The Strategic Importance Of India

 

The Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has an important article in the Washington Post today, regarding the strategic importance of our relationship with India 

Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique. India is a democracy, where citizens of many ethnicities and faiths cooperate in peace and freedom. India's civilian government functions transparently and accountably. It is fighting terrorism and extremism, and it has a 30-year record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters.

Aspiring proliferators such as North Korea or Iran may seek to draw connections between themselves and India, but their rhetoric rings hollow. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that has violated its own commitments and is defying the international community's efforts to contain its nuclear ambitions. North Korea, the least transparent country in the world, threatens its neighbors and proliferates weapons. There is simply no comparison between the Iranian or North Korean regimes and India.

The world has known for some time that India has nuclear weapons, but our agreement will not enhance its capacity to make more. Under the agreement, India will separate its civilian and military nuclear programs for the first time. It will place two-thirds of its existing reactors, and about 65 percent of its generating power, under permanent safeguards, with international verification -- again, for the first time ever. This same transparent oversight will also apply to all of India's future civilian reactors, both thermal and breeder. Our sale of nuclear material or technology would benefit only India's civilian reactors, which would also be eligible for international cooperation from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Second, our agreement is good for energy security. India, a nation of a billion people, has a massive appetite for energy to meet its growing development needs. Civilian nuclear energy will make it less reliant on unstable sources of oil and gas. Our agreement will allow India to contribute to and share in the advanced technology that is needed for the future development of nuclear energy. And because nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels, our agreement will also benefit the environment. A threefold increase in Indian nuclear capacity by 2015 would reduce India's projected annual CO2emissions by more than 170 million tons, about the current total emissions of the Netherlands.

Third, our agreement is good for American jobs, because it opens the door to civilian nuclear trade and cooperation between our nations. India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If U.S. companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for American workers. We plan to expand our civilian nuclear partnership to research and development, drawing on India's technological expertise to promote a global renaissance in safe and clean nuclear power.

Finally, our civilian nuclear agreement is an essential step toward our goal of transforming America's partnership with India. For too long during the past century, differences over domestic policies and international purposes kept India and the United States estranged. But with the end of the Cold War, the rise of the global economy and changing demographics in both of our countries, new opportunities have arisen for a partnership between our two great democracies. As President Bush said in New Delhi this month, "India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the United States because we are brothers in the cause of human liberty."

Under the president's leadership, we are beginning to realize the full promise of our relationship with India, in fields as diverse as agriculture and health, commerce and defense, science and technology, and education and exchange. Over 65,000 Americans live in India, attracted by its growing economy and the richness of its culture. There are more than 2 million people of Indian origin in the United States, many of whom are U.S. citizens. More Indians study in our universities than students from any other nation. Our civilian nuclear agreement is a critical contribution to the stronger, more enduring partnership that we are building.

We are consulting extensively with Congress as we seek to amend the laws needed to implement the agreement. This is an opportunity that should not be missed. Looking back decades from now, we will recognize this moment as the time when America invested the strategic capital needed to recast its relationship with India. As the nations of Asia continue their dramatic rise in a rapidly changing region, a thriving, democratic India will be a pillar of Asia's progress, shaping its development for decades. This is a future that America wants to share with India, and there is not a moment to lose.

Articles analyzing U.S.-India relations generally write themselves. Mention that it's a partnership between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracies. Cite poll figures showing how pro-America Indians are. Toss in a stat on India's economic growth. If you have room, note that there are 150 million Muslims in India (mostly non-terrorists). Close with how far the two countries have come from their cold war estrangement, and how they are now "natural allies."

These are all good and true points, but there's a danger in overstating them. What exactly does all this mean in practice? If you've been reading about President Bush's trip to India last month, you'd be forgiven for thinking that "natural allies" talk about how much they admire each other, review how much they have in common, then quietly disagree on policy and move on to other things. That's how U.S.-India relations have played out on a string of issues since President Bush took office in 2001.

