged dissidents. They are not religious perfectionists. And
they are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists, and we should
always be sure to call them exactly that," he said.
Blackwill described increasing defense cooperation between the United
States and India, including recent joint military exercises with U.S.
and Indian forces.
Despite increasing cooperation on other fronts, however, Blackwill
said that U.S. investment in India is not what it could be because
there is still too much government interference in business decisions
in India. "Our commercial ties remain far below their full potential,"
he said.
Stating that President Bush has a global approach to U.S.-India
relations consistent with the rise of India as a world power,
Blackwill said he was convinced that "India and America will together
increasingly help preserve the peace in the years and decades ahead."
Following is the text of Ambassador Blackwill's speech in San Jose,
California, on January 18.
(begin text)
Robert D. Blackwill, Ambassador to India
Remarks to the Alumni of the Indian Institute of Technology
San Jose, California
January 18, 2003
Honored guests, ladies and gentlemen.
In my office in Roosevelt House -- the U.S. Ambassador's residence in
New Delhi -- before first light each morning I prepare for the coming
day by reading online newspapers and analytical Web sites 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 U.S. domestic events that
might affect the pursuit of the Administration's objectives regarding
India.
By next scanning 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 U.S.-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 in India that could affect
Indian policy and especially President Bush's objectives with respect
to the U.S.-India relationship. I went through this daily ritual in my
hotel room here in San Jose early this morning.
My e-methodology is a small example of the transformed global
character of the U.S.-India relationship. The organizing theme is not
as narrow as America, India and South Asia. Rather, it is the United
States and India in the world. And 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.
I have given many speeches in India since my arrival there, although
none of them are as eloquent as those given forty years ago by my
predecessor and Harvard faculty colleague John Kenneth Galbraith. Here
is one of my favorites of his many trenchant observations, "There are
few ironclad rules of diplomacy but to one there is no exception. When
an official reports that talks were useful, it can be safely concluded
that nothing was accomplished."
Hoping that you will not find my presentation today "useful" in
Galbraith's terms, in the next few minutes I want in a composite way
to reinforce preeminent themes that I have enumerated in formal
remarks while American Ambassador to India.
A Big Idea
President George W. Bush for the past 24 months has been busy
implementing a radically new big idea about U.S.-India relations. He
took office determined to move U.S.-India ties to new heights. He saw
that our bilateral interaction was still essentially weighted down by
Cold War concepts and baggage, still defined largely by disagreements,
still limited by infrequent contact. Neither side gave the
relationship the high priority it deserved, and efforts to improve it
lacked urgency and stamina. The President was determined to change
that disjunctive pattern.
His big idea is that by working together more intensely than ever
before, the United States and India, two vibrant democracies, can
transform fundamentally the very essence of our bilateral bonds and
thereby make the world freer, more peaceful, and more prosperous. In
short, President Bush has a global approach to U.S.-India relations,
consistent with the rise of India as a world power.
I was present at the creation, or at least at one of the earlier
expressions, of this big idea when I worked for Governor Bush during
his presidential campaign, and witnessed first-hand his respect for
and fascination with India. When I asked then Governor Bush in Austin,
Texas, in early 1999 about the reasons for his obvious and special
interest in India, he immediately responded, "a billion people in a
functioning democracy. Isn't that something? Isn't that something?"
The concept of democratic India, a billion-strong, heterogeneous,
multilingual with its vibrant press and respect for the rule of law,
has a powerful attraction for this American President.
He made many of these same points to me when I saw him in New York
last September 12, just after his speech to the General Assembly and
before he met Prime Minister Vajpayee. It was crucially because of
President Bush's powerful vision regarding U.S.-India relations that,
when he asked me what I would like to do in the new Administration, I
said that my first choice was to be American Ambassador to India.
Fortune smiled. He agreed.
Zero Tolerance for Terrorism
This speech today is not primarily about international terrorism, but
I do want briefly at the outset to emphasize that some say that with
respect to identifying terrorism, "it depends." To the contrary, I say
that defeating terrorism for the United States and India is a matter
of survival for ourselves, for our democratic values, for our
religious freedom, for our children, for everything that we hold dear.
