Search the Internet          Tips

Lift sanctions against India, Bush told

A noted analyst on Wednesday called on President George W Bush to ignore the non-proliferation hawks in his administration and immediately lift the remaining sanctions against India, if the US is to gain New Delhi's favour.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice-president for defence and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, said in a memorandum circulated to newspapers and members of Congress that the administration would be wise to overrule the arms-control fanatics in the middle ranks of the state department and lift sanctions against India immediately.

The attack on 'hawks' was obviously directed at Robert Einhorn, assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation, who is being identified as pointsman for non-proliferation in the state department.

Einhorn has been among those career officers who have argued strongly against lifting the sanctions imposed on India in the wake of the May 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests.

Einhorn, among others, has argued that unless New Delhi delivers some quid pro quo in the form of clarifications on arms control, including a clarification on what India means when it speaks of the need for a 'minimum credible nuclear deterrent', sanctions should not be lifted completely.

But Carpenter, in his paper, argues that the US should move quickly because powers such as Russia and China are trying to cultivate India, because they view the latter as a rising economic and military power and, therefore, invaluable as a strategic partner.

In support of his contention, the analyst points out that Moscow has resurrected its economic and strategic ties with New Delhi, as evidenced by the recent major arms sales agreement concluded between the two countries.

"More important, Russia apparently sees India as an important component of a coalition of major powers to thwart US global hegemony," the paper reads.

In this connection, Carpenter recalled that three years ago, then foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov had openly proposed that India join a "triangular alliance" with China to promote a "multipolar world".

"Even China," Carpenter points out, "has sought to improve relations with India," and noted that a few weeks ago, "Indian and Chinese naval forces engaged in joint manoeuvres."

All this, Carpenter argues, is a sign that "India is clearly keeping its options open".

The analyst argues that the recent visit to New Delhi of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and his warm appreciation of India's growing economic strength and political and moral influence were steps in the right direction.

"Armitage's approach was consistent with the attitude of the Bush administration," Carpenter said, adding, "Indeed, Bush himself signalled an interest in India as a possible US strategic partner in his first major foreign policy address as a presidental candidate in late 1999."

The analyst argues that India could help serve as a strategic counterweight to China, in the event that Beijing begins to pursue expansionist ambitions.

Carpenter in his policy note rues the fact that besides the non-proliferation hawks in the state department and their resistance to the lifting of sanctions, there are other obstacles in the way of the administration's goal of making India a de facto strategic partner.

"During the Clinton administration," he contended, "America's actions often made New Delhi nervous. The US-led NATO attack on Serbia raised fears among Indians that some day, the US might give New Delhi an ultimatum regarding the Kashmir dispute."

"One important reason for the recent surge in India's military spending," argues Carpenter, "is to make certain that Washington can never treat Kashmir as it did the Kosovo problem."

By way of confidence-building measures, Carpenter suggests the immediate lifting of sanctions and US backing for India's ambition to gain a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council.

"Finally, the administration should make [it] clear to New Delhi that it has no intention whatsoever to interfere in the Kashmiri dispute," Carpenter emphasised.

Arguing that India and the US make for ideal strategic partners, Carpenter contended that "with wiser diplomacy on Washington's part, there are no serious issues on which the interests of the two countries are in conflict".

"Conversely," he added, "there are numerous areas in which Indian and US interests coincide. Chief among them are stability in the Persian Gulf and placing a limitation on China's ambitions."

"A continuation of the inept diplomacy of the Clinton years, however, could drive India into the waiting arms of Russia and China," the analyst warns.

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report