Tag Archives: Washington

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Blood Feud in Islamabad Complicates U.S.-Pakistan Relations

Leave a comment

A long summer of political turmoil has begun that makes harder the search for a new equilibrium with Washington

A tale of two capital cities in the grip of political uncertainty unfolded in South Asia last week.   Islamabad was the scene of a fast-paced soap opera that throws into further doubt the future of the democratization process and complicates efforts to repair the breakdown of U.S.-Pakistan relations.  Meanwhile in New Delhi, simmering tensions within the coalition government erupted into open revolt, further constraining decision-making at a time when the United States in seeking to draw closer strategically.

This post will focus on the Pakistani case, the more acute of the two; a subsequent post will deal with the political tussles in India, which might ultimately prove to be cathartic.

Pakistan has long been marred by political ructions that have more to do with clashing personalities than principled disputes.  The country’s trajectory might well be materially different absent the blood feud between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s.  Likewise the on-going vendetta between Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s current president and Bhutto’s widower, is impeding progress on critical national problems as well as tarnishing the very concept of democratic governance.

Yet even against this background, last week’s events were extraordinary.  Striking, too, was how, with the country once again earning a top place in the roster of failed states, Pakistan could reliably be counted on to give credence to that dubious billing.   This time Zardari and Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Supreme Court’s chief justice, were the ones spewing bad blood, in the process upending a tenuous measure of political stability that had recently emerged in Islamabad.

Since its installation in March 2008, Zardari’s government has been in a running struggle with the powerful military establishment and an assertive judiciary.  These ructions have given rise to persistent fears of yet another army coup – as recently as earlier this year – as well as accusations that the Supreme Court is acting in cahoots with the military to undermine Zardari and his prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani.  Against heavy odds, however, the two somehow managed to limp along.  Last month Gilani became the country’s longest-serving prime minister, a signal accomplishment in view of how many of his predecessors have been hanged, exiled and otherwise forcibly evicted from office.  And while his administration was highly unpopular and hardly a model of competence, it was well on its way to becoming the country’s first democratically-elected government to serve out its allotted five-year term.

Yet this past week, the Supreme Court suddenly sent Gilani packing on the grounds that his contempt-of-court conviction in April disqualified him from holding office and serving in parliament.  The conviction stemmed from Gilani’s defiance of the court’s order to reactivate a dormant money-laundering case brought by the Swiss government against Bhutto and Zardari.  Chaudhry’s focus on the case strikes many observers as overzealous, given Swiss reluctance to re-open the investigation, the constitutional immunity Zardari enjoys as president, and the long record of Islamabad power brokers using corruption allegations to harass political opponents.

Chaudhry justified Gilani’s removal as demonstrating the rule of law in a country where governmental malfeasance is endemic.  Some commentators view the action as part of the institutional skirmishes that can be expected in Pakistan’s halting democratic transformation and note that Chaudhry also has turned his attention on abuses perpetuated by the security establishment.  An activist Supreme Court that sees itself as a guardian of the public integrity has likewise emerged in neighboring India.

But Gilani’s dismissal appears to be less about the advancement of constitutional concepts than the settling of personal scores.  The chief justice, a hero of the popular movement that forced Pervez Musharraf into exile, is reportedly indignant that Zardari refused, until forced to bow to public pressure, to reinstate him to the bench after Musharraf sacked him at the start of the state of emergency that was declared in November 2007.  Once returned to the court, Chaudhry promptly struck back by invalidating a general amnesty that Musharraf had forged with Bhutto and Zardari, thereby opening Zardari to criminal prosecution once he leaves the presidency.

The rationale and timing of Gilani’s ouster also seems suspect.  Since parliament is the only body empowered to dismiss a prime minister, many observers (here and here) describe it as a sort of judicial coup.  Moreover, when the Supreme Court first convicted Gilani on contempt charges, it seemed content to limit itself to the highly symbolic sentence it meted out – detention amounting to mere seconds.  Its abrupt ruling last week has led some to conclude that it was a diversion meant to deflect attention away from bribe-taking accusations against Chaudhry’s own son, which Zardari’s camp may be orchestrating.

