CTBT, India and South Asia Commentary PROBIR KUMAR SARKAR It is high time for the Western world to end the neglect of South Asia in general, and India in particular, some experts on foreign policy research and defense analysts suggested to the Clinton Administration. For the last two decades of common interest in offsetting the Soviet Union had given some clear stability to US-Chinese relationship; that common interest no longer exists since the Soviet Union, the other Super power is gone. During the same period, China’s domestic policies were clearly given to liberalization. Since 1989, however, the direction of Chinese politics has reversed. Against international trends, China is now moving toward renewed dictatorship, while South Asian nations move slow but steadily toward democracy and free market economy. In the light of this development South Asia is becoming increasingly important to the United States as the countries in the region seek to enter the global market in a big way. Washington has long stated its interest in the spread of democracy, despite a couple of nations in this region having an record in this field. Most of these nations have, for some years, had democratically elected governments. Washington’s encouragement of this trend is important as the United States in promoting human rights everywhere. Given the ethnic diversity of the region and the post Cold War period, firm roots in democracy are important not only for the region but also for the entire world as the nations are increasingly moving toward some kind of globalization. Although American power is unmatched as the world moves towards the 21st century, two major powers that sit astride the sub-continent, Russia and China, could be future competitors of the United States. Despite the disintegration of the Soviet Union the Russian nation is still large and powerful. For that reason, South Asia’s strategic importance to the United States will always be there. India has come to the forefront of the US arms control agenda, owing to New Delhi’s opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it expressed at August 1996 Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Clinton has vowed to bring India, and also Pakistan (which is only opposing the CTBT because India does so), to sign the Treaty. However, that might not be easy as India has time and again declared its total opposition to go along with a treaty that is blatantly discriminatory and gives more rights to the haves to go ahead with their nuclear program. Whether or not the United States finds a way to secure final adoption of the CTBT, the debate in Geneva and at the United Nations General Assembly has increased Washington’s frustration with New Delhi. To take stock of political and defense experts’ perception about the CTBT, India and South Asia, this writer met a few high ranking officials and defense experts in the United States and Canada. It seems clear that the United States will continue to focus primarily on India and Pakistan, giving secondary consider-ation to Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives. Although frustrated Washington had earlier adopted a policy of isola-ting India. But now it seems there is a change as the policy makers, outside and inside the US Government, have advised the Clinton Administration not to succumb to that temptation of being tough with India. The Administration has been well advised to consider that India remains important to US interests in Asia and so focus on the totality of America’s South Asia policy rather than on arms cont-rol components alone. It is better to remember that even non- proliferation and arms control can not succeed without a larger frame work of closer relations and meeting the genuine concerns of the affected countries, such as India. India’s long standing democratic commitment and record can be the foundation for closer Indo-US relationship. The possibilities now exist for a fresh start in relations, owing to the end of the Cold War and India’s economicng to the rest of the world. Shirin Tahir Kheli, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, and former US Ambassador for Special Political Affairs to the United Nations says: "Because of India’s deep concern regarding the unequal status granted in perpetuity to the nuclear-weapons states, New Delhi will continue to ask for a time-specific frame work for disarmament. American officials tend to dismiss this Indian position as nothing more than posturing, but such a stand will not do. Washington must make a serious attempt to delve into the insecurities under-lying the position that any Indian Government will have toward the CTBT. A clear US understanding of this situation may take many years to yield obvious benefit. During that time, the United States must exercise restraint in claiming victory or conceding defeat in talks; the debate within India on the CTBT has churned up a great deal of emotion and it will be difficult to move very far very fast. The view among knowledgeable Indians is that the United States accommodated Beijing in its concerns by changing the rule for inspections, and the American unwillingness tothe treaty draft to Indian concerns is but another reflection of a double standard US policy." Kheli thus notes that US concerns with non-proliferation means that the discussions on that issue continue with the two South Asian nations capable of building nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan. Beyond stressing that the restraint exercised thus far on testing, transfer, and deployment is critical to the relationship with the United States, Washington can not move too far toward asking for a roll-back in nuclear programs, though that was once the centerpiece of US efforts. She also points out that yet giving India and Pakistan formal status as quasi-nuclear states will only complicate American policy and tie up the hand of the regional policy makers, who are already hard pressed to hold the line against the nuclear hawks in each country. Kheli suggests the Clinton Administration to adopt a two-prong approach to non- proliferation and arms control issues. First, Washington should continue the bilateral dialogue and make it more constant, not limited to high level administration officials who make lightning visits to the sub-continent. Requiring the respective Ambassadors in Washington and the asking Amer-ican Ambassadors in the field to sustain a quiet dialogue make sense. Among other issues, this dialogue should cover the rest-raint and management of India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programs. One or two key officials from each side could be part of a small group whose business is to think creatively about ways in which the respective security concerns of India and Pakistan can be satisfied while the non-proliferation agenda moves forward, she argues. The second aspect of the US strategy, she adds, involves, a multilateral context. The United States agreed several years back that it would engage in talks with India and Pakistan along with a group of nations consisting of nuclear states or these plus Germany and Japan. Reviving this forum could be helpful in discussing a variety of issues that impinge on the security of India and Pakistan but also involve US non- proliferation concerns. This forum could be the vehicle for discussing such important issues as those related to nuclear safety, no first use of nuclear weapons based on nuclear technology, and so forth. A Director of the Foreign Press Office said about South Asia that the importance of trade and investment to the relationship between the United States and the nations of South Asia means that America has an interest in the sub-continent’s continuing economic liberalization and expansion of trade. While India is clearly the major attraction for American investments in South Asia--US companies have pledged $7 billion toward future investment in India shortly--other countries in the region such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal will only become increasingly important as and when they seek to enter the new glo-bal market. A senior Associate of International Peace Academy, New York, told this writer the other day that "the end of Cold War has not meant an end to US engagement in the international trouble spots. Thus, it is in the interests of the US that South Asia, with nearly a quarter of the world’s population, not join the growing list of regions beset by conflict." He concluded by saying that India could be a good friend of the United States even in the field of strategy as both India and the US are concerned about the growing power of the Communist China. Copyright © 1997 IndiaWeb Post. All rights reserved.