The Hindu Business Line : India-US relations: Challenges and opportunities

India can succeed in developing a durable relationship with the US and with other major powers, only when it clearly defines its core national security interests and accelerates the process of economic reform and progress, so that engaging India becomes an imperative for global powers.

It was an interesting experience for me to again exchange views with some key strategic thinkers in the US last month at a location close to the statue of Mahatma Gandhi, which adorns the lawns opposite the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. Those who participated in the CII-Aspen Strategic Dialogue in Washington ranged from Dr Henry Kissinger and Gen Brent Scowcroft from the Republican Party, to influential Democratic Party personalities such as Sandy Berger, Strobe Talbot and Joseph Nye.

The exchanges and subsequent meetings at the State Department, the Pentagon, the Departments of Energy and Commerce, and with members of the House of Representatives and the Senate gave me a clearer perception of the challenges the United States and India face in fashioning a more productive and mature relationship.

American perceptions about India have changed dramatically in recent years. India's accelerating economic growth and capabilities in areas such as industrial research and development and information technology have persuaded Americans and US corporations that the skills and talent of the "the intelligent Indians" can be leveraged to make American industry and business more competitive.

Keeping Asia stable

Second, India is seen as an example of how democratic and pluralistic countries can face the challenges of global terrorism. Finally, while most Americans favour cooperation with China, there is concern that a growingly nationalistic China ruled by an unrepresentative leadership could become militaristic. A strong, economically dynamic India provides a stable balance to the strategic architecture of Asia and the politically volatile West Asian region. Most Americans now realise that military intervention in Iraq has been a costly mistake. It has ignited anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and undermined the US "War on Terrorism". Over 2,500 Americans have been killed since the military intervention in Iraq commenced in 2003. There appears no likelihood of an early return to peace and stability in Iraq. The US pulling out from there soon is ruled out and efforts to get the Iraqi Government to assume a more effective role in fighting well-armed insurgents have little chance of early success.

The growing Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq could well lead to the sort of situation that prevailed in Lebanon and destabilise the already volatile Persian Gulf region. Then there are growing tensions with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Any precipitate American military action in Iran will be profoundly destabilising. Russia, China and even America's European allies, like Germany, do not favour military confrontation, or even the imposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.

New Delhi has to support diplomatic efforts that ensure that Iran accepts IAEA safeguards and abides by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Americans, in turn, may eventually have to accept that Iran will retain certain limited enrichment capabilities, under strict international supervision. The Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr Somnath Chatterjee, had hinted at such a course of action in Berlin recently.

US concerns on Pakistan

Adding to American security concerns has been the recent spurt in attacks in Afghanistan mounted by the Taliban, operating from Pakistan with ISI backing. Over 80,000 Pakistani troops have been deployed in Waziristan to fight the remaining Al Qaeda operatives, their Chechen, Uzbek and other allies. But, at the same time, the Pakistan President, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has permitted sanctuary, safe havens, reinforcements, weapons and training to the Taliban along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, particularly in Baluchistan.

An emboldened Taliban has mounted over 38 suicide attacks in recent months on American, Afghan and NATO forces in Afghanistan. But the last straw on the American camel's back was the appointment by Gen Musharraf of Lt. Gen Ali Jan Mohammed Orkazai, a known supporter of the Taliban, strongly opposed to military action in Waziristan, as the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Lt Gen Orkazai is negotiating a ceasefire within Waziristan and has ended military operations against Pashtun tribesmen supporting the Taliban and the Al Qaeda.

Shocked by these "betrayals", the Americans are resorting to a policy of "carrot and stick" to deal with Gen Musharraf. On the one hand, they are voicing support for free and fair elections in Pakistan and advocating strong support for the Afghan President, Mr Hamid Karzai. On the other, they are resorting to such ill-advised moves as the supply and upgrading of nearly 100 F-16 fighters for Pakistan.

This move will only encourage Gen Musharraf to play the jihadi card with impunity, undermine the India-Pakistan dialogue process and continue his support for the Taliban. Washington is, thus, groping in the dark for an effective policy to deal with Pakistan. "Whither Pakistan?" is a question on many American minds.

Nuclear deal

The much-publicised "nuclear deal" is the predominant focus of attention in any discussion nowadays with Americans. The House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have cleared the deal, which is expected to get approval from the House and the Senate this month.

But there is still a long way to go. India has to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the US on nuclear cooperation and sign an "Additional Protocol" with the IAEA. All this has to be cleared by the US Congress and the 45-member "Nuclear Suppliers Group", where reservations will be voiced by China, the Scandinavian countries and members of the "New Agenda Coalition," such as Ireland.

While the operative parts of the legislation proposed in the Senate and the House of Representatives conform to the provisions of the July 18, 2005 Agreement, there are references, some of them "non-binding", on issues like Iran, the intrusiveness of safeguards, termination of international nuclear cooperation in the event of an Indian nuclear test and demands that India should accede to a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), which have caused concern in India.

These references need to be comprehensively debated nationally, before we consider signing contracts for imported nuclear power plants.

There should be no doubts in Indian minds that we may again face situation when the US, for some reason, chooses to cut off nuclear fuel supplies, as it did in the case of the Tarapur Power Plant.

There can also be no question of India capping its nuclear weapons programme by acceding soon to a FMCT. One has, nevertheless, to appreciate the determination with which President Bush and Ms Condoleezza Rice overcame strong domestic opposition to the deal, which aims to end three decades of international nuclear sanctions against India.

We will succeed in developing a durable relationship with the US and with other major powers, only when we clearly define our core national security interests, on which there can be no compromise, and accelerate the process of economic reform and progress, so that engaging India becomes an imperative for global powers.

It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, can push through essential economic changes that will make India a power to be reckoned with.

The current "compulsions" of coalition politics could well derail his efforts for sustained and accelerated economic growth.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Terrorism

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
India-US relations: Challenges and opportunities

A code for bank service

Farm sector needs soil revolution

Behind the China story

Lessons from Mumbai 7/11

Horror in Mumbai

Dithering on divestment

Economic reforms