US Secretary of State appears too pro-Pakistan
If US Senator John Kerry's reputation in some diplomatic circles as being ‘a friend of Pakistan’ preceded his maiden trip to India as Secretary of State, some of his first remarks in New Delhi only served to accentuate such perceptions. During a keynote speech on Sunday, Mr Kerry pushed for stronger bilateral ties, especially enhanced trade relations, between India and Pakistan — but without so much as a word in acknowledgement that Islamabad’s unabashed export of terrorism in general and its continued hostilities towards India in particular make it immensely difficult for the two countries to work together in the manner he wants. Mr Kerry's refusal to name Pakistan for harbouring terrorists was in stark contrast to that of his predecessor Hillary Clinton, who pressured Islamabad to crack down on terror networks, especially after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. On his part, Mr Kerry pontificated that, “If India and Pakistan can confidently invest in each other, then the rest of the world will more confidently invest in you.” This has made many in New Delhi cringe.
First, tacking on foreign-investor-confidence in India to the country's relationship with Pakistan serves no purpose at all. The theory that trade leads to peace has long been discarded by academics and policy-makers alike. Second, a statement such as this seems to club India and Pakistan together, from the American perspective, almost indicating that an independent US-India relationship that is irrespective of Pakistan is not possible. Indeed, it was such a tripartite approach that framed the Washington, DC-New Delhi relationship for decades until President George W Bush deliberately de-hyphenated the ‘India-Pak' notion and paved the way for a new era in bilateral relations. Now, many fear that Mr Kerry might be turning the clock back. But, much of these fears could prove unfounded, and not because Mr Kerry has transformed. It is because India and the US have come to share so many robust common goals and vision that it is nearly impossible to so easily derail the relationship which has developed between the two countries, especially over the recent years.
As for Mr Kerry, the baggage that he brought to India gained weight from two instances. The first is the fact that he co-authored the 2009 Kerry-lugar-Berman Act which gave additional American aid to Pakistan. Now, in Mr Kerry’s defence, some have pointed out that it was because of his initiative that punitive tools, such as the revocation of US aid if Pakistan hurt American national interests, were inserted into the legislation. Yet, the fact remains that even before the legislation was enacted, there already existed ample evidence pointing to Pakistan’s duplicitous role. Similarly, much has been made about the fact that it was because Mr Kerry, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, batted in favour of India that the landmark nuclear deal between the two countries became a reality. Yet, he had blasted India in 1998 for conducting nuclear tests. All this need not mean that Mr Kerry is an incorrigible India-baiter. As Secretary of State, he has gone out of the way to address New Delhi’s concerns and made some right noises. But are they mere diplomatic gestures or a change of heartIJ