Amendment will expedite CAATSA waiver, shows White House politically safe to give it: US Congressman Ro Khanna

Washington: On Thursday, the United States (US) House of Representatives, with an overwhelming majority, approved an amendment to the National Defence Authorization Act that proposes the deepening of India-US defence ties, flags the threat posed by China to India’s security, and most importantly, calls for an India-specific waiver under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Also Read: US House of Representatives approves Ro Khanna’s amendment on CAATSA waiver to India

Hours after it was passed, Congressman Ro Khanna, a Democratic Indian-American representative from California and a member of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), spoke to HT about his rationale in introducing the amendment, how he built a coalition around it, and its implications for CAATSA waiver and the India-US strategic relationship.

Why did you introduce the amendment and what is its significance?It is a historic amendment. It is the most consequential vote in the House of Representatives in strengthening the US-India relationship since the civilian nuclear deal. Many other resolutions have been introduced, but none that have actually passed the rules committee and gotten a vote, let alone such an overwhelming vote. There have been other initiatives by the executive branch, but none again that have actually had an overwhelming vote at the US Congress. And the message of this bill is that one of the most critical defence relationships of the US is with India, that we want to increase the cooperation on hi-tech defence between the US and India. That means jointly developing advanced technology. That means jointly producing the most advanced weapon systems and combining and integrating manufacturing and key technology capabilities. And, of course, it also says that we need a waiver and not ever have crippling sanctions on India for their purchases from Russia.

The reality is that we have to get India to purchase more defence from the United States. And the way to do that is to strengthen the relationship, to strengthen the security guarantee, and having sanctions would be a total step backwards.

So the message is clear with the Congress having spoken so overwhelmingly.

It was a Herculean lift. I was able to do it first by getting the support of Adam Smith, the chair of HASC, and serving on the HASC was critical. I had to get the support of the progressives so that we could get it ruled in order by the leadership of Jim McGovern (chair of the rules committee). We had to get the support of the Republicans and make sure that Republican on HASC and on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) didn’t oppose it. We had to get Gregory Meeks (chair of the HFAC) to support it. And we had to get (House Minority) Leader (Kevin) McCarthy’s support to make sure that the Republicans were okay supporting it. And I got a broad coalition with people like Representative (David) Schweikert to co-sponsor it and Joe Wilson.

This is, in part, because I think people see me as an honest broker, always putting the US interest and democratic pluralism at the forefront. They understood that I was doing this for the US strategic relationship and it is very gratifying to see the overwhelming result.

The amendment strongly bats for an India-specific waiver under CAATSA. But that decision lies with the executive. How does the amendment help?

We have already been in touch at a very high level with the White House. They have been following the vote. This basically shows them that when they follow through in giving a waiver, they will have a lot of support in the US Congress. So it was a critical vote to show the administration that it is politically safe for them to do the waiver, in that they will have overwhelming political support on both sides to do it. I think this will expedite the waiver and it will provide the Indian side with certainty that they will get a waiver. The President is not going to go against such an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House.

Hopefully this stays in the NDAA through the Senate and doesn’t get stripped in conference (where the Senate and House versions of the bill will be reconciled), but whether it does or not is besides the point. The point is you now have over 300 people on record saying that there should be a waiver, that the India-US strategic defence relationship is absolutely critical. And I can’t think of anything since the Indian civilian nuclear deal that has had 300 votes or this kind of overwhelming vote in support of the relationship.

So this has the full support of the administration?

It is consistent with the goals of the administration. They obviously haven’t taken a formal position, but they have certainly signalled to key people that it’s consistent with their own goals.

You spoke of convincing the progressives. Given their criticism of India’s democratic record, did you encounter concerns and opposition?

I don’t want to name specific names, but some people in the progressive caucus were lobbying against this amendment being ruled because of their concerns with India. We were able to overcome that, in part, because people trust me as a voice on human rights, as a voice on pluralism and as a strong progressive. So I think being a progressive who championed this helped overcome those objections.

