tv [untitled] CSPAN June 29, 2009 3:30pm-4:00pm EDT
person, one individual. general jones visited afghanistan, pakistan, and india during the course of the past week and spent time talking with the president about that issue. i think we have seen some progress. there seems to be, the event that happened in pakistan over the past couple of weeks have united many in the cause against extremism. we have a long way to go. i think the administration believes that we are making important progress. thank you.
>> coming up later today admiral. timothy e. keating speaking at the atlantic council. the topics include north korea's most recent missile testing. live coverage at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today the supreme court released its opinion in the connecticut firefighters case. it involved a promotion exam for firefighters that was rejected because very few minorities would receive promotions under it. a group of white firefighters wanted the exam abandoned. supreme court sided with the white firefighters, overturning a lower-court ruling that had been endorsed by the supreme court nominee sotomayor. tonight at 8 eastern, you can hear a portion of the oral argument from the case that took place in december of 2007.
>> from a conference on u.s. indian relations, defense and security issues including india and pakistan nuclear programs. it runs one hour 5 minutes. >> good morning. thank you for coming to the american enterprise institute and welcome to our program on the future of indian relations. i am gary schmidt, a resident scholar sure -- scholar here and i run the program on advanced strategic studies. i will be moderating. or the first panel today, which we'll be dealing with
u.s.-indian security relations and as we move forward. with me is four distinguished panelists, susan maragy who is the vice president at lockheed martin, which her job includes management of international alliance partnerships and market development for international civil and homeland security programs. susan has had a very distinguished and accomplished career in business security for a number of years. next up will be peter lichtenbaum who's the vice president for regulatory compliance and an international policy for bae systems. before joining bae, peter was assistant secretary of commerce for export control from 2003 to 2006 and also served as the acting undersecretary for commerce in the security field back in 2005. speaking third will be george
perkovich who's the v.p. for studies at the carnegie endowment and also runs carnegie's nonproliferation program. george has written a very fine book on india's nuclear weapons program and his most recent book is abolishing nuclear weapons which i just think just came out. and for cleanup is dan blumenthal who's a resident fellow here in aei in asian studies. dan was the senior director in the office of secretary of defense for the office handling china, taiwan and mongolian affairs and is a long time serving member on the u.s.-china economic and security commission. since we only have about an hour, i've asked our panelists to speak for about eight minutes, which should leave us plenty of time for follow-up questions and discussion. but again, as danny said when we
do turn to questions, please identify yourself and try to make it a question. so if that is an introduction, susan, you're up. >> good morning. i'm pleased to be here with a distinguished panel and certainly with the american enterprise institute, a private sector perspective on defense and security cooperation. having just returned from india this past weekend i can attest to the growing importance of u.s.-india discussions with respect to indian industry and an indian industry both including the public sector undertakings the psus as well as the enterprise to deal with the multidimensional threats associated with the security of india as well as the u.s. security. lockheed martin has been in india for many years, most notably focused on defense recapitalization and meeting the needs of indian industry but we've turned our attention most
recently due to the multiple tragedies that have occurred in india and in the region with respect to national security. we look to collaborate in partner with respect to indian industry, the psus as well as the enterprise to bring technology solutions that not only we provide national security to india but also to the region. two themes that i'd like to have you recall here from today's discussion is that u.s.-india national security cooperation really needs to enhance the region's stability. there's ways we can do this from shared experiences and our common goals as well as increase cooperation. after the u.s. attacks on 9/11, it was a wakeup call for the u.s. my perspective from the mumbai attacks in 2611 to make sure they have protected the national security of their citizens and
the sovereignty of the nation. drawing on the experiences both from the u.s. 9/11 attacks as well as the recent attacks and there have been many in india, the most notably the 2611, the private sector engagement is absolutely key for our respective governments to be successful. in private sector collaboration from my perspective has been focused on critical infrastructure protection, border and transportation security, emergency preparedness response and information-sharing and data fusion in alerts. there are a number of ways the private sector both from the u.s. entities as well as those in india can work together but again, those are the four major areas that i see as being key to increased security cooperation. switching to defense for a moment, a little bit larger issue with respect to collaboration. there are a number of policy and bilateral discussions going on