Socrates thought that, "the beginning of wisdom is the definition of
terms." So let us please name those for what they are, who murder
innocents for political motives and who seek to bring down the very
pillars of our democracy -- in New York, in Washington, at the
Assembly in Srinagar, at the Parliament in New Delhi.
These murderers are not misunderstood idealists. They are not
disadvantaged dissidents. They are not religious perfectionists. And
they are not freedom fighters.
They are terrorists, and we should always be sure to call them exactly
that.
Working with dozens of like-minded nations, the United States and
India will win the war on terrorism. And that war will not be won
until terrorism against India is ended once and for all. To quote my
Harvard Kennedy School colleague and Ambassador to India 1973-1975,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "reason and careful moral reflection teach us
that there are times when the first and the most important reply to
evil is to stop it."
 U.S.-India Relations in the Past Two Years
Two years ago, under the 1998 U.S. sanctions regime, the United States
and India seemed constantly at odds. Today, President Bush has this to
say about India, "The Administration sees India's potential to become
one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century and has
worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly." The President
waived the 1998 sanctions against India, and drastically trimmed the
long "Entity List" which barred Americans from doing business with
certain Indian companies from over 150 Entities to less than 20.
Two years ago, the American and Indian militaries conducted no joint
operations. Today, they have completed six major training exercises.
Two years ago, American and Indian policymakers did not address
together the important issues of cooperative high technology trade,
civil space activity, and civilian nuclear power. Today, all three of
these subjects are under concentrated bilateral discussion, and both
governments are determined to make substantial progress.
Two years ago, American sanctions against India undermined bilateral
diplomatic cooperation on regional and global issues. All that has
changed.
President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee champion this powerful and
positive bilateral interaction with top down direction, reinforced by
an unprecedented stream of Washington policymakers who have traveled
to India. The Prime Minister has spoken of India and the United States
as "natural allies." He is right. Since Sept 1, 2001, five members of
the Bush Cabinet have come to India, some more than once -- Secretary
of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former
Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, U.S. Trade Representative
Robert Zoellick, and Director of the Environmental Protection Agency
Christine Todd Whitman.
Their efforts have been underpinned by nearly 100 U.S. official
visitors to India at the rank of Assistant Secretary of State or
higher, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General
Richard Myers, and Director of the FBI Robert Mueller. Robustly
engaging with their Indian counterparts, these U.S. policymakers give
attention to diplomatic collaboration, counter-terrorism, defense and
military-to-military teamwork, intelligence exchange, law enforcement,
development assistance, joint scientific and health projects including
on HIV/AIDS, and the global environment.
In my view, close and cooperative relations between America and India
will endure over the long run most importantly because of the
convergence of their democratic values and vital national interests.
Our democratic principles bind us -- a common respect for individual
freedom, the rule of law, the importance of civil society, and
peaceful inter-state relations. With respect to overlapping vital
national interests, my "Big Three" for the next decade and beyond are
to promote peace and freedom in Asia, combat international terrorism,
and slow the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Indeed, it is difficult for me - and this is a momentous strategic
constant -- to think easily of countries other than India and the
United States that currently face to the same striking degree all
three of these intense challenges simultaneously - let me repeat them
-- advancing Asian stability based on democratic values; confronting
daily the threat of international terror; and slowing the further
proliferation of WMD. This daunting trio will be an encompassing
foundation for U.S.-India strategic cooperation for many years to
come.
Afghanistan
With respect to diplomacy, India and America are committed to
encouraging a stable, free and peaceful Afghanistan -- one with a
representative central government that can provide physical and
economic security for its people. We want an Afghanistan that has good
relations with all its neighbors and with the international community
-- and one that will never again export terrorism.
Iraq
In the context of numerous U.S.-India high level exchanges in recent
months, the Government of India stoutly believes that Iraq should
fully comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which orders
Iraq to give up its Weapons of Mass Destruction. India earnestly hopes
that Iraq will disarm peacefully. The Bush Administration steadfastly
agrees with both these crucial propositions advanced by India.