Gilani’s removal proved to be the opening act of a chaotic week.  Zardari quickly settled on Makhdoom Shahabuddin as a replacement, only to have a court issue an arrest warrant for the man.  The warrant has to do with Shahabuddin’s alleged involvement in a drug importation scandal while he was serving as health minister.  Significantly, the court acted upon the request of an anti-narcotics body run by the military.  Gilani’s son is also implicated in the matter and a warrant was similarly issued for his detention.

Zardari’s second choice, Raja Pervez Ashraf, easily won parliamentary approval by week’s end but he, too, has had run-ins with the judiciary.  The Supreme Court earlier ended his stint as the federal minister in charge of power production when it found that a program he oversaw to spur private generation of electricity was riddled with graft.  Ruling that he is “liable both for civil and criminal action,” the court has instructed the National Accountability Bureau, an anti-corruption agency, to open an inquiry.

Given Chaudhry’s doggedness on the matter, Ashraf is unlikely to be left off the hook regarding Zardari’s corruption case, opening up the possibility that he, too, could be removed from office in short order.  And another opportunity to nettle the president will arrive in the coming days as the Supreme Court moves forward on the bizarre Memogate affair.  A judicial commission earlier this month concluded that Zardari confidante Husain Haqqani was guilty of disloyalty to the nation during his recent stint as Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington.  The finding opens Haqqani open to possible treason charges and has become another political headache for the beleaguered Zardari.

As argued in a previous post, the rising tumult of domestic politics is exacerbating the strains in U.S.-Pakistan relations and complicating efforts to resolve the seven month-long blockade of NATO supply lines into Afghanistan that is costing Washington a $100 million a month as cargo is shipped via more expensive routes in Central Asia.  A quick end of the dispute is very much in Islamabad’s interests and on several occasions appeared to be within reach.  The thread-bare public treasury – not to mention the Pakistani army’s vast business empire – is in desperate need of revenue that would come from increased transit fees as well as the $3.5 billion in military and economic assistance that the Obama administration has requested for the upcoming fiscal year.  Moreover, the country will soon be forced to turn once again to the International Monetary Fund for a financial lifeline, a move that will require Washington’s sufferance.

Given Islamabad’s record of turning over Al Qaeda figures as a means of buying American good will, last week’s announcement of the capture of a militant thought to be in charge of some of the terror network’s international operations may be a further signal that the security establishment wants to mend ties with Washington.

Yet events of the past week herald the beginning of a long summer of political turmoil in Islamabad that makes harder the search for a new equilibrium in U.S.-Pakistan relations.  Don’t be surprised if the resulting exasperation in Washington results in renewed calls for unilateral military action on Pakistani soil, for further reductions in U.S. aid levels, and an for overall approach of “congagement” or “benign neglect” toward Islamabad.

This commentary was originally posted on Chanakya’s Notebook.   I invite you to follow me on Twitter.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

A Tough Week for Pakistani Diplomacy

Leave a comment

Events lay bare just how strategically isolated Islamabad has become

As my last post noted, the events of the past week show that New Delhi is sitting pretty diplomatically, being courted ardently by both Washington and Beijing.  Conversely, they also laid bare just how strategically isolated Islamabad has become.

Pakistan’s most recent troubles began with President Obama giving President Asif Ali Zardari the cold shoulder at the NATO summit in Chicago three weeks ago.  Since then Washington has dramatically ramped up its campaign of drone attacks in the country’s tribal areas, which last week killed Al Qaeda’s second in command in North Warizistan.  Officials in Islamabad publicly denounce the strikes as violating the country’s sovereignty and they have helped drive a marked increase in anti-American sentiment.  Yet U.S. officials reportedly believe that they have very little to lose by defying Pakistani sensitivities.

While Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was in New Delhi last week making overtures for a strategic partnership with Pakistan’s arch-rival – including calls for greater Indian involvement in Afghanistan, a neuralgic issue for the Pakistanis – he was also telling Islamabad to stuff it.  Stoutly defending the drone campaign, he declared that “we have made it very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves” and “we are fighting a war” in the tribal badlands.

Adding insult to injury from Islamabad’s view was his public chuckle about the necessity of keeping Pakistani officials in the dark about the U.S. commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden – “They did not know about our operation.  That was the whole point.” – as well as his comparison of U.S.-Pakistan affairs with that of India’s own torturous relationship.  As the Associated Press wryly notes,

You know a friendship has gone sour when you start making mean jokes about your friend in front of his most bitter nemesis.

Panetta regularly traveled to Pakistan during his recent stint as CIA director but has purposively avoided going there in the year since he’s moved over to the Pentagon.  Although his eight-day tour of Asia took him to New Delhi and Kabul, among other places, Islamabad was conspicuously missing from his itinerary.  Indeed, showing up in the Afghan capital, he once again unloaded on the Pakistanis, warning them that U.S. leaders are reaching “the limits of our patience.”  General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, followed up by telling reporters in Washington that he too is “extraordinarily dissatisfied” with Pakistani actions.

Further evidence of Islamabad’s deteriorating position came from the transit agreements NATO signed last week with several Central Asian countries in an attempt to bypass Pakistan’s blockade on supplies going into Afghanistan, as well as the multiplying calls in the U.S. Congress for reducing military and economic assistance.

Pakistanis like to believe that China is the trump card they can play against the Americans.  This tenet was once again expressed in a recent op-ed that called on Pakistanis to liberate themselves “from the hold of the West by embracing our friends in the East.”  But the real limits to this strategy were once again apparent over the last few weeks.  During a visit to Islamabad in late May, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi publicly pledged Beijing’s firm commitment to “firmly support Pakistan in protecting its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and dignity.”  Privately, however, he was counseling Pakistani leaders to settle their differences with the Americans.

Zardari must have been shocked by Chinese actions when he showed up in Beijing for last week’s summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.  Executive Vice Premier Li Keqiang (who is widely expected to become the next head of government) made a special point of telling Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, also attending the forum, that Sino-Indian ties were destined to become the century’s important bilateral relationship.  Li’s phrase is a virtual echo of the Obama administration’s regular formulation about Washington and New Delhi constituting “an indispensable partnership for the 21st century,” and it signals that the two most important external powers in South Asian security affairs are in competition for India’s strategic allegiances.  Underscoring this point is Beijing’s recent move upgrading its ambassador in New Delhi to vice-ministerial status.

Dawn, Pakistan’s largest English-language newspaper, advised the other week that links with China “should not become cause for complacency or reason to assume that a functional relationship with the U.S. is not critical and long overdue.”  If Pakistani leaders had yet to absorb this lesson, this week’s events should have driven it home.  Perhaps that explains Zardari’s conciliatory reaction to Panetta’s broadsides.

This commentary was originally posted on Chanakya’s Notebook.  I invite you to follow me on Twitter.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

India Shining, At Least in Geopolitics

Leave a comment

New Delhi is being wooed by both Washington and Beijing, though its ultimate choice is becoming increasingly clearer

A previous post focused on the unexpected improvement in India’s strategic position in its own neighborhood.  Events this week brought evidence of how New Delhi is emerging as an important pivot point on Asia’s broader geopolitical stage.  Indeed, for every global investor fleeing the country these days, there is a foreign statesman who wants to partner more closely with it.