and process issues that we have to address. the success to date we're seeing growing military exercises. we're seeing the sale of c130js by lockheed martin and the p8s by the boeing corporation and this is testimony to the relationship between u.s. and india from a defense perspective. the fact that these defense sales have occurred i think is a credit of the hard work of industry and governments alike. rather than the process itself and again, i'll focus on the process here in a moment. buthere are multiple challenges that will require bilateral arrangements to improve and to improve the enhanced defense relationship between u.s. and india. onerous terms and conditions, the offset requirements, the differing concepts of liability, the role of consultants and the policy issues with respect to
monitoring in the communication information security, memorandum of agreement otherwise known as sismo and taas. these are all areas that the u.s. and the government of india need to collaborate in order to improve defense relationships going forward. u.s. industry is committing substantial resources nonetheless in pursuit of programs to a large degree in faith. faith that the india and u.s. relations will continue and improve and these agreements will fall into place. one very large competition that has gotten the world stage is the multimission role combat aircraft that both two firms from the united states are in competition with other worlda worldary -- aeronautic issues. although it takes more policy issues i think there are two or three priorities that i would like to leave you with today that perhaps could be the focus for defense.
on security i mentioned it was collaboration between the private sector and the four main areas but in defense i think we really need to increase the defense trade infrastructure, specifically, completing the series of bilateral agreements to facilitate the defense trade as i've mentioned. review india's position on technology release and transfer process and again, holding up a number of key defense technologies with the end use monitoring in the agreements. and lastly, come to a mutual understanding of what the boundary conditions are between defense and security. and understanding how do we deploy technologies to enable the security and the sovereignty of india and the u.s. and the individual prosperity and economic development for both countries. thank you. >> and in 8 minutes, wow! peter, tough act to follow. >> yeah, i'm not sure i can. but i'll do my best. it's also a pleasure to be here
today especially for danni pletka who's such a terrific person and a close friend. i think i endorse everything susan just said about the prospective industry. for those of you who may not be familiar with bae systems, we are a global defense and aerospace company, roots in the united kingdom but now have something like 50,000 u.s. employees so very strongly committed in the united states. i think, you know, most observers would say there's certainly room for improvement in the u.s.-india defense relationship but i think that improvement is almost certain to occur. over the course of the new administration in the united states and the renewed sing relationship in india. and we shouldn't overlook that these things take time. there is a long way to go in
order to achieve a defense relationship that is comparable to the relationship that the u.s. has with its closest ally which is the united kingdom but we have made good progress. through the work as susan said of industry and government alike. india is already a big and a very fast-growing market in the defense area. but i think even more important u.s. industry and global industry sees india as a place where there's potential for strong partnerships, whether through technology transfers, direct investment in india or the other way as the ambassador said. we ourselves announced the formation of a joint venture in the land sector which we're very excited about. stepping back for a second, in terms of evaluating where the defense relationship will go, you know, it goes without saying that the -- but i'll say it anyway, that the direction in the relationship is very
positive with the energy that secretary clinton brings, secretary gates. you know, you go to these events at around town and you see people saying the things that they're expected to say but i feel that when secretary clinton said at the u.s.-india business council a week or a week before it was a personal priority for her. and when they say they are a personal priorities they mean them. i was very glad to see that. secretary gates traveled twice to india so i think that's a priority for him as well. just to list in the 8 minutes some of the major common interests that i see, internal security, clearly post-mumbai counterterrorism is a top priority for india as it is for the united states and there's a lot the u.s. can do to assist. afghanistan, resisting the spread of the taliban in the region both for afghanistan's stake and also given the large muslim population in india.