In 2003, for example, India's BJP-led government held out the possibility of sending troops to Iraq to serve alongside U.S. forces there. That never materialized, and India hasn't even helped with the logistics or administration of Iraqi elections, a task for which it would have been well suited. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has declined to support India's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Even the July 2005 breakthrough on U.S.-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation has turned into a political headache for both the President and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

What's the matter? There are key built-in obstacles to the U.S.-India relationship that continue to nag both sides. The thread that connects many of India's concerns is that it was a weak, newly independent state when the world's powers shaped the United Nations, and then later the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Since it now views itself as one of the great powers of today's world (or at least well on its way) India wants the institutions to adjust. In a nod to India's world-view, a State Department spokesman told reporters at a background briefing last year that U.S. policy was to help India become a "major world power." But acting on this is another matter entirely. The United States is already having enough trouble getting action out of the five current U.N. Security Council members and India's addition to the mix could simply muddle things further. Nuclear nonproliferation is a top U.S. priority, and accommodating India--which never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and tested nuclear weapons in 1998--was until recently out of the question.

On the flip side, India has a hard time being of much help to America. As much as it pains to say it, the problem stems in large part from India's status as a large, noisy democracy. Although Indians are largely pro-American, the country has a strong old-school leftist movement that just refuses to die. Manmohan Singh's parliamentary coalition unfortunately includes anti-American communists and socialists. Also, India's Muslims--who represent crucial votes in many states--tend to adopt anti-American and anti-Israel views. The President may experience this first-hand: India's Jamiat Ul-Ulema, an association of Muslim scholars, carried out major protests during his visit last month against him. Maulana Mahmood Madni, the group's general secretary, has said that he's aiming for a reversal of New Delhi's embrace of America. Though it was left largely unspoken, Muslim political power had a lot to do with India's decision to steer clear of Iraq.

If those constraints seem problematic, they are nothing compared to India's hunger for energy. When Indian planners look at projections of economic growth, the question that looms largest is: Where are we going to get the oil and natural gas to fuel our expansion? The answer: unsavory regimes such as Sudan, Syria, and, most significantly, Iran, all of which have signed deals with India.

True, President Bush and Prime Minister Singh have agreed to long-term cooperation on energy. In a deal announced last summer, the President pledged to work toward amending U.S. laws to allow sales of civilian nuclear parts and technology to India, and to help "adjust international regimes" to do the same. In exchange, India promised to separate civilian facilities from military ones, place International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on its civilian program, strengthen its export controls on nuclear technology, and continue its moratorium on nuclear testing. The idea for Bush was to show India he was willing to cut through difficult red tape and international laws to help acknowledge the reality of India's nuclear status--and to help India's nuclear power plants make a larger contribution to the country's electricity grid (the vast majority of India's electricity is generated by fume-belching coal-fired plants).

But after that agreement was announced, it became clear that India would have to choose between the nuclear deal and supporting Iran in the unfolding standoff at the IAEA. In a vacuum, choosing America over Iran is a no-brainer. But India, alas, isn't a vacuum, and when Prime Minister Singh chose to vote against Iran at the IAEA, he took enormous political heat for allegedly caving to U.S. pressure, and continues to do so.

Of course, no discussion of India policy can leave out Pakistan--the ever-present barrier between India and America. India's national security policy, by and large, still has one main barometer--Kashmir, where Pakistan-funded militants operate. Bush's top priority is to hit al-Qaeda as hard as he can, which he can't do without Islamabad's help. India can stomach the idea of friendly U.S.-Pakistan relations, but views U.S. weapon sales and aid packages to Musharraf as indirect blows to India's interests. The Bush administration has tried its best to de-hyphenate "India-Pakistan" policy, but that hyphen has a long history and won't entirely go away. A poll released by India's Outlook magazine this month showed that 66 percent of Indians agree Bush is a friend of India--but that 50 percent believe President Bush is closer to Pakistan than he is to India.

China is another area where U.S. and Indian interests differ. In America, there is growing concern that a Chinese behemoth is preparing to dominate Asia and challenge U.S. supremacy. That's why so many American observers and analysts talk about India as a "hedge" against China. But while India wants to someday match China's economic and military might, it would rather not be seen as part of a U.S. policy of containing Beijing. In 2003 India officially recognized Tibet as part of China and recently the two countries have settled longstanding border disputes. India wants to keep this thawing process intact.

These obstacles by no means doom the U.S.-India relationship. India and America may eventually become the best friends that logic says they should be, and The Secretary of State advocates, but there's a long way to go, and the friendship isn't necessarily predetermined. On foreign policy, the President likes to think big and broad. He calls the aim of ending tyranny "the concentrated work of generations." A full-blown U.S.-India alliance may be an easier goal to accomplish, but it too will take time.

