The India- US nuclear treaty has attracted global attention and it has evoked mixed responses among the citizens of both nations. Questions have been raised so as to decide who benefits most out of the treaty. The treaty is significant as it has both political and strategic implications for the East and the West- the Indians as well as the Americans. Even though the original goal of the treaty is hailed as the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, one cannot undermine the political and economic factors that lie dormant deep.
The treaty, no doubt, is capable of determining the destiny of power relations in the Asia –Pacific region. The paper tries to make a probe into the consequences of the proposed India-US nuclear treaty and the hypothesis of the research is that the treaty would bring about drastic changes to the power equations and international relations among the Asian countries. These changes are most likely to affect the Western nations too.
The economic crisis which the world faces today exerts pressure on Nation-states to undergo a certain transformation to limited sovereignty. To control the world economy there must be an authority. So, the weaker nations may not be overpowered or intimidated by economically powerful nations. The change in international relations among nations is due to the changed scenario in world politics. Moreover, most of the nations consider their diplomats as cultural ambassadors.
Globalization and consumerism have changed the nature of international affairs. There are no permanent enemies and permanent friends. Today’s political treaties and international collaborations may undergo changes. New treaties and diplomacy may change and transform international relations. Today, the world is not focused upon a single country. Trade and commerce are not concentrated in a specific region.
So, when one considers the importance of international affairs and deals between nations, one can see that the nuclear treaty between India and United States is prominent among recent developments. Earlier, in 1974, India exploded a nuclear bomb and was suffering from its consequences in international affairs. But now the scene is totally changed and it is evident that India’s aim of a nuclear bomb explosion was to fulfill its energy needs.
Geoffrey Garrett points out: “The US and India should now exploit opportunities created by the deal to deepen the integration of their economies in areas beyond civilian nuclear technology, such as clean energy, higher education, biotechnology and the convergence of media, entertainment and IT.” (Garrett). The opportunities that are created by the deal must be exploited and it can play an important role in future collaborations. The way is clear for co-operation in other fields like education and biotechnology. When countries are ready to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it will benefit international relations among countries.
When India is ready to set up 10 large size nuclear power plants in the next 15 years, the technology and hardware will be imported from the US. It is evident that each nuclear power plant will cost about$4 billion. Within the next 15 years, at least 5 power plants orders worth$15-20 billion will be placed on companies in the US. When India has to depend upon loans to pay the companies, it will benefit the banking sector. So we can see that it is the best opportunity for lenders and suppliers in the US.
Moreover, there is a high chance for future business dealings. Barrister Harun Ur Rashid is of the opinion: “Bilateral ties are as important for the US as for India. India considers the nuclear deal is set to achieve its dominant role in the region and in global affairs. On the other hand, the US considers China as a strategic “competitor” and India can, to a great extent, restrain China from becoming a supreme power in the Asia-Pacific region.” (Harun ur Rashid).
The nuclear deal will help India to achieve its dominant role as a responsible country that believes in democracy. In a democracy, it is the duty of the government to fulfill the energy needs of the people. Moreover, in the southern part of Asia India can play a significant role in global affairs. Through the nuclear deal with the US, India can play the role of a global competitor to China. For the US, there must be a strong supporting country to defend China in Asian Continent.
Globalization changed the scope of international relations. So it can be seen that change in relation is due to liberalized view of world politics and diplomatic relations. The liberalized policies of the new world order resulted in bilateral relations and the nuclear deal between India and the US. International relations and liberalism focus on political and civil liberties and it is not against individual autonomy. It aims at the natural goodness of human beings.
Neo-liberal ideas are based on cooperation among countries at the international level. International relations among nations aim at peacekeeping and peaceful use of atomic energy. It is evident that the non-renewable resources are not sufficient enough to fulfill the energy needs of the world. Moreover, more and more Asian countries are in the way of economic development and their energy needs are high. So it is not fair to exploit the non-renewable resources for energy needs. If nuclear energy is used for productive purposes, it will sustain the non-renewable resources in nature. James L. Richardson points out that:
“The challenge of rethinking the meaning of liberalism in a ‘globalizing’ world characterized by extreme economic inequality, social upheavals and the reassertion of cultural differences—and the questions whether and how liberal values can at all be realized in such a world.” (Richardson). The new world order of globalization is capable of transforming liberalism. He further adds that the meaning of the term liberalism which was used in the 18th century must be redefined. Moreover, there are economic inequalities and cultural differences among countries. So, it will be a tiresome effort for economically and politically weak countries to sustain their own identity in the new world order.
