US embassy cable - 04THEHAGUE2924

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002924 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/12/2014 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, KNNP, IN, NL, EUN 
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/EU/INDIA: "NEW PARTNERSHIP" HAS LITTLE 
SUBSTANCE 
 
REF: NEW DELHI 7078 
 
Classified By: POL Counselor Andrew Schofer for reasons 1.4 (b/d) 
 
1. (C) Summary: Beyond welcoming a new "strategic 
partnership," the November 8 EU-India Summit was perhaps more 
notable for what it lacked than what it included.  The new 
"strategic partnership" appears to be little more than a 
wishlist of topics for cooperation to be fleshed out over the 
next year.  As recounted by Dutch contacts, the 
two-and-a-half hour meeting and follow-on lunch consisted of 
skin-deep exchanges on UN issues, counterterrorism, 
non-proliferation, WTO, environment, recent developments in 
Europe, and regional developments in South Asia and the 
Middle East.  The evening business round-table, which was to 
provide a venue for India to attract trade and investment, 
devolved into an exchange about the problems both sides 
experience in getting access to the other's economy.  End 
Summary. 
 
2. (U) The fifth Summit between the EU and India was held in 
The Hague on November 8.  The EU was represented by Dutch PM 
Balkenende and FM Bot in their Presidency capacity, EC 
President Romano Prodi, High Rep for CFSP Javier Solana, and 
Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy.  Indian PM Manmohan Singh, 
External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh, and Commerce and 
Industry Secretary Kamal Nath represented India.  Following 
the summit, the two sides issued a Joint Declaration on 
Cultural Relations and Joint Press Statement, available 
on-line at www.eu2004.nl/20041108-151953-A. 
 
"Strategic Partnership" 
----------------------- 
 
3. (C) The new "strategic partnership" is the sixth such EU 
partnership.  Dutch Head of Southern Asia affairs Wilfred 
Mohr and India desk officer Louise Huijbens described the 
EU-India strategic partnership to poloff as a recognition of 
India's growing importance in the world, with both sides 
determined to "deepen economic cooperation and broaden 
political cooperation."  The partnership also reflects shared 
values and interests with regard to democracy, free press, 
secularism and multilateralism and embodies the hope that 
India will play a crucial regional role for stability in 
South Asia and will support democratic reforms in places such 
as Burma. 
 
4. (C) The partnership, however, appeared to be less a set of 
concrete proposals than a "wishlist" describing various areas 
for future cooperation -- to be drawn together in an Action 
Plan for acceptance at the next Summit.  For example, Mohr 
and Huijbens expected that the partnership will 
institutionalize the previously ad hoc economic cooperation 
in such areas as Galileo, maritime and agricultural fields, 
and provide a forum for anticipated dialogue in areas 
including industry, environment, transport, IT, and 
biotechnology.  Dialogue on disarmament and 
non-proliferation, conflict resolution, and a panel on energy 
are all mentioned on the Joint Declaration's wishlist for the 
strategic partnership, but were not discussed at the Summit; 
nor did the Dutch have an understanding about the direction 
in which these topics would ultimately move.  The 
best-articulated area for cooperation was outlined in a Joint 
Declaration on Cultural Relations released after the Summit, 
which looks forward to expanded cultural exchanges and 
cooperation in fields including education, public and private 
organizations, art, film and tourism. 
 
Multilateral Issues 
------------------- 
 
5. (C) In a discussion of "effective multilateralism," the 
two sides reportedly embraced their strongly shared value in 
multilateralism.  Yet, in specifics, their differences and 
the topics left out of discussion weighed heavier than those 
included: 
 
- United Nations 
 
(SBU) India made clear its desire for a seat on the Security 
Council, noting in particular that its level of democracy, 
economy, and peacekeeping support are in line with its own 
idea of criteria for permanent membership.  The EU responded 
that it did not yet have a position on UNSC membership, but 
instead would wait for the December release of the UN 
high-level panel opinion. 
 
- Human Rights 
 
(C) While India desk officer Louise Huijbens had told poloff 
September 16 that she hoped human rights would appear on the 
Summit's agenda this year, Huijbens confirmed November 11 
that India had refused to discuss the issue on a bilateral 
basis.  Although the Joint Declaration asserts that both 
sides "affirmed our willingness to continue discussing Human 
Rights in a comprehensive manner," Huijbens said the Dutch 
and EU would look for a discussion of the topic in 
multilateral contexts such as the UN and would potentially 
move it back into a bilateral context in the future. 
 
- Counterterrorism 
(SBU) The EU deferred a discussion of "root causes of 
terrorism" when India refused to discuss what it felt could 
lead to a distinction between "good and bad terrorism."  The 
EU agreed that "all acts of terrorism are bad" but continued 
to feel that addressing conditions it sees as underlying 
terrorist behavior could prove beneficial.  The EU agreed to 
look into ways to increase dialogue and cooperation in 
terrorism-related areas including narcotics, cyber-terrorism, 
and money laundering. 
 
- Disarmament and Non-proliferation 
 
(C) Instead of a real discussion of disarmament and 
non-proliferation issues, the two sides made statements of 
position and "agreed to disagree."  India stated it believes 
the NPT is discriminatory and should be overhauled.  The EU 
responded with vague references to non-proliferation as an 
issue of increasing importance and stressed the role of the 
IAEA, but only noted concerns about India's export control 
regime.  Huijbens told poloff that while overall she saw "no 
movement" on either side during this discussion, she and Mohr 
both believed India seemed to attach greater importance to 
improving its export controls.   Huijbens noted that the EU 
did not feel it could state its desire for India to sign up 
to the NPT, however.  Also missing was any discussion of 
non-military technology or civilian nuclear issues. 
 
- Economics and Trade 
 
(C) During a discussion of the WTO Doha Round, India noted 
its desire to see further agricultural liberalizations from 
the EU, reductions in hidden barriers to trade, further 
progress on trade in services, and reductions in the 
anti-dumping measures taken by the EU.  Missing from the 
economic agenda was any discussion of India's level of 
development, including progress toward Millennium Goals. 
Huijbens commented that, as in the area of human rights, 
India asserts that it is capable of handling development on 
its own, and takes offense to bilateral discussion as an 
attack on its status as a developed nation. 
 
- Business Round Table 
 
(SBU) A Round Table of Business Leaders was held in the 
evening following the Summit, attended by trade 
representatives of both sides and leaders of several European 
businesses.  India briefed on its investment plan and 
infrastructure, agricultural reform investments, and made a 
pitch for the benefits of outsourcing.  Business leaders 
described problems encountered in trade with India, including 
intellectual property problems, limits on FDI ownership, and 
a lack of openness in India's retail sector.  In its turn, 
Indian representatives complained about visa restrictions in 
Europe, non-tariff barriers, and again lamented the EU's use 
of anti-dumping regulations. 
 
- Environment 
 
(SBU) Both India and the EU praised Russia's recent 
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and looked forward to 
increasing multilateral attention to environment.  Missing 
from the discussion was any address of post-Kyoto 
understandings, practical cooperation, or moves on the part 
of India to lower gas emissions.  According to Huijbens, 
India stated that "since gas emissions are lower in 
developing countries India should not have to pay more 
attention to such emissions." 
 
South Asian and Other Regional Issues 
------------------------------------- 
 
6. (C) While discussion of developments in South Asia were 
relatively substantive and only marred by disagreement over 
handling of Burma, the discussions was limited in most areas 
to an exchange of updates: 
 
- Pakistan 
 
(SBU) The EU expressed its wish to enter into a structural 
political dialogue with Pakistan, and welcomed the composite 
dialogue between India and Pakistan.  The EU encouraged India 
to continue dialogue and CBMs.  India said that progress in 
normalization discussions were on track and that it is 
satisfied with the current situation, and noted that 
Pakistani President Musharraf will visit Delhi later this 
month. 
 
- Bangladesh. 
 
(C) Huijbens noted that Bangladesh was added late to the 
Summit agenda at the request of "certain EU member states." 
The EU stated its concern about the deteriorating political 
and rule of law situation in Bangladesh.  India said it was 
also concerned about the situation, stating it was not able 
to work with Bangladesh, and cited particular concerns about 
fundamental Islam.  India mentioned interest in the potential 
for trade and energy in Bangladesh. India said it is seeking 
progress on this issue within the South Asian Association for 
Regional Cooperation (SAARC) context. 
 
- Nepal 
 
(SBU) The EU expressed its concern about the ongoing conflict 
in Nepal.  India said it is worried about its open border 
with Nepal and the possibility of spillover, and that it is 
encouraging the Government of Nepal that there must be a 
negotiated rather than military solution. 
 
- Burma 
 
(SBU) The EU explained its ASEM enlargement decision, 
expressed disappointment that Burma had not met the EU's 
conditions of participation, and described the expanded 
sanctions regime put in place after the meeting.  India said 
it as also dissatisfied that democratic reforms in Burma were 
lagging, but strongly disagreed with the effectiveness of 
pressure.  India said engagement and economic cooperation 
would be more effective than the EU's policy of pressuring 
Burma. 
 
- Afghanistan 
 
(SBU) Both sides agreed that the Afghan presidential 
elections had been successful and looked forward to success 
in the remaining parliamentary elections.  The EU and India 
agreed that in the way forward special attention will have to 
be paid to counternarcotics, as it will affect many other 
sectors of reconstruction. 
 
- Middle East, Iraq and Iran 
 
(SBU) The EU briefed on its perception of the Middle East 
Peace Process, emphasizing the Quartet's role, and adding 
that the pace of the process should be stepped up.  India 
stressed the need for democratic reforms in the Palestinian 
authority and agreed with the EU that Israeli withdrawal was 
a positive first step.  Turning to Iraq, India said it had 
been unable to get military involvement passed through 
parliament but looked forward to elections and emphasized 
that Iraq's territorial integrity should not be open to 
discussion.  A discussion of Iran was added at India's 
request, during which the EU briefed on the Iran nuclear 
program while India listened without comment. 
SOBEL