U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s speech in Chennai on Wednesday, just a day after she held the second India-US strategic dialogue in New Delhi, was absorbing in a way that the official talks were not. Indeed, if the secretary of state had done no more than dwell at some length on the key points she made in Chennai, especially those relating to East and Southeast Asia and South and Central Asia — and let the senior officials accompanying her engage with the nitty-gritty of the bilateral relationship with their Indian counterparts — the assessment of the second strategic dialogue between the two countries may have been more upbeat. We can trust senior bureaucrats to mess things up, and in this case Indian and US officials did little to prove us wrong. The joint statement at the end of the strategic dialogue was a limp affair, clearly failing to capture the spirit of the discussions, while in Chennai the secretary of state informed her audience that in New Delhi she had discussed in depth the key issues she was raising before them.
In her “vision for the 21st century” speech, the secretary of state made no secret of the US desire to forge multi-faceted ties with India because the history of the present century will be “written in Asia”. America’s Asian allies coming down from the Cold War era remain intact. Let us be clear that includes China (which served to play the role of an Eastern Nato against the Soviet Union). China remains a country with which America’s ties are those of great cooperation in a range of fields, although there are areas of sharp disagreement as well. And yet Washington is looking to India to become a “steward” along with it to help create the institutional architecture for the region that lies between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The reasons are India’s size and its democracy. This combination is unique for the region.
India, quite frankly, does not have the needed resources to play its full role in the economic, political and security affairs of East Asia. But can it assist with maritime security, disaster-related responses, enhanced trade and investment, and help with enunciation of the rules of the game? Of course it can. It is in this country’s own self-interest to be an indispensable part of the evolution of that process. This country’s relations with East and Southeast Asia, including China, are positive although boundary questions and China’s occasional dubiousness in the Pakistan context do complicate the picture. Ordinarily, India’s expanded engagement with this sphere should not meet with serious reservations. China is likely to have some worries about US influence in this region. Ms Clinton too, in framing questions, has spoken of issues such as attention to “human rights” and “accountable governance”, which China may be uncomfortable with. But these issues arise not because of an American desire to “contain” China, as per the vocabulary of 60 years ago, but in order to be sure that China’s rise is peaceful. Many worry about this, and not only in America. It is noteworthy that the secretary of state also spoke of developing a US, China, India relationship, besides one involving the US, Japan and India.
The other key area flagged by Ms Clinton — South and Central Asia, with special reference to Afghanistan — was long on generalities, and short even on optimism. The US, clearly, is not sure of its own role here and appears wary of the role of regional powers. So, here, India must learn to chart its own course in an environment uncertain for all. This nation should remain engaged not only with the US but also with other players, and be ready to innovate. Ms Clinton’s speech should provoke thought, not instant judgment.