The visit of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to New Delhi illustrates how the Obama administration has shaken off its disillusionment with India and is now resuming its predecessors’ practice of engaging the country on high-profile security initiatives.   Panetta stopped in India as part of an eight-day swing through Asia designed to fill in the details about Washington’s new military buildup in the Asia-Pacific region that is plainly directed against China even if no one in Washington cares to admit it publicly.  As part of the strategy, the United States will shift the bulk of its naval combat power to the Pacific in the coming years as well as deepen military ties with regional allies and friends.

In an important address in New Delhi, Panetta made clear that the Obama administration sees India as a “linchpin” in this strategy.  Stating that the United States “views India as a net provider of security from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan and beyond,” Panetta proposed the formation of a long-term strategic partnership, one that featured greater Indian access to the latest U.S. military technology and a defense trade relationship that went beyond a focus on one-off transactions to include joint research and co-production efforts.

The path from Washington to New Delhi has been busy in recent weeks.  In late March, Commerce Secretary John Bryson showed up at the head of a high-level trade mission.  In April, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman stopped by to discuss preparations for the upcoming round of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue that will take place next week in Washington; Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Campbell paid a visit to continue the on-going exchange of views on East Asia policy that has sprung up over the last few years; and Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro arrived to resume a bilateral dialogue on non-proliferation and defense trade issues that has not convened in six years.  Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton alighted to talk about Iran, followed by Peter R. Lavoy, the Pentagon’s point person on Asia, who wanted to encourage a greater Indian role in Afghanistan.

While Panetta was paying court in New Delhi, Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was being serenaded by Chinese officials in Beijing.  In town to attend a summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – a regional security grouping comprised of China, Russia and four Central Asian states – Krishna was told by Executive Vice Premier Li Keqiang (who is widely expected to become China’s head of government) that the Sino-Indian equation would be the important bilateral relationship in the 21st century.  Li’s phrase is a virtual echo of the Obama administration’s regular formulation about Washington and New Delhi constituting “an indispensable partnership for the 21st century.”  Beijing has also upgraded its ambassador in New Delhi to vice-ministerial status.

So India’s geopolitical dance card is filling up.  Officially it remains uncertain about who to take to the prom through its inclinations are becoming increasingly clearer.  Like Washington, New Delhi seeks deeper economic cooperation with Beijing and during his visit Krishna was keen to secure Chinese investment in much-needed infrastructure projects.  China is now the country’s top partner in merchandise trade and according to one estimate the two could form the world’s largest trading combination by 2030.  Moreover, a deep-seated desire for strategic autonomy will continue to limit just how close New Delhi aligns itself with Washington.

Yet Beijing’s expanding strategic reach has also become a cause of deep concern to New Delhi, leading it gradually to tighten security ties with Washington.  Over the past few years, India has moved to fortify its northeastern border areas where China has made renewed territorial claims; tested a nuclear missile capable of targeting China’s largest cities; laid down a conspicuous marker in the South China Sea dispute; ramped up its purchase of U.S. military systems and the number of exercises with U.S. forces; expanded defense relations with Japan; and begun to concert East Asia policy with Washington and Tokyo.

The cross-currents affecting New Delhi’s approach toward Beijing are on display in a report issued a few months ago by prominent members of the Indian foreign policy establishment.  Seeking to chart out a set of basic principles to guide national security policy over the next decade, the report emphasizes that strategic independence remains “the core of India’s global engagements even today.”  Yet it surprisingly had much more to say about China than about the United States.  On the former, it argued that:

China will, for the foreseeable future, remain a significant foreign policy and security challenge for India.  It is the one major power which impinges directly on India’s geopolitical space.  As its economic and military capabilities expand, its power differential with India is likely to widen….

….The challenge for Indian diplomacy will be to develop a diversified network of relations with several major powers to compel China to exercise restraint in its dealings with India, while simultaneously avoiding relationships that go beyond conveying a certain threat threshold in Chinese perceptions.

In a subsequent newspaper piece, Shyam Saran, a former foreign secretary who was involved in the report, elaborated on these themes.  He argued that it would be best, at least for the time being, to avoid the encumbrances of an alliance with Washington.  Yet he also acknowledged that:

Given the challenge that China’s apparently relentless rise poses to India, the pursuit of a “non-aligned” policy appears unwise.  The U.S. has greater affinity and empathy with India.  It supports India’s acquisition of economic and technological capabilities and has convergent concerns over Chinese hegemony.  But the U.S. has not yet determined whether, in its relative decline, its interests are better served by playing a balancing role in Asia among Asian powers including between China and India, or seeking to contain China through a network of allies. Neither precludes India and the U.S. pursuing closer partnership and both seeking a more cautious and nuanced relationship with China.

Panetta’s tour of Asia and his visit to New Delhi have addressed Saran’s concern: The Obama administration is committed to organizing a regional balance of power against China and desires India’s key assistance toward that goal.  New Delhi’s response to this overture will undoubtedly be halting, more than occasionally causing frustration in Washington.  But over time its strategic imperatives will ineluctably draw it into a closer geopolitical affiliation with the United States.

This commentary was originally posted on Chanakya’s Notebook.  I invite you to follow me on Twitter.

India-US Relations Blog

Afghanistan is Key to India’s Iranian Connection

Leave a comment

Washington grumbles about the Indian relationship with Iran, but the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan leaves New Delhi little choice

The striking juxtaposition this week in New Delhi is a nice illustration of how Tehran has become a complicating factor in U.S.-India relations.  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in town to exhort Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government to do more on curtailing imports of Iranian oil.  All the while, a large Iranian trade delegation was a few miles away striking deals for the provision of agricultural commodities that Tehran is finding harder to purchase.

On the surface, the awkward tableau was reminiscent of the situation three months earlier when the Obama administration moved to enforce new U.S. sanctions aimed at shutting down the Iranian petroleum sector as a means of pressuring the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear weapons program.  At the time, reports emerged that India had overtaken China as Iran’s largest oil customer and that a new rupee payments system and barter trade arrangement were being set up for the purpose of circumventing the sanctions regime.  Adding to the perception of New Delhi’s defiance was the announcement that an Indian trade mission would visit Iran to scope out commercial opportunities created by the U.S. and European Union sanctions.  Even if the Americans and Europeans wished to shun business with Tehran, Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar was quoted as saying, “tell me why I should follow suit? Why shouldn’t I take up that business opportunity?”

These actions caused the Wall Street Journal to editorialize about “Iran’s Indian enablers” who were “turning about to be the mullahs’ last best friend.”  Nicholas Burns, who during the George W. Bush administration did yeoman’s work in bringing about the new era in bilateral affairs, issued a cri de couer:

This is bitterly disappointing news for those of us who have championed a closer relationship with India.  And it represents a real setback in the attempt by the last three American presidents to establish a close and strategic partnership with successive Indian governments.

Others pointed to New Delhi’s actions as evidence that Washington’s efforts to forge a strategic partnership with India were naïve and foolish.

But things have changed over the last few months.  While New Delhi continues to protest publicly the unilateral character of U.S. sanctions, it has quietly taken steps to accommodate U.S. concerns.  According to media reports, the Indian government has instructed domestic refineries to reduce imports of Iranian oil by 15 percent.  As a result, Baghdad has replaced Tehran as the country’s second largest crude oil supplier and Iranian oil now constitutes nine percent of India’s import profile as opposed to 12 percent last year.  Imports of Iranian crude declined by a third in April compared to March’s figures.  And the state-run Indian Oil Corporation, the country’s largest refiner, did not purchase any Iranian crude last month, down from 75,000 barrels per day in March.

During her trip, Mrs. Clinton publicly commended these efforts but also insisted that “India’s role in the international community” obliges it to go further.  To continue pressing this point, Washington is dispatching a special envoy next week to New Delhi.  This visit is significant since the Obama administration will soon begin rolling out punitive measures against foreign entities that have not lived up to Washington’s expectations.  It earlier granted passes to Japan and EU nations but pointedly left out such countries as India, China, Turkey and South Korea.

