Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

India, US make a tectonic move
The Australian ^ | 23rd July 2005 | Greg Sheridan

Posted on 07/22/2005 3:26:33 PM PDT by naturalman1975

THOUGH all Australian eyes were on John Howard in Washington this week, the big action in the global capital was taking place with another, altogether more unlikely, prime minister. In one of those moments when you can feel the tectonic plates of geo-strategic power shifting, US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were transforming the global equations.

But first a little background. Some little time ago a senior US defence official received an admiral of the Indian navy. The Indian admiral explained that his country's military doctrine envisaged in due course Indian nuclear-armed submarines permanently in the Pacific Ocean. That would be unacceptable to the US, said the American defence man (or words to that effect).

The Indian made two replies. First, he said, the Pacific doesn't belong exclusively to you and we can sail there if we want to. But also, consider the effect that our having nuclear subs in the Pacific would have. It would mean that the cities of northern China, presently beyond the range of our land-based missiles, would be covered by our nuclear deterrent.

Well, of course, said the American, in that case we can probably make a deal. And what a deal they have made.

Singh is one of the most consequential, and in his way attractive, democratic leaders of the past 30 years. It was he, as finance minister, who 15 years ago set India on the path of revolutionary economic liberalisation, from which all of India's subsequent rapid growth and new power have flown. Now, as Prime Minister, he is cementing the geo-strategic transformation of India. As he said in his joint press conference with Bush in Washington: "The President and I share the goal of making this one of the principal relationships for each of our countries."

But it was Singh's speech to a joint session of the US Congress that was most masterful. It was beautifully crafted for an American audience. The Congress was packed. Both sides of US politics have bought into this relationship in the biggest way. And Singh touched every right note for the Americans - India and the US are common democracies, one the oldest democracy, one the largest. They are united in the war on terror. At the press conference Singh lavished praise on Bush for his leadership in the war on terror. He told Congress that the two nations shared values and interests. India's success, he said, was in the national interest of the US.

One of the delightful touches in the speech was that it completely omitted mention of Pakistan, the most exquisite punishment an Indian leader in Washington could possibly administer to his troublesome neighbour. It is a sign of the decoupling of India and Pakistan in the Western mind, and the way in which India is moving forward on a much higher economic and strategic plane than Pakistan.

Singh emphasised that what he and Bush have embarked on is a broad-ranging partnership, ranging from IT investment and agriculture to heightened defence co-operation. Astoundingly, one of Singh's greatest applause lines was: "I would like to reiterate that India's track record in nuclear non-proliferation is impeccable."

It is certainly true that India has never given nuclear technology to anyone else, but India has also never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, less than a decade ago, earned great US and international condemnation for testing a nuclear weapon. Singh's Washington visit is the emphatic end point of any sense of illegitimacy of India as a nuclear power.

This is especially evident in the agreement by the US to begin serious nuclear technology co-operation with India, confined to its non-military energy sector. This is a fundamental turning point. The new US-India partnership is not solely about balancing China but there can be little doubt that India would not have got this agreement without the China factor weighing so heavily in the US.

Clearly, the US sees India as a critical strategic counterweight to China. This does not involve Washington crudely "playing the Indian card". India is too powerful and independent for that. No one can play the Indian card except the Indians. But just by being there, being economically successful, modernising its military, demonstrating the prestige of democracy in a big, developing country and embracing such a close relationship with the US, New Delhi has fulfilled almost every wish Washington could have for it.

The other strategic counterweight to China is Japan, an even bigger economic colossus and also an Asian democracy.

This is a relationship that India and the US want with almost equal ardour. It is bipartisan in both countries. The moment of truth came at India's last election, last year. The more nationalist BJP government had pioneered a new approach to the US and it was unclear whether the new Congress Government of Singh would maintain this.

As it happened, shortly before the election I was in New Delhi and had the chance to visit Natwar Singh (no relation to the Prime Minister), now the Foreign Minister, at his home. A charming and formidable man, Natwar Singh was nonetheless full of old-fashioned non-aligned movement rhetoric and I wondered whether he would, if foreign minister, take India back to the old days of denouncing the US. That question has been definitively answered in the negative. That's why we can see this shift as a genuine paradigm change.

Oddly enough, one of the more difficult areas of US-India collaboration will be conventional defence co-operation. This is essentially because India still finds US defence equipment expensive. There are only four sources of defence hi-tech: the US, Europe, Russia and Israel. India is developing a substantial defence relationship with Israel. This is almost as remarkable as the US relationship, given that the governing Congress Party traditionally represents India's huge Muslim minority and has traditionally made a lot of its solidarity with the Palestinians.

India was disappointed that, at the moment at least, the US has decided not to support immediate plans to expand the UN Security Council. But the Indians certainly weren't going to let that get in the way of the new relationship. With two such big and intensely democratic nations as the US and India, there will always be disagreements. The relationship will require continued high-level attention on both sides.

It almost (but not quite) goes without saying that the opportunities for Australia in the new US-India strategic entente are entrancing. I hope we're up to taking advantage of them.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: india; johnhoward; manmohansingh; singhvisit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: dervish

Its true that Iran must not get the nukes but as long as Pakistan has the nukes, it will only be a matter of time before some Muslim country or the other will go nuclear. Iranians will not be able make their nukes without substantial help from either Chinese or the Pakistanis. You cant prevent any/every Muslim country from going nuclear unless Pakistani nuclear program is killed/capped (because most certainly thats the source from where most other Muslim countries wanting to go nuclear will get their blurprints or technological know-how).


21 posted on 07/25/2005 12:27:05 AM PDT by Gengis Khan (Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until u hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

As in Pakistan, it is too late once they already have nukes. Prevention is the key.

Let's face it, the US had/s plenty of notice on NK and Iran. It did not just spring from nothing. Prevention would have been possible, still is in Iran. It is a whole different matter once they have nukes.

How would you take out Paki nukes?


22 posted on 07/25/2005 8:58:30 AM PDT by dervish (freedom is a long distance race)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

Nope, you should call people from India as Indians, you call those who were in the Americas before Columbus as pre-Columbine Americans. They AREN'T indians.


23 posted on 07/26/2005 8:40:35 PM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Yes, you're right, I should call people from India Indians...but I was just joking.

But, at the same time, I don't think it's wrong to call "native Americans" Indians either, as that is the name Columbus gave them, and it stuck for a few hundred years.


24 posted on 07/27/2005 5:16:56 AM PDT by Dolphan (It's the 99% of Mohammedans that make the other 1% look bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: jo4u

He is a British Citizen and is the CEO and owner of probably the largest steel plant. But I am talking about people who made money in India and Indian Citizens.
Azim Premji, Narayana Moorthy, Shiv Nadar to name a few in IT


26 posted on 07/31/2005 1:20:16 PM PDT by ulmo3 (I don't want to be immortal through my work I want to be immortal by not dying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson