India visit a chance to bolster ties, overcome early stumbles

When India looks at the United States these days, it sees a world power that is too consumed with crises and problem countries to give it the attention and respect it deserves. When the U.S. looks at India, it sees a growing market for goods and services that can help it recover from years of economic malaise.

That’s the frame for this week’s first-ever U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue in Washington, when a host of senior leaders from both sides will spend days going over various aspects of the complex relationship and seeing where improvements can be made. Some big issues are on the table: Afghanistan, nukes, China, Iran, etc. But with few expectations of new advancements on those issues, the key deliverables the U.S. side is seeking are mostly on the economic front.

The Obama administration made some missteps in its first months in dealing with India, leading many there to conclude that the Bush administration’s drive to improve ties was not being continued by the Obama team.

Since those early days, said Ashley Tellis, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "both sides are making really strong efforts to show that the momentum has not lapsed."

"Whether that has paid off will depend on what they will announce at the end of the dialogue," said Tellis. "The burden on the administration with respect to showing their commitment to the relationship is higher than usual."

But the success or failure of the dialogue will be more about tone than substance, analysts say. The U.S. side has some specific "asks": the Obama team wants India to open up its economy by increasing caps on foreign direct investment, allowing increased market access, indicating openness to genetically modified foods, paving the way for American insurance firms to enter India, and increasing access for American retail firms like Walmart.

But since these are decisions that have to be made in New Dehli in accordance with the next budget cycle, there probably won’t be any more than general acknowledgement by the Indians that they intend to move in that direction.

"We’re really not focused that much on deliverables," Assistant Secretary Robert Blake said about the dialogue. "The purpose of this dialogue is really to think strategically and to get the key people who work on these issues together to think ahead to the president’s visit and to think strategically about what we can do." Obama is due to visit India later this year, but no date has yet been announced.

India’s wish list is of a more diplomatic and political nature. Manmohan Singh’s government, like its predecessors, is looking for overt U.S. support for its drive to be named a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. U.S. officials say that could only come as part of an overall U.N. reform effort (which nobody predicts is imminent). India also wants assurances that the United States will not link U.S.-India relations to Pakistan, China, or any other issue that might constrain U.S. decision making.

Under Secretary of State Bill Burns referred to that concern directly in remarks Tuesday.

"Some in India worry that the new administration is tempted by visions of a G-2 world," he said, referring to last year’s popular buzzword for the U.S.-China relationship, "… that we’ve downgraded India because we see Asia exclusively through the lens of an emerging China, with India’s role secondary."

"Let me speak plainly to those concerns. This administration has been, and will remain, deeply committed to supporting India’s rise and to building the strongest possible partnership between us."

Indian anxieties about China were exacerbated during Obama’s trip to Beijing in November, when he issued a joint statement that said the U.S. and China would "work together to promote peace, stability and development" in South Asia. The Indians are extremely sensitive to any hint that China, a close ally of Pakistan, has a role to play in what it sees as Indian affairs — like the fraught subject of Kashmir.

The Obama administration quickly had to clarify that its intention was never to legitimate a Chinese role in South Asia, and the Chinese themselves disavowed any intentions of meddling. The wording was an oversight by the Obama administration, U.S. officials have said, not an intentional slight or a change in U.S. policy.

Burns addressed the controversy obliquely Tuesday, saying, "We do not see relations in Asia as a zero-sum game. Instead, we attach great significance to India’s expanding role in East Asia, and welcome our partnership across the region." (Some might say Burns’s comment risks a fresh diplomatic protest — this time from China.)

President Obama himself irritated the Indians when he came into office, saying that working with Indian and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir crisis would be a "critical task" of his administration. He now says the U.S. would only play a role if asked to do so by both sides — and India won’t be asking.

Most experts see the Obama administration as being on message about the India relationship recently, despite Indian diplomats’ ongoing concerns about the level of attention they are getting from Washington.

"The Obama administration is doing OK. It’s a crisis-driven administration and India is non-crisis country. That’s misinterpreted in India as ‘We don’t love them enough,’" said Teresita C. Schaffer, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

She said that the apparent U.S. focus on India’s economy does not indicate a lag in the Obama administration’s commitment to engaging India on strategic issues.

"That’s a false distinction," she said, "because the strategic significance of the relationship rests on India’s expanding economy and economic issues have become national-security issues and factor strongly into India’s strategic calculus."

Nevertheless, U.S. and Indian priorities regarding perhaps the most important international issue among them — the ongoing U.S.-led war in Afghanistan — are somewhat different, particularly when it comes to the role of Pakistan.

"India does not want to see the U.S. involvement end in failure or the U.S. leave too soon. What it mostly does not want to see is Afghanistan as a client state of Pakistan," said Schaffer. "Pakistan’s objective in Afghanistan is to minimize India’s influence … The rub is that U.S. is trying to keep Pakistan in the mix so they don’t become a spoiler."

The agenda this week is full. On Wednesday, Burns and his counterpart, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, will lead a foreign-policy dialogue that will cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, China, and other issues. Separately that day, top White House economic advisor Larry Summers will give the keynote address at a related meeting of the U.S.-India Business Council.

Then on Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead the full dialogue session with her counterpart, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna. There will be a working lunch and a reception that evening. Other notable officials on the Indian side will include Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the deputy head of the planning commission, Education Minister Kapil Sibal, and Prithviraj Chavan, the minister for science and technology.

On the U.S. side of the table, important officials include National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will not be there. He’s on travel and will be represented by Under Secretary Michèle Flournoy. Education Secretary Arne Duncan will also be absent.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, will also not be in attendance — but don’t read anything into that, U.S. officials say. His spokesman said he was away on a pre-arranged trip to Barcelona to celebrate his 15^th wedding anniversary. His deputy Paul Jones and senior advisor Vali Nasr will attend in Holbrooke’s absence.