 Defense Policy
Defense cooperation between Indian and American armed forces builds
military capacities on both sides for combined operations. In May, the
U.S. Air Force from 353rd Special Operations Group deployed from the
American airbase in Kadena, Okinawa to Air Force Station Agra to take
part in the largest-ever airborne joint exercise between the United
States and India. During the exercise, an elite brigade of Indian
paratroopers jumped with U.S. Special Forces in the "Balance Iroquois
02-01."
In June and July 2002, the Indian Navy Ships Sukanya and Sharda
conducted escort patrols for American ships through the Malacca
Straits in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Knowing what they
would be up against if they had to deal with the Indian Navy, the
pirates sensibly stayed away.
The U.S. Army 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment
welcomed 80 soldiers from India's 50th Independent Parachute Brigade
to conduct "Geronimo Thrust" in September, the first-ever live fire
exercise between American and Indian paratroopers. The jawans flew to
Alaska in an Indian Air Force IL-76. This marked the first time that
an Indian Air Force combat aircraft has landed on U.S. soil.
With American warships now routinely refueling in Chennai and Mumbai,
we saw in September and October the largest-ever U.S.-India naval
exercise, called "Malabar." Over 1,500 American and Indian naval
personnel participated during this four-day event, which featured
flying operations, anti-submarine warfare exercises, and replenishment
at sea.
In October 2002, again in Agra, an air transport exercise named "Cope
India-02" developed a baseline for future interoperability that will
lead to a fighter aircraft exchange. USAF personnel, on board Indian
aircraft, observed the drop of Indian paratroopers and heavy
equipment. By the end of the exercise, Indian paratroops dropped from
U.S. C-130 Hercules transporters.
During the same period, there have been a number of breakthroughs on
defense sales that have put the United States and India on the road to
a stable, long-term defense supply relationship.
U.S. Investment
Americans hesitate to invest in India because of the uncertainty over
India's economic reforms. The recent disinvestment debate is only the
latest example. Potential U.S. investors stress to me that Indian
taxes and tariffs here are still too high, and there remains too much
government interference over business decisions. With respect to
intellectual property rights, U.S. pharmaceutical and biotech
companies would expand their presence here if India had a modern legal
framework to protect product patents. The need to raise the FDI caps
is a theme I also hear frequently. No FDI is permitted in retailing.
You all are more than familiar with what needs to be done regarding
Indian domestic infrastructure and the power sector. Within the U.S.
business community there is an erosion of confidence about whether the
sanctity of contracts will be honored in India. And there is also no
question that tensions between India and Pakistan and communal
violence further dampen investors' urge to come into the Indian
market.
It is in this problematical context that commercial exchange between
the United States and India languishes. Last January, I gave a speech
on the state of U.S.-India economic relations. In it, I described U.S.
exports to India and investment flows as being "flat as a chapati."
Sadly, nothing much has changed. Our commercial ties remain far below
their full potential. Two-way trade between India and the United
States is less than that between America and Ireland, a country of
less than four million people.
Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie said this last October 26, "Labor
reforms, privatization, reforms of the power sector what have we not
announced in the last decade? For which of them have we not in the
last decade pledged ourselves to time-bound targets? Yet on everything
a 20-metre sprint and inertia overwhelms us." Or, as I put in my
speech a year ago in New Delhi, "The reform rabbit can become a
turtle, which can become a rock."
India and China
Indian entrepreneurs and officials often raise with me comparisons
between the respective economic performances of India and China. The
two countries launched their economic reform programs from different
historical experiences. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in the last
10 years, China has forged ahead on most economic measures.
The following statistics do not say everything about the Indian
economy. They do not address India's comparatively high GDP growth
rate over the last decade, its impressive foreign reserves, its low
inflation, and its high savings rate. And these numbers do not
describe the serious and well-known structural problems in the Chinese
economy. But I think you will agree that these data do tell us
something important and worth thinking about. Over the last 20 years,
China's GDP has increased at about 10% a year, compared with India's
6% growth rate.
A decade ago, India and China had close to the same per-capita income.
Today China's per-capita income is about $900, roughly twice that of
India.
Cellular phone penetration in India is less than one percent of the
population, compared to over 11% in China.