convergence on being prepared to respond to china, given the uncertainty regarding prc intentions in the region. and a shared interest in middle east stability given the large trade that india has with iran and others in the region. there is political support from top u.s. officials, i believe, and so i th@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ g@ we also cannot underestimate that there are -- as history has shown, balances that can be roadblocks, that can blow the relationship that we all want to see. there are many potential flat -- flash points in pakistan
kashmir or another pakistan-based attack or as the type of military aid to pakistan. or tension on other issues. so these are major countries, each have their own national security interest and how those develop is hard to predict and could slow deepening in the national security area. there's also historical concerns about indian sovereignty versus the united states. india will not want to simply follow the united states' lead. india has to be concerned about protecting its sovereignty. and we've seen that in the slow progress in the end use monitoring agreement. i think in the end, that will get done but it reflects the historical importance of sovereignty in india. the indian defense industry has historical ties to other employers such as russia, israel and france most notably.
there's a complicated budget process in india and challenging offset requirements. so those will be issues. there's also -- and i can say this as a former administrator of the u.s. export control system, there's a burdensome u.s. export control system. and while it may be less burdensome than some perceive it as, there's certainly room for improvement both in export controls and in u.s. technology release policy. and so there are a variety of issues that can serve as road blocks, whether they will or not, only the future can say. a plausible euscenario, altho, there are many, perhaps, i think that the pace of progress will depend more on india than the united states. the u.s. government, whether it was under the bush administration or under the new obama administration, there's a
bipartisan agreement that we want to deepen relations with india. i think that's the view in india as well. but there will be constraints on india and decision-makers and i think the u.s. probably will be prepared to go as fast as the indian government wants to go. on specific issues, i mentioned the end use monitoring agreement which is very important from a united states perspective. it's a requirement of the u.s. statute, the arms export control act that we have an end use monitoring agreement in place. in order to permit verification of sales to india. i think it's also in india's interest to complete it because it enables transfers that otherwise might be difficult to occur. there is a reason for this rule and i think the two governments are getting very close. i wouldn't be surprised if
there's a deal agreed before or at secretary clinton's visit in july, and i think that's due to the work of a lot of people in india and in the united states, in government, and industry, i see wolf gross sitting there who's put in a lot of time in end use monitoring. i think we'll see counterterrorism cooperation increase, intelligence-sharing, procurement for u.s. vendors, joint exercises, i think cooperation in actual deployments is probably further down the road except for humanitarian missions or perhaps u.n. missions. and as far as u.s. defense sales on major competitions, i think that will hopefully be determined based on price and quality. and so let the market prevail and then the last thing i would refer to is defense investment policy where india has a 26% cap
on foreign investment in the defense sector. you know, it's understandable that india regulates foreignh5a investment in defense and so does the united states but the system is a more approach that looks at the facts in an individual chase. and we would like to see it be in positive for technology transfer and jobs in a partnership between indian industry and the united states industry. we recognize that will take time but we're hopeful we can head in that direction. i don't know how i did on my time. >> george, you're up. thanks. >> thanks, gary. thanks for -- to you and aei for inviting me and having this panel. i'm going to pick up on a lot of
what my predecessors said and i had nothing to add to what they said and thought peter especially covered a lot what i was planning to say so i may broaden it a little bit. >> sorry. >> so, i'm glad. i may broaden it a little bit and say that beginning with the clinton administration in the late '90s but then certainly in the bush administration there was both a lot of talk in the u.s. but a lot of effort and belief in transforming the relationship with india and that transformation was a phrase especially that the bush administration applied to it. but i think there was less clarity about what that meant, what that was going to mean and in particular what it's reasonable to expect from india when we talk about a strategic partnership 'cause there's this phrase well, we're natural allies. well, what does that really mean? and one thing -- and it picks up
on both of the previous comments was, you know, we always have to remember that india is not aligned. i mean, that's a phrase that had its definition in the cold war but it basically refers to what peter was talking about, attention to sovereignty. but india's no one's partner in the sense, okay, you go do this and we'll do this. it's a different kind of -- india will always do more than most countries kind of what it wants, what it defines as its interest and with a special emphasis sometimes of not doing what somebody else is asking them to do to prove, in fact, that it is not a junior partner. and i think executive branches understand that. the u.s. commerce generally doesn't and so i think that will be an ongoing source of friction which leads to my second point in this regard, which is one of
the reasons we're so happy to transform the relationship with india is that it's a democracy. india is the world's biggest democracy. the u.s. is -- you know, your world's greatest democracy, however, you want to phrase it, and so india is a democracy, that's why this is so important and so wonderful. and then we proceed to forget that it's a democracy. and one of the things that happens in the indian democracy given the diversity, given still the condition of india and still the tremendous amount of economic development that needs to happen, ideological diversity, other diversity, is that democracy generally doesn't like to do the things that the u.s. wants them to do, for very legitimate indian interest because india is not a rich country. the majority of indians are still small scale farmers and that has tremendous implications on the national interest. so, for example, we talk about transforming the relationship
and early on the bush administration was hoping very much, pressing very much for india to send troops to iraq. didn't happen. it was unreasonable to expect it would. i don't think the indians regret it. we talk about the wto. very important issue, free trade and india has basically led the opposition along with brazil and others to a number of positions which makes sense if two-thirds of your population is small scale farmers not to say they shouldn't have a different policy but it's a different policy than what the u.s. wants. climate change, very important issue for the u.s. and others going forward. arguably security issue in particular in the region around india. if the models are right and you get massive sea level rise, bangladesh is under water or much of it. with tens of millions at least people who don't have places to live and who most likely will try to walk to india.
