- If Trump’s understanding of India’s position on Kashmir is the first thing Presser made clear, the second thing that became clear is Potus’ belief in Modi’s ability as the leader of a complex, diverse nation.
- The fact that India’s relations with the US are multidimensional and have greater dimensions than US-Pakistan relations, which is limited to security concerns of a strict transactional nature.
- Trump has reiterated India’s position on Kashmir, that any ‘solution’ to the dispute should be bilateral.
Apart from over-eager journalists, there is little to compare the two pressers – one with Pakistan media and one with their Indian counterparts. Donald Trump’s remarks in front of Pakistan media ahead of a bilateral relationship with Prime Minister Imran Khan on Monday contained a strange combination of triviality and frustration. There is no point to guess who was despised, and who seemed desperate.
As this piece argues, Trump gave absolutely nothing to the Pakistani Prime Minister except a few Pakistanis to cheer on Kashmir. The press, along with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, clarified some things on Tuesday.
One, Trump understands India’s position on Kashmir and while he respects India’s veto over third party arbitration, he would like to see India as the President of the United States – a mature partner in a dispute by a competent leader As – handling the dispute in such a way that it does not need to worry too much about building nuclear armaments in South Asia. Furthermore, Trump cares little and even underestimates the Kashmir issue or the historical grievance of the victims of the two countries.
During a media interaction, according to the readout issued by the White House, Trump repeatedly dismissed questions on sponsorship of terrorism in Pakistan and its propaganda on Kashmir and his faith in Modi and his ability to “sort things”. Let’s look at some exchanges.
“Q: … Pakistan has been a global nuisance of terrorism. You talked about it in Houston. How do you ensure that you stop terrorism from Pakistan? Because it threatens democracies like America and India. Even as terrorism (small) continues, commercial interests are affected.
Current Trump: Well, I had a very good meeting with Prime Minister Khan. It was a long meeting and we discussed a lot. And I think he wants to see something that is very fruitful, very peaceful. And I think that will happen, eventually. I really believe that these two great gentlemen will get together and do some work. Me too – you know, you mentioned Pakistan, but Iran has to be at the top of the list. Because if you look at terrorist states, it has been number one for a long time. But I truly believe that Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Khan, they are together – they will meet when they get to know each other. And I think a lot of good things will come from that meeting. ”
This is important because there is a lot going on in the sub-tasks which is immediately apparent. First, Trump has explicitly reiterated India’s position on Kashmir, that any “solution” to the dispute must be strictly bilateral. He is simultaneously giving India a direction to resume the negotiation process with Pakistan, although he is careful not to set a deadline or pressurize. Notice the words: “… they will meet when they get to know each other.”
Second, even if Trump is disgusted to repeat India’s position that Pakistan is the center of global terror – Trump clearly has big beef with Iran and all nations have self-interests as per their foreign policy guidelines And the statements are set – but they still had not contested the election. The reporter’s main argument is that Pakistan is a sponsor of terror. He merely said, “Iran will have to be at the top of the list,” leaving the suggestion that Pakistan is also prominently named in that alleged “list”. This is again a tacit endorsement of India’s statement (though to the extent that New Delhi would not have liked) that Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism is a global concern.
Third, this exchange also suggests that Trump is not ready to throw Khan under the bus. Although the Indian media will have nothing more to do than that, but this is not how nations conduct diplomacy. The Afghanistan “peace talks” (a euphemism if ever there was one) are going nowhere and Pakistan may temporarily take its best advantage with the US, but as long as the US military remains on Afghan soil, Trump finds out That the clock is ticking. Despair to win Trump’s “unimaginable war” and bring troops back home just before the campaign for 2020, the presidential election again turns into another chance for Pakistan to become relevant. In any case, nations rarely formulate foreign policy based on ideals. Had it been so, India would not have been buying oil from Iran or would have done arms deals with Russia despite the track record of these two nations to sponsor terrorism.
Another exchange points to the conclusion that Trump does not want to raise a very harsh voice on Pakistan, but he does not make the original argument that he has a role in sponsoring radical Islamic / Islamist terrorism. Let’s see.
“Q … Mr. President, in Houston, you said that you are standing with India in the fight against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. How did you make the statement (in an event organized by the think tank) from the Pakistani Prime Minister?” See that Pakistani state, ISI trained al Qaeda?
Current Trump: Well, I haven’t heard that. I have not heard so. And I know that your Prime Minister (Modi) will take care of it. So, if there is a problem, he – if there is a problem, he will take care of it. It would be great if they could do some work on Kashmir. We all want to see it. I’m sure we all want to see it. ”
If Trump’s understanding of India’s position on Kashmir is the first thing Presser has made clear, the second thing that has become clear is that of Modi as the leader of a complex, diverse nation lodged in a difficult neighborhood Potts believes inability. Trump repeatedly pointed to Modi’s ability to handle complex situations and used analogies and monikers to describe him, sparking political debate in India. He compared Modi to Elvis Presley for his ability to draw crowds, calling him the “father of India”, which Modi’s rivals and critics found difficult to digest.
Trump described his personal chemistry with Modi as “as good as he can get”, claiming that he has “great respect” and “great admiration” and also said that Modi is a “great gentleman and a great leader.” Given Trump’s limited vocabulary, he is as great as he can possibly get.
In true Trumpian style, he somewhat described India as a “very torn” place in front of Modi. “There was a lot of dissatisfaction, a lot of fighting. And he brought it all together, like a father would bring it together. Maybe he is the father of India. We would call him” the father of India. “I think that’s not so bad. But he’s brought things together. And you don’t listen anymore. So I think he’s done a fantastic job. But I think this incident showed me that India How much the country likes and how much I like your Prime Minister. ”
Such Trumpian monikers should be taken cautiously, but this undoubtedly indicates that he was influenced by Modi, and what he saw in Houston.
However, the final point from Presser is clear that despite the strategic proximity and convergence of values and interests, trade will likely remain a defining feature of US-India bilateral relations – at least until Trump occupies the Oval Office. In Presser, Trump very clearly mentioned the main agenda of his bipartisan engagement with Modi, which was immediately after Presser on the lines of the United Nations.
“… we have many things to discuss. One of them – and perhaps in our case, the biggest trade. We do many business together and we are working on that. We also discuss Kashmir Will do. I think it will be brought up. “Later in the new conference, he hoped” very soon we’ll make a business deal. We’ll have a slightly bigger deal on the road, but we’ll make a business deal very soon “But it is expected that, according to the latest news reports, the US and Indian negotiators have been trusted (led by Union External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale and Indian Ambassador to the US, Harsh Shringla.” ) Conclusion.