Time, in my opinion, which we do not have.

Comments

[Mani]

I never understand why US President is called "Leader of the Free World". Indian Prime Minister is the leader of free country with a billion population. How does it make US President, Leader of free world. US is not the only country who has freedom.

[Nathan]

I don't know if you can call early England a democracy just because it had a parlament, so does Iran but we don't consider it a democracy. I think what they meant is that America has the oldest democracy still in existance (democracyin the modern sense of the word, i.e. in which the parlament and leader of the nation are both elected).

[DavidByron]

I think Canada has a larger area than the US though......

What do we know about India? Most of my knowledge of history and geography comes from board games. There's a nice one that features all the various groups and nations that fought over India over the last thousand years or so. My impression is that large parts of India have nothing whatsoever in common with other large parts of India.

The CIA factbook says India has 16 official languages and only 30% of the country speak the most common one. I've also heard that India has more wars going on within it than any other country. Lots of little independence movements. No doubt most are gnat bites on the behemoth, but it makes me wonder how stable the place really is.

Compare it to the old USSR for example. An empire of huge area and many different peoples speaking different languages, having different histories, cultures and religions. How do you hold together a country that big (both in size and population)? It's an interesting general question I think.

Well in the case of the USSR it just didn't hold together. But if the economy had worked better how long could it have gone on?

In the case of India the rulers of the empire just quit one day leaving a "democracy" that somehow manages to work.

In the case of America the original population along with it's divergent languages histories and cultures was exterminated and replaced by new people who all spoke the same language, had the same religion and adopted the same culture and history.

In Europe the different groups constantly warred with each other until they got to the point where war meant killing tens of millions of people. After that they decided economic integration was the key to political peace and "unified" economically regardless of all the differences in language and culture.

I would say the European system is the best model for divergent groups coming together. Economic unions are being considered in other parts of the world now. South America, the Gulf region and East Asia.

India seems like a shotgun marriage.... a colonial empire with it's head cut off...... it feels like it shouldn't work, but there it is I suppose.

[DavidByron]

Your version makes more sense ;)

While I was googling around apparently New Zealand is claiming to be the oldest democracy because it gave women the vote first (although I think it was Finland who gave women both the vote and the right to stand for office first) and for some reason I can't figure out some claim the Iroquois confederacy deserve the title of oldest "participatory" democracy.

Apparently Colin Powell claimed the US was the oldest democracy in his now infamous speech about Iraqi WMDs before the UN.

Obviously I'm biased but I think Iceland must lose the title to Britain on the technicality that it was not independent from Denmark until recently. Same goes for the Iroquois and the Isle of Man. The problem with claims based on universality of suffrage -- or other improvements in democracy -- is that democracy is still being improved. It wasn't that long ago that the age for voting was generally reduced to 18, and Britain is considering lowering it to 16. If it does so it won't suddenly become the only democracy in the world.

[Alexandra]

Mention that it's a partnership between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracies

India is 'affectionately' called the world's oldest democracy simply because it is impressive given it's location, and the US is the world's largest.

[DavidByron]

The Non-Aligned countries have generally been against America's wars. India was against the Kosovo war too, I believe.

By the way -- why is America refered to as "the oldest Democracy" when it --- well, isn't? I mean Britain was a democracy at the time and self-evidently older. Iceland has had a parliament for about 1000 years although it might not have counted as a separate country from Denmark until recently. The Isle of Man holds the record for the longest continuously operating parliament. And of course the city state of Athens holds the record of being the first democracy. in what sense is the USA the "oldest" democracy?

I've seen many people use this phrase before and I am wondering where it comes from.

[pram]

The Iraq war is even more unpopular in India than it is here. And in the end, America gains cheap oil, and gets to trumpet how it is the liberator of the world. Aside from body bags, what's in it for India? And for the land of Gandhi to involve itself in a war without purpose would be the ultimate travesty. I didn't agree with a lot of things that the BJP government stood for, but on this one stand they have my complete admiration and respect.

[Huan]

India is meant to counter China, not Iran. thus there is time to build this relationship.
Iran would be best countered by either Iraq (way too early to function as such) or Turkey (who is being lost to fundamentalism).

what we want cannot be had quickly and there are never enough time, especially in crisis.
long term relationships take time. one night stands are easy to come by but usually part ways the morning after.