In 1991, India and China started off from about the same base, with
less than one computer for every thousand individuals. By 2000 China's
rate is three times India's, with more than 15 computers for every
thousand persons, compared to 4.5 in India.
In 1990, manufacturing in China was about 37% of the economy; today
that relative weight has increased to about 45%. China now produces 50
% of the world's cameras, 30 % of the air conditions and televisions,
25 % of the washing machines and 20 % of the refrigerators. In the
last 12 years, manufacturing as a percentage of the Indian economy has
decreased, falling to about 24% of the economy from 30%.
Since 1980, China has welcomed over $336 billion in foreign
investment; India has received only $18 billion.
And we all know what an enormous investment China is putting into its
domestic infrastructure - airports, roads, port facilities,
telecommunications, and so forth.
India's large and talented labor pool makes it possible for it to
become yet another "Asian miracle." Indeed, it already has shown its
mettle through the information technology and software
accomplishments. As President Bush remarked to the Prime Minister in
New York on Sept 12, human resources and intellectual capital are
India's greatest asset. This advantage will have a multiplier effect
on the economy when second-generation policy reforms present
businesses and consumers with the right incentives. There is so much
pent-up dynamism at the micro level of India's economy that Indian
entrepreneurs and workers will amplify the benefits of these reforms
as they are introduced.
An India that tosses its License Raj and red tape into History's
dustbin would be ever more competitive in the international capital
markets, and that would bring increased American investment. An India
that vitalizes its economy would buy more U.S. goods and services. And
finally, an India that brings its people out of poverty through
economic growth at a more rapid rate would be an inspiration to
democracies everywhere, and to the international community as a whole.
This modernization of U.S.-India economic interaction based on Indian
economic reform is the missing piece in our transforming bilateral
relationship.
Geopolitics and India's Economic Performance
You might ask, why should Washington policymakers care about the
vitalization of our bilateral economic relationship, and more broadly
about the future of the Indian economy? After all, there are over 190
nations in the world. What is so special about India in this regard?
The Bush Administration recently issued "The National Security
Strategy for the United States of America," which sets forth our
diplomatic and security approach to the current openings and dangers
within the international system, an approach based on America's
democratic values. This report, which bears President Bush's personal
stamp, describes India as one of the "great democratic powers of the
21st century."
I now want to make a point central to my presentation today. As I used
to teach students in my course on strategy at Harvard University,
national economic strength is a prerequisite for sustained diplomatic
influence and military muscle. The close U.S.-India collaboration that
I have just enumerated would be made more wide reaching and successful
by a fundamentally reformed and globalized Indian economy. I openly
admit, therefore, that there is a certain amount of American
self-interest at work as we hope for the best for India's economic
performance in the years ahead.
On the geopolitical side, an India that takes full advantage of its
extraordinary human capital to boost its economy would be a more
effective strategic partner of the U.S. over the next decades,
including in promoting peace, stability and freedom in Asia. An India
that enters into a full fledged series of second generation domestic
economic reforms would inevitably play an increasingly influential
role in international affairs across the board, and that too would be
beneficial for the United States.
Fighting HIV/AIDS
Bill Gates' visit to India at the end of last year is but one
high-profile example of the thousands of non-governmental contacts
between the United States and India. During that trip, he announced in
New Delhi that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would establish a
long-term HIV/AIDS program in India, with an initial commitment of
$100 million. What a terrifically generous thing for him to do.
With the United States remaining the largest global donor for HIV/AIDS
prevention and control, the U.S. Government's total contribution in
India over the next five-year period is roughly $120 million. All of
us - Americans and Indians alike -- must fight the HIV/AIDS scourge
shoulder to shoulder.
There must be no denial. No deflections. No discrimination. No
excuses.
Citizen-to-Citizen Exchanges
The Indian-American community in the United States has doubled in the
past ten years, and is now about two million strong. India recently
passed China to become the second largest country for legal migration
to the United States, only behind our next-door neighbor Mexico. Each
year more than 18,000 Indian students are issued visas to pursue their
education in the United States, and there are 22% more Indians
studying in the U.S. this year than last. With the total number of
Indian students now more than 66,000, this country has become the
number one source of foreign students for American colleges and
universities.