There is some speculation that India is in danger of being sanctioned for its continued oil transactions with Iran.  But a better bet is that this will not happen.  The rupee-based payment mechanism that India has fashioned to buy Iranian oil is certainly problematic from Washington’s perspective, though it is something U.S. officials can tolerate since it does not entail the exchange of major convertible currencies like the U.S. dollar or the euro.

Moreover, the third round of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is taking place next month and Washington will not want the sanctions issue to derail the momentum coming out of the talks.  Indeed, according to sources quoted in the Indian media, the matter was not a major agenda item in Clinton’s discussions with Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna:

“Both sides referred to it obliquely, but Clinton didn’t even push it.  In fact, she seemed much more keen to talk about possible deliverables that could be achieved when the two ministers meet again for the bilateral strategic dialogue in mid-June.”

In his joint press conference with Clinton, Mr. Krishna once again pleaded that the country’s burgeoning energy security needs – it imports 75 percent of its petroleum requirements – limit how quickly it can break its oil links with Tehran.  Washington urges India to get more of its supplies from Saudi Arabia, which has happened to an extent though New Delhi remains wary of Riyadh given its close friendship with Islamabad.

But there is another factor at work here than just the geopolitics of oil, one that seems not to have been squarely acknowledged during the Clinton visit: A significant reason for New Delhi’s continuing desire to engage Tehran resides in the adverse effect on Indian security concerns caused by U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

With domestic politics largely driving U.S. strategy, key differences are bound to emerge between the United States and India regarding the political endgame that is now unfolding.  Looking toward the exits, Washington will not be overly concerned with the exact details of the country’s future or the viability of the government in Kabul it leaves behind.  In contrast, New Delhi, which has invested heavily in Hamid Karzai’s government, has strong security interests in ensuring that any regime in Kabul is capable enough to be a bulwark against Pakistan as well as a gateway to trade links and energy resources in Central Asia.

India has traditionally relied upon Iran, whose interests in Afghanistan are roughly congruent, to help accomplish these goals.  After the fall of the Taliban regime, New Delhi played a key role in building a transportation corridor from the port of Chabahar in southeastern Iran into Afghanistan.  Late last year, it announced plans to expand this link by constructing a 900-kilometer rail line to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan, where an Indian consortium has won mineral development rights.

Indeed, New Delhi and Tehran may go so far as to revive their cooperation during the 1990s that provided critical support to the non-Pashtun militias battling the Taliban regime.  (Already reports are surfacing that the old Northern Alliance may be reconstituting itself.)  The Americans will surely grumble about the cozying up with Iran, but the geopolitical logic of the Obama withdrawal leaves New Delhi little choice.

India has for some time now telegraphed how the Afghanistan factor looms over its relations with Iran.  Speaking in mid-2010, at a time of renewed U.S. pressure on New Delhi’s bonds with Tehran, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao (who now serves as New Delhi’s ambassador in Washington) gave a noteworthy address on the relationship.  She highlighted the “unique” civilizational ties and “the instinctive feeling of goodwill” between the two countries.  She spoke of how links with Tehran are a “fundamental component” of Indian foreign policy and how there has been a recent “convergence of views” on important policy issues.  Regarding bilateral cooperation on Afghanistan, she argued that New Delhi and Tehran “are of the region and will belong here forever, even as outsiders [read the Americans] come and go.”

Reinforcing this message, a senior Indian official was quoted in the press at the same time as saying that efforts to tighten relations with Iran were a policy “recalibration” caused by the “scenario unfolding in Afghanistan and India’s determination to secure its national interests.”