which raises huge security, human rights, economic issues. i know the u.s. navy thinks about this. others think about this as an issue going forward. and yet in terms of policy, how to address climate change, india has a very different perspective than the u.s. does and you can go down the list. the u.s.-india nuclear cooperation agreement was the way to transform the relationship. that you can't transform this relationship if the u.s. doesn't change its nonproliferation laws, allow nuclear cooperation with india. okay, fine, the u.s. did that. we can talk about the implications but i will be surprised if india buys american nuclear power plants and so thank you very much, u.s. commerce, thank you very much bush administration, russian nuclear establishment is thrilled because they're the ones who will be building nuclear power plants there. maybe france, but there's an
issue that didn't get paid too much attention to which is japanese companies are major suppliers to the french nuclear establishment and to any u.s. vendors and japan has a very unhappy view of the u.s.-india nuclear view and may not allow its suppliers to do business to india but again leaves the field to russia. that's fine. but from an indian point of view that worked very well and that was how it was framed. you want to transform the relationship, this is what you have to give us so we did but where i think it may come down in terms of the transformation of the relationship is some of the stuff that susan and peter were talking about is defense sales. i mean, that's what we'd been talking about here and cooperation more than sales partnerships, which is important. but it's hardly kind of the ennobling thing of transformation that has been taed about the world's greatest democracies and so on.
it's a business proposition. now, that may be more practical because it's concrete, you can tell when you're getting somewhere and it will also make the u.s. congress happy when, you know, our firms get defense sales. it will be somewhat hostile in india but that is the concrete thing that we'll be talking about. i would in terms of the way we think about it suggest that's fine, but there's a more important framework that's hard for the u.s. and again, especially for the u.s. congress to take, which is that we have a national security interest in the well-being of india, period. not as an instrument of the u.s., not of the partner of the u.s. of doing other things but
precisely because of india's size. it's an unimaginable democratic experience to have billions of people. i try to say this to people, it's as if you imagine the u.s. congress is the representative body of all of north america plus mexico plus south america plus egypt and germany. and you put all of that into one congress and say okay now make legislation and keep everybody happy. that's india. so if that country can succeed in its own right, in it's own development, keeping peace, you know, avoiding programs and things that happen and protecting against terrorism, developing, you know, consuming
or burning less fossil fuel, that's a strategic gain for the u.s. and for the world. that would enhance u.s. security. that would enhance global security and i think that's how we generally ought to think about it more than our tendency which again is very natural, where are they going to sail us to do or which of our stuff are they going to buy or, you know, are they going to switch their vote on a trade thing because they're now a partner? we have an interest in india and i think that's the central point i would stop with here. >> thanks, george. i must say i'm intrigued by the idea of germany being ruled by the indian parliament. >> the u.s. congress. >> well, thank you very much. i find myself in agreement in both respects with george, actually. i just want to say i'm not going u