Related Stories Visions, Revisions'Sourav (now) thinks there's value in Kartik. At the end of the day, it's the player's value realised by market forces'‘Autonomy of regulators must be taken seriously... nobody gives it to you, you learn to be autonomous’‘Developers are only interested in the luxury end. We’ve just forgotten affordable housing’

 • My guest today is Strobe Talbott. We’re meeting for the second time on the show but with one big difference: last time, you came to India to promote your book, which was about what you did under the previous U.S. administration, with a previous Indian government, after the nuclear tests; now we might talk about your new innings with the new U.S. administration and with, who knows, a new Indian government, handling a situation after the Indo-U.S. treaty, whether it is done by then or still on the table. There’s going to be a big change in a couple of years. The last time (on the show), you spoke about having come here 30 years ago and riding a motor-scooter here. Now you see the change?

Oh, you bet. The change you see in this country is as important for the world as any change taking place anywhere. And I say that because I’ve seen the Soviet era. The change that is happening here is of spectacular importance.

• Just the other day, three of your senior-most Senators were here and they said that so many of them in the Senate turned up their noses and voted for the deal. This was a group of intelligent, powerful and very difficult Americans who were voting for something that they fundamentally didn’t believe in. They did it because they see something special in Indo-US relations. What do you think they are seeing?

What they see, first of all, is an agreement that was brilliantly negotiated by the Indian government. There were some defects from the American side and we’ve talked about this before. As much as India deserves special treatment, there is a need to keep the global non-proliferation regime alive, creating an exception for India There will be other countries who will seek such treatment; they might not be reliable custodians of nuclear weapons. But here’s what: the deal from our side, the American side, is done. I was relieved when it went as smoothly as it has on the American side, because I want us to turn the page and get on to the next chapter. And it blows my mind when I see the kind of difficulty it has got into on the Indian side.

• Senator Joe Biden said something that I should repeat here. He said a new Democratic administration would re-negotiate the deal. Is it possible to negotiate such a deal, because that could be the case?

I doubt that very much. If you have a Senator (Barack) Obama or a Senator (John) McCain or a Senator (Hillary) Clinton assuming the office of the President of the United States, any of those three administrations will be dealing with a new mood in the U.S. with regard to the nuclear issue. That mood is likely to translate into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an important four-letter-word in the Indian language.

• There’s one more four-letter-word — the FMCT, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

There you go. My guess is, and it can only be a guess, that whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House, those two treaties are going to be on a faster track, from the American standpoint. And that in itself will change the context within which the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation deal will be addressed. That doesn’t mean going back and re-negotiating it. But what it does argue for is the Indian side doing what I think Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wants to do — get the thing done, get the implementation begun. Because if India does that, the next administration, the next U.S. Senate in Congress will be dealing with a fait accompli (rather) than inherit something that is in limbo.

• So it’s not just a question of re-negotiation. It’s a done deal and it’s going to be tough to re-negotiate. It’s what the BJP is saying here in India.

Part of the strange dynamic of the story that I followed is that there has been a tendency on the Indian side to look at Acts that have been passed in our Congress as the adding of new conditions to the deal. I’ve heard more about the Hyde amendment in India than I have ever heard about it in the U.S. I think it’s misunderstood in India. The Hyde Amendment says something so simple and so self-evident: that the implementation of this deal must be in accordance with the U.S. law. It’s kind of a no-brainer, what’s the controversy about that? But if you listen to some of my Indian friends, it constitutes reopening certain issues that have been closed and so on.

• So it’s about a change in the entire proliferation environment in Washington.

Yes, and by the way, the U.S. bears its share of responsibility for the “fraying at the edges” of the non-proliferation regime around the world. You notice I’m saying the non-proliferation regime, and not the three-letter-word, the NPT, which needs to stay in effect. Everybody recognizes that India is not prepared and will not be prepared to join the NPT in its original terms, because among other things, you crossed that bridge a long time ago — 1974 to 1998. But I do think that if the U.S. were to commit itself to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and if India can see that and say the U.S. did it (and) we will seriously consider it, that would greatly help. If the U.S. pushed hard for an FMCT and India pushed harder for the same, alongside, then all kinds of things would be possible in dealing with whatever situation the government in India faces when the next president comes to the White House.

• But frankly, I don’t see a problem with that. That might create a new window, those who oppose the nuclear deal now say it’ll make it impossible to test. But India’s position on the CTBT has always been that if everybody signs it, we’ll also sign it. And everybody is mostly American.

Yeah, but everybody is not just American, and we Americans should not operate on the basis that everybody else is mostly America. All countries, large and small, matter on this issue. If small countries — that won’t come up in the course of our conversation — end up with nuclear weapons and are irresponsible custodians of it, then that’s a dangerous thing. That’s what the NPT was meant to prevent. And that’s the problem that we hope India will help us address over the long term.

• But what I mean is that if the U.S. signs it, it becomes very tough for smaller countries to stay out of it. In fact, CTBT was damaged by the U.S. Congress.

Let’s recall some relevant history here. When you and I were dealing with each other, back when I was in the State Department, conducting the dialogue between Jaswant Singh and the BJP-led government here, the U.S., for quite a period of time, had signed the CTBT, which it still has, and was moving towards ratification. During that time, I still heard all kinds of objections from the Indian side. Now when the U.S. Senate did what I think is the most colossal blunder in recent decades, nine years ago when it refused to ratify the CTBT, it cut off the legs of the Clinton administration and the dialogue between us.

