Nuclear non-proliferation and the war on terror are vital issues in US foreign policy today. India is one of the key countries on these issues. Also, it is important to accept India’s aspiration to become a global power without threatening American hegemony. Last week, from July 19 to 20, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Washington DC to talk with US president George W. Bush on nuclear proliferation and South Asian security. This is a turning point in American foreign policy and the global security. I wish people had paid more attention to this news. I would like to discuss this issue from the following points: non-proliferation, terrorism, and the global power game.
Before talking of those points, let me review the US-Indian relations briefly. During the Cold War, the United States sponsored Pakistan to buffer Soviet expansion to the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, the relationship between India and America had been rather distant. However, the 9-11 has made the US-Indian relations closer rapidly. Both of them badly need to stabilize Afghanistan, and defeat Islamic terrorism, now
At the last US-Indian summit, the Bush administration has decided to offer technological help for civilian nuclear programs in India. Since India is a nuclear power out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, this deal is very controversial. Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and deputy secretary of state under the Clinton administration, criticizes this in his article “Good Day for India, Bad for Nonproliferation” in YaleGlobal Online. He says that Bush admitted India’s nuclear power status with very little in rerurn. He is afraid that such a deal would undermine the NPT system. On the other hand, Mohhamed El Baradei, the head of International Atomic Agency, welcomes this deal.
Until ratified at the Senate, this agreement will not go into effect. Is it appeasement or a practical solution? You have to notice that America has been rejecting India’s wish.
The US has remained committed to its strong alliance with India’s nuclear-powered neighbour and rival, Pakistan. It has refused to endorse India’s chief foreign-policy goal, a permanent seat on an expanded United Nations Security Council. It opposes India’s cherished project to pipe gas from Iran across Pakistan. And it has withheld co-operation in military and nuclear technology because India tested nuclear weapons in 1998 and has never signed up to the international non-proliferation regime. (“Together at Last”, The Economist, July 19)
Therefore, some deal with India is necessary to develop the US-Indian strategic partnership. However, as Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, points out, "Inspections of civilian facilities mean very little as long as India's military facilities are pumping out plutonium for nuclear weapons." Will India be a responsible nuclear power, as George W. Bush says? It remains to be seen.
As for the war on terrorism, India is a frontline. It sponsored anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan for years. Also, it confronts Shiite militants in Kashmir. In order to curb these threats of Islamic terrorism, India needs a strategic partnership with the United States. Also, the United States must be prepared for unexpected changes in the subcontinent. Currently, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan launches steadfast anti-terrorism operations throughout the country. However, there are still some pro-Taliban officials in the government, as Musharraf sponsored the Taliban before 9-11. Therefore, excessive reliance on Pakistan is risky. This is why close US-Indian relationship is desirable.
Regarding the global power game, people often talk about India’s relationship vis-à-vis China and Pakistan. Certainly, India will be a counterbalance against China. Also, if the United States makes excessive commitment to Pakistan over India, Pakistani leaders may believe that America cares little about democracy in their country. Therefore, the United States must seesaw India and Pakistan.
It is also important to notice Manmohan Singh’s comment in the interview with the Washington Post on July 20. He said that India is willing to play some role in dealing with Iran. As he mentions, India has deep-rooted relations with Iran in terms of race, culture, religion, and history. But can the global community embrace India’s ambition? In any case, more attention to India is necessary to analyze the future of the world.
India is not China. It is unlikely that India challenge Pax Americana. India is an English-speaking democracy, and it is essential for the United States to develop the strategic partnership with this country furthermore. On the other hand, it is too dangerous to overtrust India, because this proud nation has never been a wholehearted ally to the West since its independence. Managing such a delicate balance is the key to develop the strategic partnership with India.
Don’t miss India. Americans and Europeans focus on Islamic terrorism, and Japanese are keen on Chinese threats. Remember! India is an influential actor on both issues.
20 comments:
India and Japan are both solid allies of the U.S. and my guess is it will stay that way for a long time. Both are needed by the U.S., in both the war on terror and the up and coming threat of the new capitalist China.
Mostly, I agree with you. In the post-Cold War era, India will be an important partner to the West. I hope people pay more attention to India. This country is closely tied to the Middle East, particularly Iran and Afghanistan.
I think as long as Islamic Extremists are pressuring them in Kashmir, they would be wise to not have much to do with Iran. Iran is not their friend.
Singh mentioned to bridge the US and Iran in an interview with the Washington Post, just to impress India's influence in the Middle East, I guess.
I see India's ambition for a great power in this interview.
I am on this one with you. As China is growing to be more and more of a threat under our noses, it would a huge strategic value to have another nuclear power, right next door to them that is in lock-step with our policy towards them. This would be a very nice, subtle (like a rhino) move to counter their recent remarks about nuclear retaliation to interference in Taiwan.
