[Reader-list] India’s stealth lobbying

[Lalit Ambardar]

Stealth or otherwise , it  should'nt bother Indians.......or should it some....??....LA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:59:39 +0530> From: kaksanjay at gmail.com> To: reader-list at sarai.net> Subject: [Reader-list] India’s stealth lobbying> > India's stealth lobbying against Holbrooke's brief> Fri, 01/23/2009 - 7:12pm> > http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/23/india_s_stealth_lobbying_against_holbrooke> > When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- flanked by President Obama> -- introduced Richard Holbrooke as the formidable new U.S. envoy to> South Asia at a State Department ceremony on Thursday, India was> noticeably absent from his title.> > Holbrooke, the veteran negotiator of the Dayton accords and> sharp-elbowed foreign policy hand who has long advised Clinton, was> officially named "special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan"> in what was meant to be one of the signature foreign policy acts of> Obama's first week in office.> > But the omission of India from his title, and from Clinton's official> remarks introducing the new diplomatic push in the region was no> accident -- not to mention a sharp departure from Obama's own> previously stated approach of engaging India, as well as Pakistan and> Afghanistan, in a regional dialogue. Multiple sources told The Cable> that India vigorously -- and successfully -- lobbied the Obama> transition team to make sure that neither India nor Kashmir was> included in Holbrooke's official brief.> > "When the Indian government learned Holbrooke was going to do> [Pakistan]-India, they swung into action and lobbied to have India> excluded from his purview," relayed one source. "And they succeeded.> Holbrooke's account officially does not include India."> > To many Washington South Asia experts, the decision to not include> India or Kashmir in the official Terms of Reference of Holbrooke's> mandate was not just appropriate, but absolutely necessary. Given> India's fierce, decades-long resistance to any internationalization of> the Kashmir dispute, to have done so would have been a non-starter for> India, and guaranteed failure before the envoy mission had begun,> several suggested.> > "Leaving India out of the title actually opens up [Holbrooke's]> freedom to talk to them," argued Philip Zelikow, a former counselor to> Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who served until December as a> consultant for a lobbying firm, BGR, retained by the Indian> Government.> > But to others -- including Obama himself, who proposed a special envoy> to deal with Kashmir during the campaign -- the region's security> challenges cannot be solved without including India. Obama told Time's> Joe Klein, that working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve> their Kashmir conflict would be a critical task for his> administration's efforts to try to counter growing instability in> Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Kashmir in particular is an interesting> situation where that is obviously a potential tar pit diplomatically,"> Obama told Klein. "But, for us to devote serious diplomatic resources> to get a special envoy in there, to figure out a plausible approach,> and essentially make the argument to the Indians, you guys are on the> brink of being an economic superpower, why do you want to keep on> messing with this? ... I think there is a moment where potentially we> could get their attention. It won't be easy, but it's important."> Obama also suggested in the interview that he had discussed the> special envoy idea with former President Bill Clinton.> > Whatever the case, the evidence that India was able to successfully> lobby the Obama transition in the weeks before it took office to> ensure Holbrooke's mission left them and Kashmir out is testament to> both the sensitivity of the issue to India as well as the prowess and> sophistication of its Washington political and lobbying operation.> > "The Indians freaked out at talk of Bill Clinton being an envoy to> Kashmir," said Daniel Markey, a South Asia expert at the Council on> Foreign Relations. "The reason they were so worried is they don't want> their activities in Kashmir to be equated with what Pakistan is doing> in Afghanistan."> > "They [India] are the big fish [in the region]," Markey added. "They> don't want to be grouped with the 'problem children' in the region, on> Kashmir, on nuclear issues. They have a fairly effective lobbying> machine. They have taken a lot of notes on the Israel model, and they> have gotten better. But you don't want to overstate it. Some of the> lobbying effort is obvious, done through companies, but a lot of it is> direct government to government contact, people talking to each other.