WE ACCEPTED THEIR NUCLEAR POWER STATUS AND ALL WE GOT WAS A NUCLEAR-ARMED ALLY WITH COMMON ENEMIES?:

Nuclear Pact Launches India Into Uncharted Waters: The historic nuclear deal with the US could have an unpredictable and serious outcome (Pratap Bhanu Mehta, 7 March 2006, YaleGlobal)

On the economic front the interdependence of India’s economy with that of the US is only bound to increase. India now becomes an attractive market for nuclear and advanced technologies worth billions of dollars. Both sides justify the deal in economic terms. India’s ruling classes are convinced that nuclear power is necessary for its energy security. It is the only viable answer to India’s acute power shortages. The US also wants to re-legitimize the worldwide use of nuclear power as the only alternative to burning hydrocarbons. But will dependence on nuclear power really give India the energy security its needs? Although the terms of the deal safeguard the import of uranium, will it be wise for India to base its energy security on imported supplies of uranium? And are the economic arguments in favor of nuclear power over alternative sources so compelling that it becomes the cornerstone of India’s development strategy?

While the desirability of India’s energy strategy can be debated in technical terms, the political consequences of this deal are far more uncertain than India acknowledges. The nuclear deal is simply one aspect of an Indo-US relationship that is acquiring unprecedented momentum. For the first time in its history, the fortunes of India’s elites are comprehensively and intimately tied with the fate of America. Can India be so materially and culturally bound with the US and yet resist seeing world geo-politics through American eyes? While formally India acknowledges that it will not always align with the US, there are signs that India is subtly internalizing the terms of discourse through which the US describes the world order. Take for instance, the war on terrorism. India and the US have emphatically reiterated their common interest in defeating terrorism. But it is still not clear that it makes sense for India to buy into the idea that there is a single kind of terrorism or a united war against it. India was a victim of terrorism that had its roots in the geo-politics of South Asia, not in the militant Islam that targets the West. Both are different entities that require different responses. India’s strategy of military self-restraint in the face of terrorism has also been politically prudent, while US military actions have, arguably, given terrorism more aid and succor. Is India now in the danger of being drawn into the confrontation between militant Islam and the West, a confrontation that is not of its making?

Of the foreign policy dilemmas that the deal will produce, the most important one revolves around China.. The US projects India as some sort of counterweight to Chinese power. It is odd not to help build India while the Chinese juggernaut roles on unabated. While not acknowledging it overtly, India is also preoccupied with containing Chinese influence.

Try explaining that reality to a Realist.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 10, 2006 4:15 PM