Churchill often spoke about the bonds between the English-speaking democracies of the world. While he may not have had a soft spot for India, he couldn't have been more right. When you look at China and India's respective development there are many similarities. Both countries face serious demographic problems. Each has public health concerns, rapidly growing energy needs, and regional and global ambitions. Both countires wish to rapidly modernize their military forces and both countries have an extant territorial issue that could lead to serious, if not cataclysmic, military conflict. However, it is astounding when you consider how differently each of these countires address their problems and pursue their goals. In my view, these differences are rooted in the difference between the Indian and Chinese regimes. China is a closed, brutal, authoritarian regime, that flouts international economic, political, and humanitarian norms. India, in contrast, cannot be more different in its approach.
Not to oversimplify, and indeed the Indian-American relationship is complex and mired in past differences, but because India generally holds the same principles and values the same approaches that the US does, we can deal with the Indians in good faith, knowing that their interests and ours are not so different in th end. Whereas when we deal with China we have nothing but doubts and concerns about their intentions willingness to deal in good faith. India, becuase of its values and language, should be a natural ally of the US and this new strategic framwork is overdue.
G,
China shows expansionist ambition throughout East Asia, including Taiwan, Korea, Tibet, and Xinjian. India may not be a wholehearted Western ally, but more trustworthy than China.
I agree. Indo-Chinese comparison is very interesting. There are many similarities between two, as they are gigantic (in terms of territory and population) and rapidly modernizing developing countries.
However, India is much more trustworthy than China, because of its common norms and values with the West. This is important in the economy as well. People talk about market opportunities in China, but this country has numerous political risks. This is not the case with India.
English is a vital asset for India to attract American and European business. Also, Japanese companies do not have to be bothered with anti-Japan sentiments in India.
I think that India would be much more open to a possible strategic alliance with us, especially since they are really on the front lines of the fight against expansionistic Islam. Kashmir is only part of their fight. I would like to see the US incorporate not only China, but radical Islam into our "common" enemy fight.
Shah,
I typed in a lengthy comment, and it disappeared. Boo-hoo!
Anyway...thank you for this informative article. While my focus is on Islamic terrorism in the United States and in Europe, I know that India is of consequence as well.
I will come back to explore the links you've provided.
Wow. This was a great thread and I have learned a lot. Thanks!!
G,
Yes, radical Muslims are common enemy to both India and the US. In this case, America needs to balance India and Pakistan. As you know, Pakistan is an important ally to the US in the war on terror.
Both countries are nuclear power across the border. This makes everything uneasy to handle.
Always on Watch,
I regret your comment disappeared. But I am glad you find this post useful. I wish I could have argued this issue from Indian viewpoints as well.
Esther,
Thank you for your praise. I hope you'll find my future posts interesting.
Guys...you better start worrying about China! India ain't close to what China is up to! Beware!
China, yes, it is getting increasingly dangerous. India is a good card against China. Also, it is one of America's ally in the war on terror.
Great post. Who do you see getting a permanent membershipto the Security Council first...Japan or India...or even someone else?
I think it should be Japan and Germany. Both countries can share the burden of global affairs. It was completely a mistake to expand the permanent seat to regional representatives like Brazil and India. None of P5 members welcome excessive expansion. They are important countries, though.
The United Nations is unimportant to most Americans, but our relationship with India is vitally important, so sponsoring India for a seat on the UNSC is important for no other reason than Indians think it's important.
From our American point of view it would at least be amusing to see India join us in vetoing the constant parade of anti-Israeli U.N. resolutions.
Our embrace of India as a member of the "Nuclear Club" is much more substantial, and of course our joint military exercises bring us closest of all.
Indian nationalism is not the obstacle people think it is. It is a double-edged sword, but at least it's a sword -- lack of nationalism means no sword at all. "Fellow Creators the Creator seeks." No superpower, no strategic ally; no nationalism, no superpower -- nationalism is part of the deal.
This is where diplomacy comes in. Healthy nationalism is based on pride and self-respect. No self-respecting country wants to be treated like a second-class spear carrier. Symbolic gestures like the UNSC sponsorship and substantive gestures such as joint military exercises both confer respect to our most important potential ally, and when it comes to nationalism respect is a more valuable currency even than trade.
I'm not so naieve as to think we can parlay Indian nationalism into a perpetually harmonious Indo-American agenda, but I do know alliance can only work at all to the degree we respect India as an equal.
You make good points. Also, the United States had been too tolerant to Pakistan. This country had some questionable problems, like supporting the Taliban, and sponsoring A. Q. Khan. The United States needs another reliable partner in this region.
Post a Comment