> The Indian government and those around the Indian government made> clear through a variety of channels because of the Clinton rumors and> they came out to quickly shoot that down."> > Once Holbrooke's name was floated, the Indian lobbying campaign became> even more intense. "The Indians do not like Holbrooke because he has> been very good on Pakistan... and has a very good feel for the place"> said one former U.S. official on condition of anonymity. "The Indians> have this town down."> > Initially, when Obama's plans for a corps of special envoys became> public after the election, The Cable was told, the idea was for a> senior diplomat to tackle the Kashmir dispute as part of the South> Asia envoy portfolio and whose mandate would include India. But soon> after the election and Holbrooke's name began to appear, the Indians> approached key transition officials to make clear that while they> could not affect what the new administration did with respect to> envoys, that they would expect no mediation on the Kashmir issue.> > "I have suggested to others, though not directly to Dick [Holbrooke],> that his title should not/not include India, precisely so that he> would be freer to work with them," Zelikow said. "If you understand> Indian politics, this paradox makes sense."> > "I did nothing for the [Government of India] on this," Zelikow added.> The Indian government "talked directly to folks on the [Obama]> transition team and I heard about it from my Indian friends. I think> Holbrooke needs to talk to the Indians. But they are trying,> understandably, to break out of being in a hyphenated relationship> with America (i.e., comprehended on a mental map called> India-Pakistan)."> > Other sources said India's hired lobbyists were deployed to shape the> contours of the U.S. diplomatic mission. According to lobbying records> filed with the Department of Justice, since 2005, the government of> India has paid BGR about $2.5 million. BGR officials who currently> work on the Indian account, who according to lobbying records include> former Sen. Chuck Hagel aide Andrew Parasiliti, former U.S. State> Department counterproliferation official Stephen Rademaker, former> Bush I and Reagan era White House aide and BGR partner Ed Rogers, and> former House Foreign Affairs committee staffer Walker Roberts, did not> respond to messages left Friday by Foreign Policy. Former U.S.> ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, who previously served as a> lobbyist for India, left BGR in 2008 for the Rand Corporation. In> addition, the Indian embassy in Washington has paid lobbying firm> Patton Boggs $291,665 under a six-month contract that took effect Aug.> 18, according to lobbying records.> > "BGR has been a registered lobbyist for the Indian government since> 2005," noted one Senate staffer on condition of anonymity. "The Indian> government retained BGR for the primary purpose of pushing through the> Congress the civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the United> States and India - hence the strategic hires of Bob Blackwill, the> former U.S. Ambassador to India, and Walker Roberts, a senior staffer> on the House Foreign Affairs Committee responsible for vetting past> such agreements. BGR continues to actively lobby on behalf of the> Indian government - their lobbyists sought to influence a recent> Senate resolution on the Mumbai attacks. So I would be very surprised> if BGR were NOT involved here."> > (For its part, Pakistan has spent about $1,175,000, on lobbying during> the past year, including on trade issues. That includes Dewey and> LeBoeuf's work for the Ministry of Commerce, and Locke Lord's work for> the Embassy of Pakistan and the Pakistan International Airlines Corp,> according to lobbying records.)> > It's not clear to experts and officials interviewed exactly who in the> Obama transition team was contacted as part of the Indian lobbying> effort. The White House did not respond to queries.> > Asked about the decision to exclude India from the special envoy's> official mandate, former NSC and CIA official Bruce Riedel, who served> as the senior lead of the team advising the Obama campaign on South> Asian issues, said by e-mail, "When Senator Clinton originally> proposed the envoy idea in her campaign it was only for Afghanistan> and Pakistan." He didn't respond to a further query questioning why> Clinton's campaign comments on the issue mattered as much as Obama's,> since, obviously, it was Obama who won the presidency and ultimately> appointed her to carry out his foreign policy as the Obama> administration's top diplomat.> > Laura Rozen> _________________________________________> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.> Critiques & Collaborations> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
_________________________________________________________________
Chose your Life Partner! Join MSN Matrimony FREE
http://www.in.msn.com/matrimony