US-India relation: Triumph of Realism
Jit Dutta
Triumph of Realism
The lifting of US sanctions against India reflects
Washington's pragmatic acceptance of inexorable ground
realities. This was not unexpected; indeed it was only a
matter of time before this happened. Obviously the US
administration was keen to initiate a new approach and
leave behind the baggage of a self-righteous
non-proliferation theology. The swearing in of a newly
elected democratic government and the constitution of 13th
Lok Sabha in India, and the near simultaneous ushering in
of the fourth martial law regime in Pakistan, formed an
appropriate backdrop for the US to send out a message on
its new policy towards the subcontinent. The decision to
lift
sanctions should impart momentum to Indo-American
relations to make President Clinton's visit to India next
February as memorable as Eisenhower's in 1959.
Washington's opposition to a nuclear India needs to be put
in an historical context. The US was always opposed to
acquisition of nuclear weapons by any other country,
including Britain which was a partner in the Manhattan
project; the McMahan Act prohibited transfer of US
nuclear weapon technology to its closest ally as far back
as
1946. However, subsequently the US had to accept the
nuclearisation of Russia, UK, France, China and Israel. In
1981, US secretary of state Alexander Haig also accepted
Pakistan going nuclear as the price for Islamabad's
support
to the Afghan insurgency. However, Washington found it
necessary to go through the motions of punishing India for
infringing the non-proliferation `Lakshman Rekha' before
it
accepted the consequences of its long-standing
permissiveness with regard to Pakistan- China
proliferation.
India's nuclear posture and policy do not pose any threat
to
US interests, unlike those of Pakistan or China. As such,
logic dictates that the remaining technological barriers
between the US and India should also come down in due
course. Washington's long term interests demand it. The
weightage in favour of India in the lifting of sanctions
is a
milestone in Washington's policy towards South Asia. For
the past 50 years the US had consistently tilted towards
Pakistan, thanks to short-term opportunistic
considerations.
While the US move should be lauded for its maturity there
is no need for undue jubilation in India. There is a lot
more
work to be done in regard to promoting Indo-American
understanding. A mutually beneficial approach needs to be
evolved in respect of international terrorism, religious
extremism, narcotics traffic, promotion of democratic
values, besides containing militarism and advancing
nuclear
non-proliferation through restrained international nuclear
security policies. The last 18 months of interaction
between
the US and India has changed radically the earlier
relationship of one between a self-righteous preacher on
non-proliferation and a defiant interlocutor to that of
two
major democracies in search of mutually compatible goals,
policies and strategies. The lifting of sanctions is a
good
beginning, but there is still a long journey ahead.
bob...@my-deja.com
sure the poor and wretched of India should start celebrating. Infusion
of common sense into India's economic policies is urgently needed.
In article <381AAC7E...@home.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Schlau
Jit Dutta <ji...@home.com> wrote:
> Times of India
> Triumph of Realism
>
> The lifting of US sanctions against India reflects
> Washington's pragmatic acceptance of inexorable ground
> realities. This was not unexpected; indeed it was only a
> matter of time before this happened. Obviously the US
> administration was keen to initiate a new approach and
> leave behind the baggage of a self-righteous
> non-proliferation theology.
The business of the US is business. The US lifted the sactions because
the US is more interested in selling India things, then trying to
enforce non-proliferation which India is going to ignore anyway. If
India wasn't such a large market for US goods, the sactions would have
remained, like they have on N. Korea and like they remain on Iraq &
Yugoslavia(Serbia).
> Washington's opposition to a nuclear India needs to be put
> in an historical context. The US was always opposed to
> acquisition of nuclear weapons by any other country,
> including Britain which was a partner in the Manhattan
> project;
Because the US could never be sure what even it's "allies" would
do with those nuclear weapons. And given the fact that later it turned
out a large number of British Intelligence Officers were agents for the
Soviet Union, including the head of MI5 Kim Philby, the US had good
reason not to trust even thier "allies".
> the McMahan Act prohibited transfer of US
> nuclear weapon technology to its closest ally as far
> back as 1946.
The only scientist on the Manhattan project that turned out to be
giving secrets to the Soviets, Klaus Fuchs, was cleared by the British
as safe...
