The persistent efforts put in by the Government of India for the visit of the American President have borne fruit, although now government is extremely anxious to ensure that he does not include Pakistan in his itinerary. India believes that the often-repeated declarations by the US against terrorism would prevent Bill Clinton from visiting our hostile neighbour.

However, it cannot be forgotten that when our Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee called upon the US government to declare Pakistan a terrorist state, he obtained a blatant refusal. Thus, it is obvious that the perceptions of the two countries are not the same on Pak backed terrorism.

Now it cannot be forgotten that in the whole decade of the eighties, Pakistan was armed to the hilt to help organise resistance against the occupation of Afghanistan by Russian troops. The CIA built the closest possible relations with the ISI. Many of its proteges of that decade are in prominent positions in the military regime of General Parvez Musharraf.

Clinton might not therefore jettison Pakistan as our government so fondly desires. On the other hand, his concern, expressed by his government times without number, about the nuclearisation of the two countries might motivate him to put the two countries on the same footing.

India also expects that the commitment of the US to democratic ways of governance might prevent Clinton from visiting Pakistan. For, such a visit could only put a stamp of sanction on the military take-over-of Pakistan.

Here again, the record of successive regimes of the US in dealing with other countries belies that assumption. Bill Clinton, worried that strained neighbourly relations between the two countries might trigger a nuclear holocaust, might like to stress two things.

Clinton would want to help in the resumption of negotiations, between India and Pakistan, disrupted after the Kargil conflict. Indirect hints have been thrown to both countries that the US would be more than willing to mediate in the dispute between them. India has firmly rejected such mediation; and, as for resumption of talks, the Indian Prime Minister has, of late, stiffened his attitude. He has repeatedly said that unless Pakistan vacates the territory occupied by her in Kashmir, there is no question of going back to the negotiation table.

Clinton would obviously want that India and Pakistan sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It might help the US Congress to do likewise which it has resisted to do, so far. However, Indian Parliament has stoutly opposed the acceptance of the Treaty. On the other hand, Pakistan had linked her acceptance of the CTBT with that of India’s acceptance.

Thus, Clinton would have a tough task on his hands, in respect of both these concerns. In any case, he might be advised to keep the scales even between the two countries, and to cover Pakistan also in his visit to the sub-continent. Obviously, that would be most uncomfortable to those who had laboured too hard in coaxing the US administration to ensure Clinton’s visit. It is well known that Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh, was very keen on it; and he succeeded, too.

Of late, India has taken some initiatives in other directions. The joint press statement by Jaswant Singh and the French foreign minister Vedrine advocating the creation of a multi-polar world and the signing by the Indian Commerce Minister an agreement with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing, supporting China’s admission in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

It might not please the United States. The latter has not favoured China’s bid to join the WTO; and she is ever keen to act as the sole gendarme of a whole world. There is little doubt, however, that both these moves are quite appropriate.

A multi-polar world cannot emerge so easily. Wishes are not horses that Vedrine and Jaswant Singh would ride to set up a counter to the uni-pole of the military and industrial might of the US. Moreover, such a prospect would call for cessation of hostilities with our own immediate neighbour; and, in this respect, France can teach the Indians a thing or two. Three wars between her and her close neighbour Germany in 1871, 1914-19 and 1939-45 convinced her that a new chapter of a long-term friendship between them had to be essayed.

Out of those efforts, not only did the Franco German accords emerge, the foundation of a united Europe were also laid. If there is the possibility of the creation of a second pole, the European Community appears to be the surest candidate. It need not be gainsaid, however, that in international policing, the EU follows the US to the hilt. But, this is only as of today.

Yet another candidate would be a Sino-Russian axis whenever it comes into being. India could also qualify for a role such as this, provided the Indian sub-continent acts to ensure that SAPTA and SAFTA the two trade related agreements that exist among South Asian countries, are brought to fruition.

Clinton would hardly be interested in these matters, although he must press for further promotion of trade between his countries of the sub-continent. It may be recalled that he pledged all this considerable might in Seattle for the adoption of labour and other social standards and environment-related clauses for linking them with trade.

Clinton might not miss this opportunity to pressurise India, and Pakistan, too, if he visits her, that they soften their opposition. India’s commerce minister, Murasoli Maran, has however, reiterated the government’s stand on these issues recently at the United Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Bangkok.

But, then, the question is: what is the meeting ground between the two sides? Does our Government expect that Clinton will return to Washington empty-handed, that to in the last phase of his Presidency? We might be looking for better terms of trade, some loan on easy credit, higher standing in the IMF and the World Bank.