• And you expect that the next Congress will ratify it?

Yes, and then it will be interesting to see what position India takes with regard to the CTBT and the FMCT.

• If India were then to go along with the mainstream, it eases the movement on so many aspects of our relationship?

Yes is the short answer. I certainly look forward to the day when the nuclear issue in its avatars, shall we say, does not preoccupy Indians and Americans as much as it does.

• I know you try to argue that one mustn’t presume that you will be in the next administration and dealing with India, but you will be doing something in the next administration if it is a Democratic one. Tell us, what can we expect from American politics next year?

Let’s not waste any time on my career prospects: I have the best imaginable job for me at this stage in my life. Coming to the second part of your question, here is a prediction that can be made with confidence: The next President will be one with a demonstrated proclivity of reaching across the aisle, working on a bi-partisan basis with the other party, and somebody who is committed to the centrality of the U.S.-Indian bilateral relationship. I think Indians can all be confident that there will be continuity and a continued commitment to this bilateral relationship.

• Strobe, we know about Hillary Clinton, but little about Obama. There are some concerns regarding him in India. What is it that we need to understand about him?

I’ve seen Senator Obama and I do think that many of the anxieties about him are not well founded. I have two young sons and their friends who are all climbing aboard the Obama bandwagon. And that’s important. The youth voter percentage has increased this year, starting with the primaries. If the young people decide to be more involved with the future of the country, since they have the largest stake in it, that should be in Senator Obama’s favour and that should be good for America.

• What about the world-view regarding Obama? I know that the opinions of his being immature, inexperienced and rash are misplaced.

I know that it’s an objective fact that he hasn’t had as much experience as the other candidates at the Federal level and also the fact that he is so much younger. Youth has certain attractiveness in our political system: think of Kennedy. I know of his policies, they’re grounded, there’s a lot of reading, I know some of the people on his team. With Obama, I’ll sum it up as follows: There’s a difference between being a boss and a leader, and I think the US in recent years has tended to boss people around too much.

• One problem that one sees with Democrats today, apart from the compulsion to be anything but Bush. The other thing is this whole new rhetoric on the economy, which has replaced Iraq as the main issue in the elections. Can you look at the foreign policy that engages with the whole world, an outward foreign policy and an inward looking economic policy?

An outward looking foreign policy and an inward looking economic policy would be bad for the U.S. and bad for the world. I am quite critical of the fact that Democrats, more than Republicans, have exploited what I think are ill-founded concerns about off-shoring of jobs.

• But do you think Obama or Clinton will make this mistake? Do you think one is more or less likely than the other to make this mistake?

I can’t slice and dice it quite that thin, but on the issue of trade, the Democrat candidates have a bit more challenge there than the Republican side. There is a protectionist nerve that is twitching in the Democrats.

• We’ve been talking about change in the U.S. Around the same time there maybe an election in India and the way the coalition is built might change. You have experience with dealing with the previous Indian administration. But there’s that bit about dealing with the new one.

I find Indian domestic politics fascinating and mystifying. I’ve had some very erudite people explain it to me and I am more confused than before. I think it’s inherently complicated. The Clinton administration dealt with a BJP government on the nuclear issue and the goals they strove for then are not too dissimilar from what the current Indian government has managed to get out of the Bush administration. I cannot understand why they oppose the deal as vehemently as they have.

• Let me rephrase my question. In the experience that you had with the NDA back then, at that point, was the bar set higher than what the current nuclear deal shows? Or is it lower than what the current deal gives India? Would they have settled for less than what this deal gives India?

I think, had the Clinton administration been prepared to offer to the BJP-led government the same deal that Bush has been prepared to offer Manmohan Singh and company, the Indian side would have gone for it and they would have also been astonished given what they knew about our position on these issues involved.

• And that’s why you’re so astonished that they’re opposing it.

As I have said, my astonishment has its limits, in so far as policy and political positions are based on rationality, common sense and facts. Parties play politics all the time, the Congress did it with the BJP at that time and we have the same in America, where Republicans will attack a deal that has been made by Democrats and Republicans will end up in the White House and say, at least that deal’s done, and let’s get on.

• That’s what we expect Democrats to do.

We agreed, I think, that were there to be movement on both sides with regard to the CTBT and the FMCT, that would help.

• Now, did you raise this with Mr (Lal Krishna) Advani?

I haven’t met him on this trip. I haven’t had the chance to meet anyone from the Opposition on this trip.

• Because if the BJP were to come to power next year, they would have a real problem retracing their steps on this.

We know what the time-table of change is in the U.S. but we don’t know of it in India. I think, for everybody’s sake, if India were to go ahead and finish implementing the deal now and be done with it, so that we’re not arguing about something in the past, which was part of the burden that Jaswant Singh and I had to deal with. We had to unload off our backs and our countries’ backs so much baggage from 50 years of squandered opportunity of Indo-US relations. I hope the next government doesn’t have to deal with that.

• That’s a nice wish to have, Strobe. Looking forward to a year of change, new governments on both sides with full terms hopefully, no baggage of the past, and a new beginning.

I always enjoy the chance to talk with you. Goodbye.

editor@expressindia.com