|
CLINTON'S VISIT
Get Real
American
policy on India should be independent of Pakistan and vice versa
By
Gary L. Ackerman
I
believe the US and India must move their bilateral relationship to a new
plane so that relations are conducted in a mature and confident way, based
on mutual trust. This new relationship should discard the old Cold War
mistrust, the mutual suspicions, the unnecessary recriminations, and
instead build on the hopes of our two peoples. This will go a long way in
promoting global harmony, peace and goodwill.
The seeds of this relationship are already in place. US-India relations --
post-Kargil -- have been showing signs of maturity and realism. I credit
this to three things. First, the restraint
shown by the Government of India during the Kargil crisis and
recognition by the US that Pakistan was the aggressor in the incident.
This was a turning point.
In the past, most Americans and members of the Congress viewed
India and Pakistan as a unit. It was "India-Pakistan", one word.
After Kargil and Kandahar, however, they understood there was a
difference, that there was an aggressor and a victim, that there was a
perpetrator and a victim. The perpetrator was violent and the victim was
restrained, responsible. The hyphen in "India-Pakistan"
disappeared. Kandahar delineated the two further and India was seen as a
nation that cared for its civilian lives and Pakistan as protecting the
hijackers.
Second, the restraint shown by the Government of India during the
hijacking led to the formation of a joint working group between the US and
India to combat international terrorism. The hijacking demonstrated that
terrorism, especially state-sponsored terrorism, had to be tackled by
democratic nations in a united and determined fashion.
Third, it appears that both the US and India are prepared to live
with each other's differences on the nuclear question. Extended
conversations between the two governments, led on the US side by Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and on the Indian side by Foreign
Minister Jaswant Singh, have allowed both to stop talking past each other
and to seek to address each other's concerns.
The President's trip presents us with an opportunity to build on these
steps and redefine Indo-US relationship. The President should identify
India as a "strategic partner" in South Asia, recognising that
India is a responsible democratic nation in the region. This provides the
US with the opportunity to establish a new paradigm in South Asia. We
should have a policy for India that recognises and supports our common
concerns.
Similarly, we should have a separate policy for Pakistan: one that
recognises and supports our common interests with Pakistan. But we should
abandon a policy where either India or Pakistan serves as a reference
point for our policy towards the other. Clearly, there will be regional
issues where we will have to work with both countries to pursue our
interests, but in pursuit of those regional issues we should recognise the
distinctions between countries and pursue our interests accordingly.
The President's visit can also symbolise US acceptance of India as a
superpower in knowledge industries. Information technology,
pharmaceuticals and agricultural research and development are areas where
India and the US are competitors, but they need not be adversaries. In the
business world, joint ventures between competitors with complementary
technologies are often profitable for both partners. So it can be for the
US and India. In this vein, the President should lift the remaining
sanctions on India. That way, the US can have a full and unfettered
economic relationship with India.
The establishment of the Joint Working Group on terrorism is one of the
symbols of a new maturity between India and the US. As beacons of
democratic values, the two countries have a moral duty to combat
cross-border aggression and acts of religious bigotry. They must evolve a
common strategy to stop this global problem. The President should
highlight the establishment of this group to tell the international
community that all democracies, not just those in the West, are opposed to
terrorism.
There is a natural symmetry between the US and India. We are both
countries where the world's great religions are freely practised, where
multiple languages are spoken and where there are myriad ethnic groups. We
are mirror images in a way. But the underlying values, the true strengths
of both societies, and the real foundation of our relationship are that
both societies are built on tolerance and respect for dissent. These are
the foundations upon which the US and India should go forward into the new
millennium.
Drop
the stick
The
US must realize that sanctions cannot prevent nuclear proliferation
By
P.K.Iyengar
Nuclear
non-proliferation will be high on President Bill Clinton's agenda when he
visits Delhi. India has always been for global nuclear disarmament. We
tested our first fission device in 1974, and have possessed the capability
to go thermonuclear since the '80s. Yet we refrained from further nuclear
tests for nearly 25 years. This remarkable restraint has gone
unappreciated by the world in general and the nuclear powers in
particular.
If India finally resumed testing in 1998 it was because of our security
perceptions. After that event the Government of India set up a National
Security Advisory Board which came out with a document that is commonly
referred to as the "Nuclear Doctrine". This document clearly
states that India must maintain a nuclear deterrent. We can do so only by
weaponising. That means we simply cannot sign the CTBT right now because
we need to continue testing in order to effectively complete the process
of weaponisation.
Another reason why we should not sign the CTBT is that it would restrict
our ability to conduct research in sensitive areas of nuclear technology.
The US and Russia are already conducting research into fourth-generation
nuclear weapons: for example, "pure-fusion" weapons that do not
use any plutonium or uranium and, therefore, do not come within the
purview of the CTBT (or the NPT). In spite of demands from respected
scientists and organisations, there has been no move to stop such research
in the US. If 20 years from now, such weapons become a reality, treaties
like the CTBT would become irrelevant, but India would again lag 20 years
behind in nuclear technology.
Therefore, the American President should look beyond the CTBT, and in
doing so he must understand and accept two realities. First, that India's
emerging leadership role in Asia and the world is inexorable. The US
should address India's legitimate security concerns rather than attempt to
coerce us. The US should therefore respect India's need for a nuclear
deterrent, and instead of pressing for an immediate signing of the CTBT,
look towards a long-term solution.
For the shorter term, it may be possible for India to sign a "Limited
Test Ban Treaty" that would allow us to conduct nuclear tests for,
say, the next 5-10 years. At the end of this period we can reassess our
security perceptions and capabilities and reconsider signing the CTBT.
The second reality that must be faced is that it is impossible for the US,
or any other country, to prevent proliferation through sanctions. Science
is global and knows no barriers. It is, therefore, futile to impose
sanctions, particularly on the flow of information, especially in this age
of the Internet. A particularly ridiculous example recently came to light.
An Indian national laboratory was denied the proceeding of an
international conference held at a US national laboratory recently on the
grounds that "current regulations prohibit the export of certain
sensitive information" to India. However these proceedings are
available on the website of that laboratory!
In matters of science it is best to leave things to
scientists rather than have heavy-handed interference from
bureaucrats. Organisations like the American Physical Society have also
argued strongly against the cutting of ties with Indian scientists.
Sanctions in these areas achieve little. The Cold War did not prevent
advances in space technology in the Soviet Union, and India has only
emerged stronger after 25 years of sanctions since Pokhran-I. During
Clinton's visit one would look forward to an announcement of the immediate
lifting of all sanctions affecting scientific exchanges and collaborations
between the two countries.
Before we engage in a dialogue with the US, we in India must also have a
clearer perception of our ideals and goals. A country like India cannot
mortgage its responsibilities to its people and its future for a few
dollars more. We would be willing to cooperate with the Americans in
bringing peace and democracy around the world, but it should be a
partnership based on mutual understanding and trust. Clinton has, in his
present visit, a unique opportunity to change the course of Indo-US ties.
This will require him to be more sensitive to India's concerns and have a
larger vision of the mutual roles of the world's two largest democracies.
In this he would do better to rely on the open-hearted warmth of the
American people, rather than on the cold, "stick-and-stick"
policy of a few advisers.
|
|
|
|
|