Since India became a software giant, almost the same number of "H1b -
temporary worker visa petitions" has been approved for Indian citizens
as for the rest of the world combined. During the past year, our
consular sections in Kolkata, New Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai issued
more than 275,000 tourist and business visas. It is estimated that
more than 400,000 Indians visit the United States for business or
pleasure each year. Although there have been some delays in visa
processing since 9/11, for the vast majority of applicants from India
new security measures should have no effect on either their ability to
qualify for a visa, or the time it takes to have it issued. Indeed,
the overall visa issuance rate for India is the same today as it was
before 9/11. And, there are no more long visa lines at U.S. diplomatic
facilities in India.
India and Pakistan
Let me now address briefly Indo-Pakistan relations by drawing on
recent remarks in Hyderabad by Ambassador Richard Haass, head of
policy planning at the State Department. He stressed on that occasion
that neither the United States nor India want our bilateral
relationship to be conducted through the optic of India's relationship
with Pakistan.
A more normal relationship between India and Pakistan is not
impossible to envision. Normalcy does not mean an absence of
disagreement. Rather, normalcy means a resilient relationship that
would allow India and Pakistan to weather inevitable shocks and
setbacks without the risk of violent conflict or a nuclear crisis.
A resumption of diplomatic dialogue between India and Pakistan could
facilitate people-to-people contacts and lay the groundwork for
greater bilateral cooperation on a range of common interests. Indians
and Pakistanis from all walks of life should be able to easily travel
to the other country for family visits, tourism, sports or business.
It should not take more time to fly from New Delhi to Islamabad than
it does to fly from Delhi to London.
Today, legal trade and investment between the two countries is
virtually non-existent. Developing commercial links could bring
greater prosperity to both countries and, in the process, build
constituencies for normalization and increase the stake that each
country has in the peaceful resolution of disputes. In this regard, it
is time to take practical steps to bring about a South Asian Free
Trade Area.
Finally, the issue of Jammu and Kashmir must be addressed peacefully.
Now is clearly a moment of optimism in J&K -- one that New Delhi, the
Mufti government in Jammu and Kashmir, and the people of the region
can collectively translate into tangible political and economic
benefits. Such efforts will not solve the complex issues of
Indo-Pakistan differences, terrorist violence, human rights, and
governance that converge in J&K. But they are important steps in the
right direction. They will bring Kashmir closer to a solution that
will be peaceful and honorable for all sides, one that will permit
Kashmiris to live their daily lives in safety, with dignity and hope
for the future.
Sadly, this extraordinary opportunity continues to be narrowed by
terrible acts of terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir. The Line of
Control cannot be changed by violence. To the contrary, in the absence
of a jointly agreed Indo-Pakistani alternative, everyone should act to
ensure the continued sanctity of the Line of Control. For its part,
the United States will continue to urge President Musharraf to do
everything in his power to end permanently terrorist infiltration into
Jammu and Kashmir.
Conclusion
As I draw to a close, I am reminded of my former boss Henry
Kissinger's observation in his book Diplomacy, that "Intellectuals
analyze the operations of international systems; statesman build them.
And there is a vast difference between the perspective of an analyst
and that of a statesman. The analyst can choose which problem he
wishes to study, whereas the statesman's problems are imposed on him.
The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear
conclusion; the overwhelming challenge to a statesman is the pressure
of time. The analyst runs no risk. The statesman is permitted only one
guess; his mistakes are irretrievable. The analyst has available to
him all the facts; he will be judged by his intellectual power. The
statesman must act on assessments that cannot be proven at the time he
is making them; he will be judged by history on the basis of how
wisely he managed the inevitable change, and above all, how well he
preserves the peace."
As we meet here today, the transformed U.S.-India relationship, led by
President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee, is in steep assent based
on their statesmanship. And I am convinced that India and America will
together increasingly help preserve the peace in the years and decades
ahead.
Thank you for inviting me to be with you at your conference, and for
your attention this morning. I look forward to your comments and
questions.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)