> India's nuclear posture and policy do not pose any
> threat to US interests, unlike those of Pakistan or China.
The fact that many in India are rather nationalistic and haven't
hesitated to use other means of force in the past, poses a threat not to
only the US but the whole world...
> As such, logic dictates that the remaining technological barriers
> between the US and India should also come down in due
> course. Washington's long term interests demand it.
Actually it's in the US's long term interest not to share technology
with anyone, since that's quickly becoming one of the few edges the US
has, now that alot of US heavy Industry & Commerical manufacturing has
moved elsewhere in the world. Also India doesn't enforce patents too
well, nor does Hong Kong, so alot of pirate computer chips, cds, ect.
are coming out of India..
> The weightage in favour of India in the lifting of sanctions
> is a milestone in Washington's policy towards South Asia. For
> the past 50 years the US had consistently tilted towards
> Pakistan, thanks to short-term opportunistic
> considerations.
The US turned towards Pakistan because India turned towards Russia...
And despite US relations with Pakistan, the US didn't do much during the
last major war between Pakistan and India and the US hasn't exactly made
the Kashmir problem a major US concern like the West Bank or Northern
Ireland. And US reactions to the recent coup in Pakistan haven't been
much.
--Oscar Schlaf--
Anup Pradhan
A word of caution for India and the rest of the world
for that matter. The americans just can't be trusted
on anything. Wasn't it a wise old native american that
once said, "The White man speaks with a forked tougne".
He must have been refering to agreements or treaties that
were never honored. Look at what has happened to Pakistan
once the cold war was finished. How about Iraq and sanctions?
Jit Dutta <ji...@home.com> writes:
>Times of India
> Triumph of Realism
> The lifting of US sanctions against India reflects
> Washington's pragmatic acceptance of inexorable ground
> realities. This was not unexpected; indeed it was only a
> matter of time before this happened. Obviously the US
> administration was keen to initiate a new approach and
> leave behind the baggage of a self-righteous
> non-proliferation theology. The swearing in of a newly
> elected democratic government and the constitution of 13th
> Lok Sabha in India, and the near simultaneous ushering in
> of the fourth martial law regime in Pakistan, formed an
> appropriate backdrop for the US to send out a message on
> its new policy towards the subcontinent. The decision to
>lift
> sanctions should impart momentum to Indo-American
> relations to make President Clinton's visit to India next
> February as memorable as Eisenhower's in 1959.
> Washington's opposition to a nuclear India needs to be put
> in an historical context. The US was always opposed to
> acquisition of nuclear weapons by any other country,
> including Britain which was a partner in the Manhattan
> project; the McMahan Act prohibited transfer of US
> nuclear weapon technology to its closest ally as far back
>as
> 1946. However, subsequently the US had to accept the
> nuclearisation of Russia, UK, France, China and Israel. In
> 1981, US secretary of state Alexander Haig also accepted
> Pakistan going nuclear as the price for Islamabad's
>support
> to the Afghan insurgency. However, Washington found it
> necessary to go through the motions of punishing India for
> infringing the non-proliferation `Lakshman Rekha' before
>it
> accepted the consequences of its long-standing
> permissiveness with regard to Pakistan- China
>proliferation.
> India's nuclear posture and policy do not pose any threat
>to
> US interests, unlike those of Pakistan or China. As such,
> logic dictates that the remaining technological barriers
> between the US and India should also come down in due
> course. Washington's long term interests demand it. The
> weightage in favour of India in the lifting of sanctions
>is a
> milestone in Washington's policy towards South Asia. For
> the past 50 years the US had consistently tilted towards
> Pakistan, thanks to short-term opportunistic
>considerations.
> While the US move should be lauded for its maturity there
> is no need for undue jubilation in India. There is a lot
>more
> work to be done in regard to promoting Indo-American
> understanding. A mutually beneficial approach needs to be
> evolved in respect of international terrorism, religious
> extremism, narcotics traffic, promotion of democratic
> values, besides containing militarism and advancing
>nuclear
> non-proliferation through restrained international nuclear
> security policies. The last 18 months of interaction
>between