Impressed with PM’s leadership: US asst secretary of state

US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Robert O Blake, was in India for the second India-US strategic dialogue along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. DNA caught up with him on the sidelines of the Mumbai lap of his visit for a tete-a-tete.

You were deputy chief of mission in 2003-06. What are the major changes in Indo-US relations since?
The sheer depth and scope of this relation has grown. You can see this in the joint statement by Secretary Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna which points out how India and US are partnering in every possible endeavour. Both are not only working to improve bilateral relations but cooperating in third countries. Secretary Clinton made an important policy statement in Chennai, which said we want to do more with India in Asia, in the Asia-Pacific and particularly in Afghanistan, strategically important to both.

Do American and Indian interests really converge in Afghanistan and Central Asia?
Both countries want a stable Afghanistan. We are trying to embed Afghanistan and its regional neighbours in Central Asia by supporting local infrastructure projects and big regional projects like the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. To encourage trade we've got Afghanistan and Pakistan to sign an agreement. Once implemented, we want to extend it to Central Asia and finally, India. Trucks coming from Kazakhstan will then be able to come via Afghanistan and Pakistan into India and go till Bangladesh. India will have direct access to Central Asia without having to go through China or Iran. This will bring investment to Central Asia and integrate it regionally and with South Asia. We see India's role in these developments.

Foreign policy watchers feel US has already lost in Afghanistan. It's Vietnam, but its just is not being made to look like that.
I wouldn't say that at all. I'd say we are engaged in a transition to build the Afghan security forces so that they can take independent charge by 2014 end. We will have residual military presence beyond 2014 to ensure the continuance of processes begun. We are negotiating with Afghanistan to decide the nature of the residual military presence. We are also engaging politically as we believe there cannot be a purely militaristic solution in our fight with the Taliban. We are looking for Taliban who will abandon violence, stop supporting Al Qaeda and be part of reconciliation.

But is the Taliban responding? Within days of the US beginning a draw down, Hamid Karzai's half brother and senior advisor were killed.
I wouldn't say that. Afghan High Council for Peace head Burhanuddin Rabbani who understands these issues across Afghanistan visited both US and India. We are working very closely with both Afghanistan and India on this reconciliatory process.

Why does the US still say Pakistan can't be pushed beyond a point?
Our primary obligation is safety and security of US citizens. That is why we put such emphasis on expanding our counter terror cooperation with India. We have a common goal to keep terror from reaching our soils and hence there has been tremendous expansion of cooperation since 26/11.  We work together on homeland security, cyber-security and on a whole lot of issues to prevent future attacks.

We are also focus on helping Pakistan like your own government. We are very impressed with the leadership that PM Singh showed in reaching out to Pakistan through the dialogue between the Home and Commerce Secretaries. We also want to see the 26/11 accused brought to justice and for Pakistan to not allow its soil to be used by terror groups.

Why is the US stand vis-a-vis Pakistan always yo-yoing?
We are clear that more progress needs to be made by Pakistan inside its boundaries whether on the Afghan border or with groups like LeT in Punjab on the Indian border. At the same time we want to work with Pakistan as it grapples with multiple power, economy or security challenges. This can be a very dynamic process as we continually reassess and recalibrate and that can appear as going back and forth.

Secretary Clinton brought up Myanmar and its human rights record while asking India to assume greater regional leadership. But doesn't the US itself shy from taking China on directly for human rights excesses due to economic compulsions? 
I don't think many in the Chinese establishment would share that view. (Laughs) We have not hesitated in raising human rights concerns and this forms an important part of our dialogue with the Chinese government. On Myanmar, we appreciate India's strategic interests but it should push for democratic reforms.

Two days ago, a White House statement said Tibet is a part of China. To a lot of pro-democracy activists that comes as a blow. Are we to infer that China's holding of 1 trillion dollars worth of US debt dictates your commitment to human rights?
If you imply that Tibet being part of China is departure from standard policy, you are wrong. We've never encouraged any kind of separatism in China. But we do believe that freedom of worship should be allowed and we have been meeting with the Dalai Lama to discuss how that can be worked out, even if this agonises the Chinese government. Even President Obama met the Dalai Lama.

A year ago you said the US was not frustrated with how long India was taking to pass the nuclear civil liabilities bill and was willing to wait, but during her recent visit Secretary Clinton kept pressing on this. Are you losing your patience?
I don't think we are losing our patience but we are very interested in getting support for our companies and their interests in getting a share of the civil nuclear business that is going to result from the very substantial efforts that the US alone put in allowing India to develop its civil nuclear sector. We made our concerns known and were assured things are on track.

Many feel the Indo-US nuclear deal has weakened the international non-proliferation regime.
I do not agree. The premise of US effort on this score has always been that India has had a strong non-proliferation record. It will be in the world's interest for it to be made a partner in the global non-proliferation effort. PM Singh's statement in Prague saying India wants to see a world free of nuclear weapons came as a great reassurance that our strategic choice was right. We have no regrets.