President Bush’s last visit to Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan is a landmark in US foreign policy. The Indo-American partnership has been strengthened. America demonstrated wholehearted commitment to Afghanistan. On the other hand, relative importance of Pakistan seems to be declining. Though one month has passed since then, India is an important issue in Washington.
In order to understand the overall view of this issue, let me refer to an article, “Anatomy of Partnership” in the International Herald Tribune by Henry Kissinger. In the article, he welcomes new partnership with this powerful English-speaking democracy and the United States. America and India faces common threats of Islamic terrorism. Since 9-11, the US-Indian partnership has become critically important to defeat radical Muslims from Yemen to Mumbai. Also, it is necessary to incorporate India into the global economy. Globalization brings costs and benefits, and both India and the United States can overcome these problems by joint efforts.
On the other hand, while Indian participation in building a new world order will be an advantage to American global strategy, Kissinger warns not to use India as America’s diplomatic card against China and other actors. He argues that neither India nor China seeks pre-eminence in Eurasian heartland, despite conflicts over Tibet. According to Kissinger, both the United States and India need constructive relationship with China, and it does not serve America’s interest to use India to contain China.
The most vital issue is the nuclear deal. Kissinger insists that nuclear progress in India is irreversible, but it is necessary to make Indian commitment to non-proliferation explicit. R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State, says almost the same thing in the lecture at the Heritage Foundation.
So far as pro-con debates on US-Indian deals are concerned, the most serious issue is nuclear non-proliferation. Should the United States trust India, without considering effects on current non-proliferation regime?
Pro-Indian opinion leaders regard India as a trustworthy democracy. In their view, a feasible agreement outside present NPT will be helpful foe nuclear arms control.
Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that a powerful and prosperous democracy like India is a good counterbalance against China and Russia. Most importantly, he endorses US double standard policy against Iran and India, because Iran takes brinkmanship diplomacy while India does not. While he recognizes current NPT regime remains a useful tool to stop nuclear proliferation, he insists that realistic deals with India are inevitable as this regime is collapsing.
His viewpoints are widely shared among neoconservatives and Bush administration supporters. Helle Dale, Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, goes on to say that arguments against India sound rather like the District of Columbia's gun laws, which leave handguns in the hands of the criminals, but deny honest citizens the right to own one.
IAEA welcomes this deal as well. Considering icy relations between American conservatives and UN bureaucrats, it is a surprise. Though India refuses to sign NPT, Director General Mohammed El Baradei supports the deal to bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime while satisfying its growing energy needs. It is noteworthy that R. Nicholas Burns told Reuters that this unique deal with India would not be repeated with other countries such as neighbor and rival Pakistan, because India has not proliferated for 30 years. He says this distinguishes India from major proliferators like North Korea.
Still, some opinion leaders worry that the Bush administration gave too much benefits to India without sufficient return. According to Joseph Cirincione, Director of Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, President Bush permitted the Indian authority to decide which reactors would be exempted from inspection. This does not satisfy the normal and full-scope inspections originally sought. Moreover, he warns that a double standard will undermine US effort against Iran.
Even Republican leaders including Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation worry that the deal is too lenient for India, and sacrifice nonproliferation objectives.
As India is buying uranium from Russia before the US-Indian deal comes into effect, opponents’ views are worth being considered.
In face of these pro-con debates, George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that nonproliferation rules needs to change flexible enough to get India in. However he worries that the deal is too vague and too fast. The term of “civilian” and “military” must be defined more strictly, he says. Though Perkovich does not necessarily agree to President Bush’s approach, he defends a double standard.
“Iran has been found noncompliant with legal obligations, and is being held to account for them. Also, Iran, unlike India, does not recognize the right of some countries to exist. Iran, unlike India, conducts terrorism...The two examples are very different.”
Finally, let me review Afghanistan and Pakistan just briefly. For the surprise visit to Afghanistan, President Bush canceled the tour to Taj Mahal. Unlike former president Bill Clinton, he did not enjoy tiger safari in India. These facts illustrate how serious the Bush administration is to resolve Afghan issues. On the other hand, the importance of Pakistan to the United States is declining. It is noticeable in Burns’ lecture at the Heritage Foundation. He mentions too much on India, and too little on Pakistan.