Most of the countries are so conscious to maintain good relationships with other countries. Most of the international relations are through diplomats and ambassadors. Here also, the role of the diplomats in warm relations cannot be ignored. Moreover, they are able to play the role of cultural ambassadors. It is evident that diplomacy played an important role in formulating the nuclear deal between India and the US. So both India and the US benefit from the foretold nuclear deal.
The importance of the deal is that it will result in a better relationship between East and West. Robert M. A. Crawford points out: “Since its first awakening as an organized academic discipline in the early part of the twentieth century International Relations has been inextricably bound up with national attitudes, priorities, and interests, first British and, from the 1940s onward, American.” (Crawford, 118). A close look at History reveals that there was always a dominant power in international politics and relations.
It was the Soviet Union that enjoyed such a privilege to dictate terms on global issues. The cold war saw the degeneration of the USSR and since then America has been the most influential global power. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a change in attitude and international relations became an important part of diplomacy. Today, we can see that most of the countries are so attentive on relation towards other countries. Moreover, they try to send diplomats and ambassadors to other countries. This denotes the change in international relations. But one can see that today’s international relation is based on national attitudes and interests.
The importance of the nuclear deal between India and the US is that it is beneficial to both nations. India is a major regional power in Asia and the alliance with the US will be helpful in future inter-government exchanges on mutually-interested matters. But PK Iyengar is of the opinion: “The much-hyped promise of nuclear technology doesn’t translate to much in real terms. Long years of isolation have made us self-sufficient in the technologies needed for our three-stage program, particularly fast-breeder technology.” (Iyengar). There must be clarity in the deal because the homegrown technology in India is capable to compete with the technological innovation in western countries.
For example, Space research. The Indian co-operation in the Indian Ocean will benefit the US trade and commerce through sea routes in Asia. Military expansion in India will benefit the hardware suppliers in the US. The benefit of India from the nuclear deal is that nuclear technology can be used for productive purposes. Moreover, India expects that she is to be recognized as an important nuclear power in South East Asia.
In India, nuclear technology will result in infrastructure and manufacturing base development. The most important benefit of India is that there will be a technology transfer between both nations. The technology up-gradation of nuclear power generation is another benefit. Now, nuclear technology in India is unproductive and for no use. So as to make it productive, it must be used in a purposeful way.
So, it is evident that the nuclear deal between India and the US must not be termed as a simple deal. It may result in far-reaching consequences in international relations between India and the US. The deal can be considered as the first step to further co-operation in other fields. There are so many other fields that benefit from this deal. The deal can also be considered as the new horizon of co-operation between east and west. Thus, one can state that the deal has enabled a historical bilateral relationship between the two nations and the fact that India is recognized as “as a responsible nuclear power entitled to benefits and gains denied for three decades”. (Sirohi). shows the growth of the nation towards global influence and power.
It was the nuclear testing by India in May 1998 that brought the U.S attention back to the South Asian subcontinent and the non-proliferation steps later gave way to healthy international relations between both the nations. The U.S has been alarmed by the military and economic power that China gathered after the cold war era and it needed some emerging power in south Asia to check its dominance.
As Lloyd Richardson (2002) observes the U.S has now realized that “India is a major Asian democratic power with the potential economic and military strength to counter the adverse effects of China’s rise as a regional and world power.” (Lloyd). and as a result diplomatic and strategic measures were adopted by the U.S government to develop international alliance with India. As the Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva, Barrister Harun ur Rashid, rightly puts it: “India is naturally considered a counterweight to China’s power. India has the natural resources, technology, size, population and geographical location, ideally suited to challenge China’s power in Asia-Pacific.
That is why the Bush administration wants to see India “a major world power” with sophisticated nuclear weapons.” (Harun ur Rashid). The technological developments acquired by China are amazing, and the remarkable achievements made with the Chinese anti-satellite test in January 2007 have questioned America’s dominance in the space world. India, on the other hand, can enhance its military power and can establish itself as a major dominant force in the Asian continent along with China.
The treaty also highlights the fact that the rise of China and India has led to some sort of power shift from the western states to Asia. In one of his speeches at the Yale University, the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has remarked” “In the next two decades China and India will undergo industrialisation four times the size of the United States and at five times the speed…For the first time in many centuries, power is moving East.” (Power is moving to India China: Blair to West). This substantiates why the United States of America has taken the initiative for the treaty and how strategically and diplomatically motivated is such a move.
