Actively containing the Chinese by building up India may create a self-fulfilling prophecy — a threatened, hostile China.
The Bush administration has signed a new nuclear pact with India that effectively lifts a moratorium on India’s purchase of Western nuclear fuel, technology, and parts. The agreement also allows India to expand its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international inspections of only its civilian nuclear activities. Some conservatives and the liberal arms control community have justifiably opposed the agreement. The conservative opponents perceptively argue that Iran, North Korea, and other “rogue” nations, under international pressure to end their nuclear programs, will object to the double standard of allowing India, which has defied the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to build as many nuclear weapons as it wants with foreign assistance. Similarly, the arms control community cogently argues that the U.S.-India deal effectively scraps the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which the world has used to hold Iran and North Korea in line. Although these arguments are good ones, the Bush administration cares less about all this than it does the misguided goal of building up a democratic India as an Asian counterweight to a rising autocratic China.
Underlying the Bush administration’s strategic embrace of India is the “democratic peace theory” — the premise that democracies don’t go to war with each other. This theory is widely held in the popular imagination and among the U.S. foreign policy elite, including that of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, but is of questionable validity. A corollary to the theory is that nuclear-armed democracies are acceptable, but autocratic atomic powers are a threat. When discussing the U.S.-Indian nuclear pact, Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, made this corollary explicit: “The comparison between India and Iran is just ludicrous. India is a highly democratic, peaceful, stable state that has not proliferated nuclear weapons. Iran is an autocratic state mistrusted by nearly all countries and that has violated its international commitments.”
Iran aside, India is democratic, but not “highly democratic,” and is neither peaceful nor stable, and doesn’t always fulfill its international commitments. India is a “new democracy” and has been since its creation in 1947. Elections are held, but it is hardly a liberal democracy in the Western sense. Empirical data show that countries in the process of democratizing are especially prone to go to war. India’s numerous wars with Pakistan, including a recent near-war, confirm this pattern. Most of the India-Pakistan wars have been fought over the Islamic area of Kashmir in Hindu-dominated India, an area that would likely vote to be independent or part of Muslim Pakistan if it had the referendum that India has long promised but not delivered. Also, in the past India has been a seething cauldron of ethnic and religious violence.
If the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War, the Boer War, and World War I, among others, don’t discredit the democratic peace theory outright, the frosty relations between India and the United States during the Cold War should give the Bush administration pause. India was loosely aligned with the Soviet Union during that period and often hostile to U.S. policy.
In short, selling India nuclear fuel and technology and other weapons (in the works) in order to develop a regional counterweight to an authoritarian China may be a risky gamble that blows up in the U.S. government’s face. Twenty years down the road, India may be more of a threat to U.S. interests than China. The future is hard to predict and the United States has not always been good at identifying who the next enemy will be. The U.S. Navy was originally created to counter the French in the Quasi-War at the end of the 18th century, but was actually first used against the Barbary pirates at the beginning of the 19th century. As recently as the late 19th century, Britain was the United States’ most likely adversary, but the United States eventually made a lasting peace with Britain and actually fought on its behalf against Germany in World War I. The United States built much of its Middle Eastern policy on propping up the Shah’s government in Iran, only to see a revolution in the late 1970s turn that country into a radical Islamic foe. The United States used Manual Noriega of Panama as an intelligence asset, but he eventually became an embarrassing antagonist that required a U.S. invasion to oust. Even after Iraq—with substantial secret U.S. assistance — won its bloody war in the 1980s against Iran, the United States continued to support Saddam Hussein right up until he became a U.S. rival after invading Kuwait.
In the future, many scenarios are possible. China could remain autocratic or could move down the road to democracy after freeing up its economy — that is, adopting the same path as Chile, Taiwan, and Singapore. But as a democracy China would not necessarily be friendly to the United States. On the other hand, if China remains an autocracy, it may not be hostile to the United States. Authoritarian states are not necessarily aggressive externally — for example, the Burmese junta. In fact, the nation with by far the most military interventions since World War II has been a liberal democracy — the United States. Moreover, in the past, the United States has befriended many despotic regimes to further its own interests.
Actively containing the Chinese by building up India, improving relations with increasingly autocratic Russia, and strengthening U.S. Cold War-era alliances ringing China may create a self-fulfilling prophecy — a threatened, hostile China.
