Mrs. Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, in her four-day visit to India in July, hit all the high points with its high-profile media blitz and a plethora of official meetings, which Hillary herself defined as “pillars” of the relationship.

At the government level-there were signing of two important agreements, a Technical Safeguards Agreement permitting U.S.-licensed components to be used on Indian civilian spacecraft, and an agreement creating a US$30-million endowment to fund science, technology, and innovation.

A jubilant Mrs. Clinton cajoled the Indian government for an end-user monitoring arrangements too in order to permit major military sales from the United States and got assurance from India to designate two sites for U.S. companies to build nuclear facilities.

Certainly Hillary charmed the Indian elite and effectively put across the desire of U.S. to join hands with India to devise a breakthrough plan to fight climate change involving massive investments and millions of jobs.

The US State Secretary started her India visit from Mumbai, where she spent a night at the land mark of Mumbai terror attack-the Taj Hotel owned by Tata Group of Hotels. In her break fast meeting Hillary met business leaders of India like Mukesh Ambani and Ratan Tata and shared views on climate change, education and health care before flying to Delhi for strategic discussions.

Tone of Visit

At the press conference in New Delhi, the US leader expressed the intent of her visit, where Mrs. Clinton said, “We will work not just to maintain our good relationship, but to broaden and deepen it. To that end our governments have agreed to a strategic dialogue. This would include not just government officials but also business leaders, scientists, social activists, academics, leaders of charitable foundations, educators and entrepreneurs”.

At the joint news along with Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, Hillary pledged that future U.S.-Indian discussions would encompass a much wider scope of issues to include Energy security, Education, Agriculture reform and Counter-terrorism. She said it would be a ‘Forum for Action,” not just talk among government leaders and bureaucrats.

The expressions of goodwill on both sides stood in contrast to sharp differences on carbon emissions and whether India should be part of an international agreement setting legally binding limits on its emissions. At the news conference with Krishna, Clinton alluded to those divisions.

“Each of our countries, as you would expect, has different perspectives about the problems we face and how we will solve them,” she said. “But as the oldest democracy and the largest democracy in the world we believe we can work through these differences in our perspectives and focus on shared objectives and concrete results.”

The Indian government is resisting the Obama administration’s push for a global treaty that would mandate cuts in carbon emissions, arguing that developing economies deserve to grow without compulsory constraints.

Indian Environment Minister Mr. Jairam Ramesh openly dismissed US suggestions that India should accept worldwide legally binding caps on the production of greenhouse gases, while sharing a dais with Mrs. Clinton in Mumbai. The Indian minister did so with an eye to a possible successor to the Kyoto Protocol being drawn up at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December.

Outcome

The outcome of the visit was positive; Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh accepted the invitation to make a state visit to US in November. The US got an agreement that will allow it to monitor the use of military equipment it sells to India. The deal paves the way for billions of dollars’ worth of weapons contracts from India.

Mrs. Clinton also announced that India had identified two sites where American companies would be allowed to build nuclear power stations. This was another lucrative arrangement for the US.

Seeking to chart out a new path for cooperation with India, Hillary Clinton made clear that her mission did succeed in finding ways to expand Indo-U.S. cooperation in many areas like defence and civilian nuclear sales, while fully acknowledging “different perspectives” on issues like climate change.