CODEL BERMAN DISCUSSES BILATERAL, REGIONAL ISSUES

C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 000804 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/17/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV ENRG KGHG SENV IN SUBJECT: CODEL BERMAN DISCUSSES BILATERAL, REGIONAL ISSUES WITH INDIAN FOREIGN SECRETARY Classified By: CDA Peter Burleigh for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) Summary. In an April 17 meeting between Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and a U.S. congressional delegation led by Representative Howard Berman, the two sides discussed regional issues, including the new U.S. Afghanistan-Pakistan policy, terrorism, and Iran, as well as bilateral issues including a mutual desire to solidify the vastly improved relations. End summary. Menon: Pakistan needs to act -------------- ¶2. (C) Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon began the meeting by describing India's "tough" neighborhood, an environment where, despite the unprecedented establishment of democratic governments, was still mired in weak and ineffectual governance. While we have seen "the shoots of democracy" take hold in India's neighboring countries, Menon said, India was still troubled by insecurity. Nowhere was that insecurity more problematic for India than in Pakistan, where the civilian government is either incapable or uninterested in providing the stable climate which could move bilateral relations forward. Repeating a theme he had delivered numerous times in the past, Menon described Pakistan as having multiple power centers, to include civilians, the army, Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI),and jihadists, who worked at cross purposes. While India had made the conscious decision to seek healthy relations with Pakistan for its own interests, and took political risks in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks to not jeopardize the possibility of better relations in the near term, the Pakistani government had not demonstrated it was taking action to prosecute the terrorist networks involved in Mumbai. ¶3. (C) Menon felt the Pakistani hierarchy had self-serving political reasons for playing up Indo-Pak tensions, making it nearly impossible for India to take any unilateral action which could move a meaningful dialogue process forward. No democratically elected government in India could move forward with dialogue with Pakistan under those circumstances, Menon maintained. He later added that India doesn't see the need to have "dialogue for dialogue's sake," and with terrorism being the number one issue in their bilateral relationship, if the Pakistani government wasn't serious about addressing terrorism, then the Indian government didn't see the point of resuming dialogue. India has stake in AfPak success -------------- ¶4. (C) Menon lauded the new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan ("AfPak"),emphasizing that India had a "huge stake in your success." Menon was grateful for the opportunity for India to provide input into the strategy, and said India wants to work with the U.S. in Afghanistan reconstruction. However, from the Indian perspective, it was "more of a PakAf problem than an AfPak one," he stated. He agreed with Congressman Berman that the period between now and Afghanistan's national elections would be a potential opportunity for the terrorists to foment instability, noting that the various terrorist groups in the region had fused together both physically and operationally. Menon also praised Congressman Berman for the legislation he had sponsored on aid to Pakistan, saying it had identified the problems "just right," and noting India hoped to see it work in making Pakistan more accountable in its counter-terrorism efforts. ¶5. (C) India also appreciated the regional approach the Obama administration was taking on Afghanistan, Menon stated, noting India has experience in dealing with Iran on Afghanistan, and adding that Iran could play a useful role. Menon quickly added that he felt the strategy represented a huge U.S. commitment to Afghanistan. ¶6. (C) Congressman Berman, Congressman Ackerman, and Congressman Royce each further engaged Menon on the Afghanistan-Pakistan issue, searching for areas where India could cooperate more with the U.S., as well as further clarification of India's assessment of the current situation. Congressman Moran challenged some Indian characterizations of the ISI and the Taliban as a monolith, arguing that it would be more constructive to engage the positive elements of ISI and co-opt opportunist elements of the Taliban who could be peeled away from the terrorists. Menon clarified that India saw the Afghanistan-Pakistan problem much the same way as the U.S., particularly that the goal was to create a security environment which would permit "normal" life to return to the people. He described one difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan as being the cohesiveness of traditional communities. In Afghanistan, Menon argued, tribal communities remained largely intact, and India had based its development programs on working with community-based structures. However, in Pakistan, the Taliban had effectively destroyed traditional communities, for the sake of asserting its own influence. Responding to the question of whether a military solution was possible in Afghanistan, Menon claimed it was not unimaginable, citing the Mughal dominance of the region for over 80 years. India shares U.S. goals on Iran's nuclear weaponization -------------- ¶7. (C) Congressman Costa sought Menon's opinion on a strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, asking specifically what role Russia could play. Menon reiterated the Indian position that it opposed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, but said Iran has reached a stage of nuclear development which can't be turned back. What the international community needed to do, he said, was find a way to verify and safeguard Iran's nuclear materials to prevent weaponization from taking place. We also need to make clear for Iran the many negative implications of pursuing nuclear weapons, including the added danger it would entail for Iran, he noted. Menon doubted that Iranian leadership, both political and religious, were likely to engage on this issue before Iranian elections, however after the election both Russia and China should be called on to exert more pressure on Iran. Congressman Ackerman pointedly asked if India would be prepared to boycott and sanction Iran should it move toward weaponization; Menon replied that India would "100%" boycott, but first every effort needed to be made to prevent that situation. India has been clear in its talks with Tehran that it opposed its nuclear weapons program, Menon said. Bilateral progress "irreversible" -------------- ¶8. (C) Turning to the bilateral relationship, Representatives Lungren and Jackson-Lee asked Menon how the improved U.S.-India ties could be solidified, with Jackson-Lee stressing that trade relations were lagging behind the warm political ties. Menon said he believed the relationship had reached an irreversible level, with opportunities for further growth particularly in education, agriculture, energy (and specifically clean and renewable energies),defense cooperation, non-proliferation and trade. "These are government problems," Menon pointed out, adding that the people of both countries were "ready to work." On non-proliferation, Menon pointed out that now that the civil-nuclear agreement had been achieved, the U.S. and India could work together on the shared goals of global denuclearization, the Fissile Material Control Treaty (FMCT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and other export controls. Menon thanked the entire delegation for its work in concluding the passage of the Hyde Act and 123 Agreement, acknowledging the difficult work it entailed. ¶9. (SBU) Participants: India: Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon U.S.: Charge d'Affaires Peter Burleigh Rep. Howard Berman Rep. Gary Ackerman Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee Rep. Dan Lungren Rep. Ed Royce Rep. Jim Costa Rep. Jim Moran ¶10. (SBU) The delegation did not have the opportunity to clear this cable. BURLEIGH