The United States would be better off keeping its powder dry and remaining neutral in the Indian-Chinese competition. Both are rising nations with rapidly growing economies, but it is now unclear whether either or both of them will be a future threat to U.S. interests. If one does rise faster than the other and become a menace, the United States can always then help the other. But given the poor U.S. track record of identifying future enemies, it might be a big mistake to pour a lot of resources into a strategic relationship with India at the present time.
actively containing the chinese? perhaps…recognizing that with or without our assistence, india is on the vege of superpowerdom and dealing with this reality? perhaps….understanding that largely hindu and antagonistic to islamic extremism india is a valuable future ally i te struggle to prevent “the world caliphate” envisioned by muslim extremeists? not such a bad idea…
http://festival.sundance.org/2006/watch/index.aspx
watch the 17 minute short film “ha ha ha america” reasons other tan chinese military proliferation may become apparant as objects of our concen….
Screw building India to counterweight China. The country is full of Hindus. Hindus fight with Muslims all the time, as stated in the article. While arming them to the teeth might be a bad idea when one considers history, we could at least get the Indians a little more into the ball game on this whole fight against the Islamic terrorists. (Or Islam in general, in my opinion.) I mean, we’re talking about a several hundred million strongly anti-Muslim people here. If India would take the fight to the terrorists instead of fighting in its own back yard, think of the difference it could make. If I were Bush, I might use the counterweight to China b.s. as a cover story. Maybe that’s what this is all about. Bush is politically weakened as of late, so he couldn’t afford to make such non PC statements as “we’re arming them to counter Islam.” Still, arming one group to fight another has screwed us in the past, so the whole nuke thing is a bit scary.
That what you were sayin’, ibbleblibble, regarding the Hindus and the Muslims?
This entire situation seems like a contest to ally India with the United States before another country does the same thing. (How would we feel about this situation if Russia was filling our shoes) Bush knows he could not prevent any other country from helping India with his current foreign policy numbers, what could he do? I believe this will eventually be seen as a mistake because like all countries in the past, India will wish the United States to stay out of its business once they have the information they want/need to develop weapons. Maybe the intelligience gained during our next 5- 10 years of “friendly relations” will be worth the intel and money we hand over to India, time will tell. Our inability to define our future enemies will continue on the surface, but realistically does anyone (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush included) really believe the countries that toe our line really liked us in the first place? We gladly accept the role of raising these countries through the adolescence of a powerful state just to see them rebel against Big Brother ( the U.S.) in a attempt to gain independence and freedom. India will follow suit as we throw our hands in the air wondering why another country would want to leave the security and dollars the United States provides. I don’t know what the “correct” thing to do with India, China, Korea, etc., is, no one really does. The road often traveled we are taking with India will give us the same results we always get, a negative one.
exactly, shane – funny aside, i remember a special on one of my favorite egghead channels, on the gypsies. it claimed to have evidence that they were originally members of the hindu untouchables caste, armed and sent on a kamikaze mission against aggresive muslim armies. (kill 2 birds with one stone – get rid of untouchables, kill a few muslims). problem was, as soon as they got away from india, they sid “to hell with this” and just kept on keeping on…
the hindus (more accurately followers of “vedanta”) as followers of something resembling the original “aryan” faith (not to be confused with hitler’s distorted abomination of that word), were not considered “people of the book” by the muslims, and thus initially prone to a wholesale slaughter by the muslims that at least jews and christians were protected from once muslim armies settled into occupying conquered teritories. later islamic rulers of india were more tolerant, but the initial muslim conquest was most genocidal…and hindu indians remember this – not a stupid people.
There are many things that can affect deals like this. There are advantages. Since the US has not built a new nuclear power plant for decades. Here we can restart our nuclear power plant program by starting to build in other countries. This should help lower the cost of building new nuclear power plants around the world. Why not open up peaceful uses of nuclear power it does not produce green house gases. It also frees up more oil for other uses. China has been gobbling up any oil supply to support their needs. One factor for higher prices here at home. Please note IRAN is supplying China with a large precentage of it Oil Output. Nuclear power can supply a good souce of electricity. It also means more jobs for those working at the plant. France has a large precentage of its electical needs from Nuclear power. The fear of Nuclear power is preventing an expansion in this area to make it more efficient and lower cost. I agree to support safe nuclear power for power production means we can make even safer reactor plants. Lets support this deal because it is a win win for the USA. It does not matter what their religion is but what they will do with the tools we provide. If we can make the life in India better and improve job availablity. Maybe we can export some finished goods from the US to India because they can now afford to buy our goods.
David is right except the US should build up its nuclear power here not India. Bush is a great man except for his utopian trust in almost all foreign countries. (Just like Bill Clinton trusted North Korea.) The smiley approval and trust of libya, The kissy poo relations with the Saudis and Pakistanis, The guest worker program and the idea that palestinians can vote themselves democratic are few of the embarrassing tenets of Bush faith. On one hand Bush is fighting the war on terror, (a euphemism for war against true islam, which is Jihad against everybody else) on the other he calls Islam a noble faith. I wish he would not trust so implicitly. It’s like he had a need to make friends where there are none.