Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary Diplomatist July 19 Edition . | Page 25

An ADBI Initiative
India and the US post G20
BY AMBASSADOR K.V. RAJAN
W
hile India is routinely described as a “strategic
partner” of the United States of America, and is
moving slowly but surely towards the status of
receiving NATO-like treatment without being a member in
the USA Congress, frictions had mounted between the Trump
administration and Narendra Modi’s government over a wide
range of issues in recent weeks; growing diff erences between
Washington and New Delhi were clearly threatening to
undermine what had been a deepening strategic relationship.
From India’s protectionist trade policies to Prime Minister
Modi’s need to purchase the S-400 air defence system from
Moscow and purchase oil from Iran, tensions between
Washington and New Delhi had grown signifi cantly over
the past few months.
India’s conversations with the USA at the highest level at
G- 20 were preceded by an important visit to New Delhi by
USA Secretary of State, Pompeo. They were also preceded
by President Trump’s tweeted warning to India that it must
lower tariff s for USA exports. The USA had already made it
very clear that India’s purchase of Russian S-400 missiles was
unacceptable and India should look for alternative sources,
and India had made it equally clear that its national interest
required the Russian deal to go ahead. Similarly, the question
of India’s energy security required India to depend on Iran
for oil; moreover, USA policies on Iran could have extremely
serious adverse consequence for peace and stability. But the
USA drew a red line on Iran also (along with Venezuela) as
a source of oil for India’s needs.
Both sides had left little space for compromise by the time
the two leaders met in Osaka.
Yet the atmospherics of the discussion that took place
were characterized by a certain restraint, moderation and
commitment to fi nd mutually acceptable solutions. India and
the USA could take some satisfaction at the bonhomie the two
leaders exuded, and the postponement of decisions on trade
to a future meeting of the two Trade Ministers. India could
take genuine satisfaction from the fact that despite the fi rm
and explicit airing of diff erences on key issues in public by the
two leaders, the atmosphere of cordiality and commitment to
a longer term view of their strategic ties had not been dented.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the two main
adversaries, USA and Iran. The latter has publicly declared its
determination to violate the understanding on restrictions on
its enrichment of uranium, and the USA response has been on
expected lines. The risk of confl ict due to a misunderstanding
or over reaction is high. So is the danger of serious adverse
consequences for countries like India. In that event, India
will fi nd it diffi cult to continue with its tight rope balancing
act. Which is why several experts including Vikram Mehta of
Brookings have been urging that India should work quietly
with other countries in a similar situation, such as China,
Turkey, South Korea, Japan, France and Spain to fi nd a
diplomatic solution while there is still time.
There has been (somewhat unwarranted) excitement in
India at the news that the USA Congress is moving slowly but
surely towards the status of giving India NATO-like treatment
in terms of access to sensitive arms and technologies without
India being a member of the NATO. This is simply the delayed
formalisation of the designation of India as a “Major Defence
Partner” during the Presidency of Barack Obama in 2016. The
USA has already given India Strategic Trade Authorization-1
status, a move that facilitates the exchange of high technology
and strengthens defence collaboration, and also designated
India as a “Major defence Partner.” Former Ambassador T P
Sreenivasan suggests that “…the motivation of the Senators
and Congressmen in pushing for the new status of India is clear
enough. The China haters among them believe that India should
be built up as a counter to China and wish to sell more American
weapons to India. The anti-Russian lobby naturally want to
end Indian dependence on Russian supplies, which cannot be
wished away, as External Aff airs Minister S. Jaishankar told
Secretary of State Mike Pompei in New Delhi.” 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Diplomatist • Vol 7 • Issue 7 • July 2019, Noida • 25