Sowing the seed of instability?

The recent visit of India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to US has been a turning point of relations between the US and India. Gone are those days when both countries mistrusted each other during the Cold War. While Pakistan was in the US camp, India had aligned with Moscow and in 1971 August signed a Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union (though India is a Non-Aligned nation).

How political relationships change with the passage of time and one thing does not change is "national interests". That was emphasised by the 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston (1784-1865) when he said that there were no eternal enemies or perpetual friends. What remains eternal and perpetual is national interests..

Dr. Singh was received with warmth and cordiality by the Bush administration. It was for the first time India's Prime Minister spoke before the joint session of the Congress. In his address, Dr. Singh praised President Bush's steadfastness for war on terrorism, music to the ears of the top leaders of the Bush administration, when Iraq is in shambles, portraying powerlessness of American might and acting as powder keg for terrorism. President Bush needs a boost for his image in his country as more than 50 per cent Americans now question him for misleading them on the Iraqi war.

Nuclear cooperation
The most important diplomatic triumph for India during the trip is that President Bush has agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India, reversing decades of US policy designed to discourage countries from developing nuclear weapons. The agreement is a significant victory for India as it gets involved in strategic cooperation with the US with all the attendant consequences including enhancing its strategic power in Asia.

The agreement has one important exception that India will not be subject to international monitoring of its military programme. India has only accepted to place its civilian nuclear facilities under international scrutiny. The agreement does not call for India to cease production of weapons-grade uranium, which will enable it to expand and improve upon its nuclear arsenal.

Under the terms of the agreement, India will have access, for the first time, to conventional weapons systems and to sensitive US nuclear technology that can be used in either a civilian or a military programme. Furthermore India can also buy the long sought- after Arrow Missile System developed by Israel with US technology (Israel had to cancel recently an agreement to supply US technology based weapons under pressure from the Bush administration). In effect, India now locks itself strategically with the US and Israel.

The US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns (he visited Bangladesh at the end of June this year) described the agreement as "a major move forward for the US" and "the high water mark of US-India relations since 1947." It is rare in the past 100 years that a US Secretary of State has sent a signal of this dimension.

A blow to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons
However some non-proliferation experts think that this agreement has been made at the cost of a consistent attack on the dangers of nuclear proliferation. They argue that the deal is likely to undermine US efforts to confront Iran and North Korea on nuclear programme. How could the US allow India to build nuclear weapons without international monitoring while at the same time it insists on Iran and North Korea halting their nuclear programme? It does not make sense as a policy, experts argue, because the US picks and chooses a country that could have nuclear proliferation and another that could not even develop nuclear programme for energy (Iran).

How China and Pakistan will accept it?
Then there is a fall-out from the deal: How Pakistan and China would react to this agreement.

The agreement on strategic partnership with India will implicitly define China as the competitor of the US in Asia Pacific. When the US Secretary of State visited India this March, Dr. Rice reportedly told India's Prime Minister that it was America's policy to help "India become a major world power in the 21st century" and the State Department "understands fully the implications, including military implications" of that policy.

It seems that the Bush administration has a high opinion of their own strategy to counter China as the emerging strategic rival and clearly wants to draw India into a "military alliance" with it (US failed to lure Australia to act against China because Australia has extensive commercial relations, worth billions of dollars with China). They imagine that they are replaying the Nixon-Kissinger strategy of more than 30 years ago. Then America's strategic adversary was the Soviet Union and Nixon's rapprochement to China gave the Russians to worry about their encirclement. Now India's partnership with the US will provide a strong perception to China of its encirclement.

The strategic agreement is likely to convince China that it must build up its military power in order to defend itself. That implies that China will match India's acquisition of sophisticated weapons from the US.

Many China experts believe that China has not been pursuing expansionist policy. Although China has border disputes with India, it has never pushed past the disputed territories they claim. China's claim to Taiwan is a domestic issue under "one China policy" affirmed by the US and many other countries.

As for Pakistan, it will be a worry to see such agreement with India. Pakistan has provided strategic contribution to war on terrorism of the US. Pakistan withdrew support from the Taliban regime and allowed US forces to transit to Afghanistan through its territory. It is reported that Pakistan has also permitted US soldiers and military equipment on its soil for the purpose. Pakistan will be seriously disappointed of the action of the US, for she is considered the strongest ally of the US in Asia after 9/11.

However, the US does not always see that way. Pakistan is not a democratic country and it is ruled by a General who wears his uniform as the Army Chief. India is the largest democratic country and the US can have genuine business with India. Furthermore India is a victim of terrorism by Kashmiri militants, claimed to be supported by Pakistani militants. This perhaps binds US with India more than Pakistan does. Furthermore India with its resources and location can be a counter-weight to China, while Pakistan does not.

How India looks at it
China's Prime Minister visited India in April last and both India and China have committed to broader, deeper and stronger relationship. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly said : "India and China can together reshape the world order". This implies that India can afford to play politically with both the US and China to advance its national interests.

India is a large country and its population will surpass that of China by 2050 (according to UN, India will have 1.5 billion while China 1.3 billion by 2050). It is emerging as great industrial power. It is already a nuclear power with about 95 nuclear bombs, according to US-based the Arms Control Association.

India claims that the deal with the US is not directed against any country. It is for its national defence. As a regional power, India further claims that it is cognisant of maintaining a balance of its relations with both the US and China. India will not be influenced in its decision by the US or China. India stands on its own legs and is determined to pursue its national interests.

Conclusion
Many political observers believe that the reinforced relationship between the two countries seems to be a replay of what France and Britain, after 1914, sought to contain the rapid growth of Germany's industrial power by making an alliance with the other rising power, Russia. And that led to the First World War. Although analogy is hard to provide, they argue that India may play the role of Russia in the 21st century.

The agreement is most likely to trigger arms race in Asia because both China and Pakistan will closely monitor India's military strength and they are likely not to lag behind. If India falls within the trap of US strategy, it is likely to drive China and Pakistan into a needless arms race with her. Many pacifists believe that the Bush administration has sown the seed of instability in Asia.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.