The competition among world nations to establish themselves as military powers and to acquire nuclear power has led to international tensions and this has called for the necessity of nuclear non-proliferation. According to Paolo Tripodi, “experts should now focus on a careful case-by-case analysis, to suggest to political leaders the right pathway towards a peaceful world balance, free from the nuclear nightmare.” (Tripodi). The concept of nuclear non-proliferation has assumed greater significance with more and more countries trying to achieve nuclear competency. It is therefore mandatory that world nations like America take global initiatives for such endeavours.
The proposed nuclear treaty between the Government of India and the Government of the United States of America has evoked mixed responses in both the nations. In India, many consider that India is succumbing itself to the domination of USA and that USA will be dictating terms upon India and its energy resources. The treaty, no doubt, aims at the peaceful use of nuclear energy as there is shortage of resources for other forms of energy sources.
It is generally considered that the Hyde Act gives an upper edge to the United States to monitor and control the functioning of nuclear deal in India. To quote one of such anxiety, B.S. Raghavan in this respect observes that “So long as the Hyde Act is on the statute book and the Agreement is in force, India will be subjected to recurrent intrusive queries from the US side on this account in derogation of its sovereignty and self-respect.” (Raghavan).
Similarly, there are many who believe that India’s relationship with China and Iran will adversely be affected by the treaty and the nation will be relegated to the position of a mere client state of the United States of America. However, these arguments and grievances do not sound convincing as India has the freedom to keep itself away from the treaty once the nation’s integrity, sovereignty and self-respect are adversely affected. Besides, India benefits a lot out of the nuclear treaty as it enables the nation to acquire nuclear materials, reactors, and technology that would help the nation to meet the energy needs of the nation.
Thus, it is evident from the above discussion that both the countries do have their own strategic goals and objectives in the formation of the treaty. Besides, both the nations “may well be natural partners, as the world’s two largest democracies sharing a mutual interest in balancing China’s rise” and undoubtedly “the unlimited promise of the Indian innovation economy is intoxicating to American multinationals, venture capital and private equity.” (Garett).
President Bush realized that India offered a best soil for America to establish its supremacy in the South Asian continent. However, the nuclear cooperation with India has given way to issues of concern for the Congress too. The United States has been trying to develop nuclear cooperation with India from the mid-1950s. However, when India refused to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 on grounds of discrimination, it became difficult for the States to have nuclear deal with India as the U.S laws and policies did not permit it.
By 2005, the United States realized for certain, the significance of having a strategic relationship with India: “Noting the “significance of civilian nuclear energy for meeting growing global energy demands in a cleaner and more efficient manner,” President Bush said he would “work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India” and would “also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies (P: 2-3).” (Squassoni). The treaty is still under the consideration of the American Congress and one once it is approved by the Congress the effects of the treaty would be visible to the whole world.
Critically analyzing the possible consequences of the Indo-US Nuclear treaty one cannot come to any easy conclusion as the potentiality and consequences of the treaty is beyond prediction. One cannot simply judge about its success or failure; the longevity of the treaty again cannot be taken for granted. This is very well observed by B. Ramesh Babu in his abstract: “Only future can unravel as to what extent our objections and concerns will be met. In any case, the option to walk out is always open to us, and also to the other side; and that has its consequences too. Reality has no obligation to be simple, simply because we are unable to comprehend its complexities.” (Babu).
However, the treaty is sure to bring about changes in power equations and global relations among world nations.
Works Cited
Babu, Ramesh. The nuclear deal: A paradigm shift in India-US relations. Social Science Research Network: Tommorow’s Research Today. V.2. 2007. Web.
Contributors Power is moving to India China: Blair to West. Rediff News. 2008.
Crawford, Robert M. A. Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline. London: Routledge, 2000.
Garett, Geoffrey. Times of India: Economic uncertainty in US may thwart nuclear deals promise. Op-Ed Comments: Pacific Council on International Policy. 2007. Web.
Harun ur Rashid, Barrister. Indo-US common interests. Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Its Ramifications. 2008.
Iyengar, 123 Agreement is a cilded cage: India-US nuclear deal. Web.
Raghavan, India US nuclear agreement: It could have been worse. Business Line. 2007.
Richardson, James L. Critical liberisation in international relationships: Abstract. Australian National University. 2002. Web.
Richardson, Lloyd. Now, Play the India Card. Policy Review, 2002.
Sirohi, Seema. Historic breakthrough for India US relations. BBC News. 2005.
Squassoni, Sharon. US nuclear cooperation with India issues for congress: Summary. CRS Report for Congress: Received through CRS Web. 2006. Web.
Tripodi, Paolo. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and the International System. Contemporary Review, 268(1562), 1996.