In the past, you have criticised elements of India’s foreign policy as well as political orientation. In turn, you have faced criticism for these positions. What’s the message you are sending out with the amendment?

I hope that the Indian-American community will recognise that it is because of my principled commitment to the interests of the US as well as pluralism that I was able to assemble a very wide coalition to actually get this amendment passed. A lot of people pay lip service to India as the largest democracy, and the alliance. They introduce resolutions or press releases that are just for public consumption, but don’t go anywhere. This is actually effective in changing the direction of policy. And as a lawmaker, my goal is to deepen and strengthen the US-India relationship, not simply rhetorically, but substantively. And a lot of the work I have been doing is to lay the foundation of having that outcome.

India’s refusal to condemn Russia on Ukraine, and its accelerated energy imports from Russia, have drawn criticism in DC. How is that playing out in the India-US strategic relationship and how does your amendment address it?

I have said that India should have condemned Russia at the UN. But I don’t think that they can ignore their own population’s needs on energy. And I have never said that they can’t be buying Russian oil. I hope they would be part of an international system that we are trying to establish as the US to have some maximum price to collectively purchase from Russia so that everyone benefits and they should be part of that framework.

But, long term, my hope is that we can provide the security guarantee that gets them to lessen their dependence on Russian defence. There are three reasons for that dependence. One is the historical legacy issue. Two, Russian weapons tend to be cheaper. And three, Russia often enables the manufacturing and development of that in India. US weapons tend to be more expensive, though better. We are more reluctant to have any of our sensitive technology manufactured overseas, not just with India, but in terms of any partners, because of the concern on trade secrets. And, we don’t have the same historical legacy. So these should be worked out through careful negotiation. What this amendment does is put momentum to build and strengthen these ties. And I would like to see, by the end of the decade, the balance shift from India being more dependent on Russia to really being partners with the US.

Your amendment lauds the India-US initiative on critical and emerging technologies. This is also a pillar of Quad now. As somebody who represents Silicon Valley, how do you assess its importance?

The future of national security is leading in advanced technology. It is leading in AI, in understanding how satellites and space work, in cybersecurity, in submarine technology. And those are initiatives where we will be helped to have cooperation. To have the best engineers and scientists in India working with the best in the US will only make us better in terms of leading the world in technology. And then you combine that with Japan and Australia. So, this is in the US’s interest. We need to lead over China. And we want to use the brain power as well in India, which is recognised and, of course, which went in to help with the SU 57 for Russia. So I would rather that expertise be helping American military advancement.

The amendment clearly mentions China’s aggression against India. What do you think the US, and US and India together, should be doing to confront China’s assertiveness?

Well, the first thing that the US needs to do is rebalance trade. We need to bring production back. We should have a goal of having trade surpluses again. Structural trade deficits were part of the cause of the opioid war. Britain was unjustified in invading China, but they took Indian opium and sold it to China, partly because China refused to buy from the West. I told the ambassador to China that the situation of these trade deficits is unsustainable. We have got to bring production back to the US. And I think Indian government is trying to bring production to India, as opposed to being dependent on China. Second, we have to have a very strong and smart defence so that there is clear deterrence for China, and that they know that the world will not stand for them to invade Taiwan or to invade India borders

Since you are a member of HASC, I want to ask about Ukraine. In the first few months, it seemed like Russia was heading a major defeat, especially after its retreat from Kiev and the financial sanctions that had been imposed. But in recent weeks, Russia has gained in the east, and the balance of power is seen as shifting. Would you agree with that assessment? How do you see the war shaping up?

I would tell you that we achieved our principle objective, which is to stand up for the sovereignty of Ukraine, the independence of Ukraine, and to prevent the Russian march into eastern Europe. Now the question is of the borders and how are we going to have a settlement that respects Ukraine’s borders. We have to continue to support Ukraine, but we also need to have vigorous diplomacy to try to bring an end to this war and figure out what those borders will look like.