The tussle over Iranian sanctions is a harbinger of bigger challenges ahead for U.S.-India relations.  One of the key foreign policy conundrums the Obama administration faces is how to reconcile its approach on Afghanistan, which has the effect of aggravating ties with New Delhi, with its recently-unveiled strategic “pivot” toward Asia, the success of which hinges in important measure on a strengthening of the security partnership with India.  The interplay of two conflicting dynamics in bilateral affairs – growing strategic cooperation in East Asia and unfolding differences over the future of Afghanistan – will be a key factor to watch for in the years ahead.

This commentary was originally posted on Chanakya’s Notebook.  I invite you to follow me on Twitter.

India-US Relations Blog

Change of Helm in Washington; Nirupama Rao to be the Ambassador

Leave a comment

The road to becoming the Indian Foreign Secretary most certainly runs through the ambassadorships in Beijing, Islamabad and probably Kathmandu and Colombo. Nirupama did Beijing and Colombo and now after a successful stint as Foreign Secretary, is slated to become India’s most high profile ambassador – in Washington. It is customary to say that appointments like these take place at a critical or crucial juncture.  Is it a crucial time? Not more than at any other time.

credit: theindiaexperts.comAlthough a number of reasons can be found to explain why the Indo-US relationship is currently in a parlous condition. The biggest blow comes undoubtedly from the elimination of the U.S. from the MRCA competition, quite probably for purely technical reasons. But there is another side to the Nirupama story. That is the story of the U.S. ambassador in New Delhi. After the performance of absolute cracker – Jacks like Robert Blackwill, Frank Wisner, Dick Celeste and many others, the performance of the current US ambassador in Delhi has been entirely forgettable. If it meant much to the U.S. to get short listed in the MRCA competition, one wouldn’t have guessed so from the activities or the lack of them at Roosevelt House. The U.S. ambassador’s office and residence was constantly buzzing during the time of the U.S. nuclear deal, but that was probably a stunning one – off performance – when the U.S. embassy mustered a huge public relations campaign on behalf of the deal, and followed it up with a command performance at the NSG waiver at Geneva.

Since then it’s all been downhill. No visiting congressmen in Delhi – or if there were, they kept a low profile. The result of all this is that Nirupama Rao has a job in hand- putting some heat into the relationship. As the PR blurbs say, the Indo- U.S. relationship is so multi-faceted that many parts of it run on automatic. So if the U.S. didn’t get the MRCA, it did get the torpedo deal, the C -17 deal and will probably get the howitzer deal. Institutionally the Indo-US relationship is incredibly strong, running as it does through 13 forums or dialogues. These include the Strategic Dialogue, Foreign Office Consultation, Defence Planning Group, Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism, the US-India Economic Dialogue, the CEO Forum, The Trade Policy Forum, The Energy Dialogue, Global Climate Change Dialogue, Information & Communication Dialogue, Science and Technology Forum, Education Dialogue and Health Cooperation Framework. That list should knock anyone out – but more importantly demonstrates how many joint bodies can be set up to produce very pedestrian results. In the entire run-up to the Obama visit probably one or two of these forums actually produced tangible agreements for the heads of state to sign.

The question also arises rather sharply, that if the state to state relationship runs through 13 standing forums, what can one ambassador do? Actually, she can do a lot. Because if even one or two of these forums actually click, the results can be spectacular. But this raises the important issue, of how much of the relationship is ‘managing’ and how much is old fashioned ‘diplomacy’? It probably is still a mixture, with more and more work between the two countries being conducted ‘outside’ the embassies and through the forums and through communities. Actually it was a US congressman (unnamed) who came to Delhi may years ago and said that U.S. foreign policy is controlled more through congress. According to him, other countries need to imitate China, in building up lobbies within congress rather than running formal diplomacy through the Embassy. This may or may not be true, but Nirupama has very little time to find out as she heads West to represent India in Washington. We certainly don’t want to repeat the NRI ambassador fiasco but if Nirupama can yet go beyond Foggy Bottom to get to grips with her job it would be worth watching.