Fundamentally, the Bush administration is right to incorporate India into the global economy, and establish strategic partnership with this powerful English-speaking democracy. But remember that India acts on its own. America should not trust this country blindly. Former senator Sam Nunn who currently chairs the Nuclear Threat Initiative raises serious concern that the deal will damage US interest without imposing sufficient obligations to India. Pro-con controversies at the congress will be intensified. Forthcoming debates will be a real landmark in US foreign policy and global nonproliferation.
by Shah Alex
8 comments:
Shah,
remember that India acts on its own. America should not trust this country blindly.
I agree. Blind trust almost always leads to disaster. "Trust but verify."
I have long been "a friend" to India. This is largely the result of my having had many from India in my classes.
We need India's alliance to fight the spread of Islamic terrorism, but need to be careful not to let nukes fall into the wrong hands. India is infiltrated by Muslims who desire to destroy the India I know.
You have friends from all over the world? I read your comment mentioning your friend in South Korea.
Muslim infiltration to India is nothing new. In the Middle Age, they gave the final blow to Indian Buddhism. They destroyed temples and burnt scriptures. As a result, Buddhism is virtually nonexistent in India today.
Interestingly, they coexisted peacefully with Hindu majorities.
Shah,
Yes, I have quite a few friends from around the world. Such is one of the results of having taught for nearly 34 years. One of my friends is from the "royal family" Singh and quite well known. I wrote a college recommendation for one of the Singhs living here in the States.
While I am a Christian, I respect those of other faiths, provided those don't want to annihilate me! The only such threats I've ever received have been from Muslims.
What has happened to the Buddhists in India is abominable. The same is true for the Egyptian Copts; I haven't heard from my Copt friends in a long time and am worried as to what might have happened to them.
I also have a dear friend from Austria; she is living there again after having taught ESL here for a South Korean who had a small school. I miss working for Mr. Kim, but had to quit after my car accident last spring--my back just isn't up to much work now.
I stopped by here to let you know that President Bush just had a televised Q&A at Johns Hopkins University and mentioned what an important ally Japan is. :)
Good job, Shah.
I think that if this is handled wisely, India can and will be an excellent partner and ally, especially in the war against Islamofascism. They have a vested interest in not allowing the proliferation and/or expansion of fundamentalist Islam. Islamofascists are not any more fond of Hindus, than they are of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, or even, secular westerners.
AOW,
You have back injury by car accident? I am sorry to hear that. Whatever the handicap is, strong spirit makes you a Rosie.
As for President's speech, Japanese leaders need to understand their position in the world. Some of them cast doubt on postwar regime change. They are wrong. As a key US ally, Japan should get involved in global democracy furthermore.
Finally, would you please tell Mr. Kim that South Koreans should understand who the real enemy is? According to recent DNA survey, a South Korean abductee married a Japanese abductee in North Korea.
Both Japan and South Korea face common threat. The imperial Japan has expired long time ago, and it is no use for South Koreans to continue anti-Japanese policy. Defeat the common enemy!
LA,
People don't understand clearly what causes Islamofascism. Some says that Islam itself is a belligerent religion.
True, Islam is the only religion prevailed through military conquer, from the beginning.
(In the latter days, Christians sent crusaders. Spain and Portugal annihilated local religions for the sake of Christian mission. But in the age of Paul and Peter, none of Christians ever thought of conquering Rome, Greece, Germania, or anywhere else in the world.)
However, some Islam rulers coexisted peacefully with other religions. What happened with Islam today?
What happened with Islam today?
They have returned to the radical imperialistic ideology that drove the original expansion of Islam. And they are funding it with oil money that comes from all of us.
While it is true that Christendom was imperialistic and barbaric in the middle ages, Christendom underwent a reformation and a renaissance that opened up a world of free thought and expression. They moved out of the dark ages, but Islam has had no such reformation nor renaissance, and still lives in a dark age. They may have had periods where they were relatively stagnant, but there has been no movement out of the age of barbarism, only movement backward.
In my new post, I link to Tony Blair's speech at the Foreign Policy Centre. The Prime Minister mentions how Islamic radicals grow in modernization.
Yes, oil money is one thing. Social structure is another reason to stimulate radicalism.
Can India be trustworthier partner than Pakistan? Quite prospective, but don't be too optimistic.
Post a Comment