The election platform of Mr.George Bush (Jr) had said as follows on the USA`s relations with India and Pakistan: "Attention to the fate of East Asia should not obscure American attention to the future of South Asia. India is emerging as one of the great democracies of the twenty-first century. Soon it will be the world`s most populous state. India is now redefining its identity and future strategy. The United States should engage India, respecting its great multicultural achievements and encouraging Indian choices for a more open world. Mindful of its longstanding relationship with Pakistan, the United States will place a priority on the secure, stable development of this volatile region where adversaries now face each other with nuclear arsenals."
Against the background of this positive formulation, the recent statement in Germany by Mr.Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, criticising Russia`s nuclear supply relationship with India and the subsequent expression of opposition by the US State Department to the supply of nuclear fuel by Russia to India seem to have taken Indian analysts by surprise.
They would not have been surprised had they closely studied the past statements of those presently in the Bush Administration as well as of non-governmental analysts and think-tanks reputed to be close to the US Republican Party.
Such a study would have indicated that while recognising India as an emerging power and as a show-case for pluralistic democracy and highlighting the importance of India figuring more prominently in the USA`s policy calculation in the Asian region, particularly vis-à-vis China, some of them were in disagreement with the Clinton Administration`s romanticisation of India in his last year in office and with its characterisation of India as an Information Technology superpower or as a rapidly rising economic power.
Their view is that India is far from that position and that, because of what they consider as the half-hearted and halting nature of its economic reforms, India is unlikely to reach that position in the near future. They, therefore, cautioned that the USA should guard itself against over-estimating prospects for US business in India.
The conservative Heritage Foundation said on December 11,2000: "The manufacturing processes on which they rely for the most part are obsolete and poorly managed and use labor inefficiently; they would be expensive to upgrade. The U.S. government should not drive American businesses into making decisions about trading or investing in India that may prove to be unprofitable. According to the 2001 Index of Economic Freedom published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, India has one of the world`s least free economies, which ranks 133rd out of 155 countries. Developing an economy that draws foreign investors will require India to dismantle its centrally planned sectors and reduce barriers to trade, such as high tariffs, in order to become more attractive to foreign trade and investment."
Analysts close to the Bush administration as well as Mr.Rumsfeld were also concerned over Russia`s security and military supply relationship with India and over the role played by that relationship in the development of India`s nuclear and missile capability and advised that the US should equally pressurise Russia to end its nuclear and missile technology supply relationships with India, which are at variance with international control regimes, and China and North Korea to similarly end their supply relationships with Pakistan.
In media interviews before and after the Republican Party`s convention in August last, Mr.Rumsfeld stated as follows:
"If you think about it, Russia and the People`s Republic of China, along with North Korea, are the principal proliferators of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.
"The Russians, for example, have helped North Korea. They are currently providing assistance to China. They are providing assistance to Iran. They have, over a sustained period, provided assistance to India. They have helped Iraq over time. They are active in spreading these technologies around the world.
"So too, with China. China has helped Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. The ironic thing is that here you have two countries that are actively creating a more dangerous world through the proliferation of these technologies, complaining and protesting that the United States has decided that it thinks that it is in our best interest to provide a capability to defend against those various technologies. Their argument is that it is destabilizing.
"What is destabilizing is proliferation. They are the ones who are taking an act that is causing an instability to be injected into the world equation. Only leaders that are deluding themselves can fail to see what`s happening."
Mr.Bush`s election platform said: "A new Republican President will renew America`s faltering fight against the contagious spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as their means of delivery. The weak leadership and neglect of the administration have allowed America`s intelligence capabilities, including space based systems, to atrophy, resulting in repeated proliferation surprises such as Iraq`s renewed chemical and biological weapons programs, India`s nuclear weapon test, and North Korea`s test of a three-stage ballistic missile. Again in a partnership with the Congress, a new Republican administration will give the intelligence community the leadership, resources, and operational latitude it requires."
The Heritage Foundation`s paper of December 11,2000, said: "The United States and India must begin to view themselves as friendly countries that have complementary, though not identical, goals. To move U.S. policy in this direction, the U.S. government should explain to India that accelerating its nuclear weapons programs is in neither India`s nor America`s best interests. Indian leaders believe that being a nuclear power makes India a major international actor that deserves a strategic partnership with the United States. While it may not be possible to reverse India`s nuclear and missile developments, there are specific steps Washington can take to limit India`s nuclear activities. The United States should emphasize, for example, that reducing nuclear weapons and adhering to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are better guarantees of security than developing a nuclear deterrent and provoking an arms race. It should encourage strategic dialogue between India and China on limiting their nuclear weapons and aggressively pursue discussions on proliferation with India, China, and Russia to confine the spread of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the United States should make clear that a naval arms race to gain regional control of sea lanes--which could interrupt the free flow of goods through the area--would be in no one`s best interests. "
They have also been emphasising that while economic sanctions serve no purpose and, therefore, should be eased, if not done away with, the restrictions on the transfer of any technology, which might enhance India`s capabilities in respect of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), should continue and even tightened up by enforcing against India the same safeguards as were recommended in 1999 for application against China by the Fox Committee, which had enquired into Chinese acquisition of nuclear and missile technologies from the US.
Addressing the Center for Security Policy, Washington, on October 7, 1998, Mr.Rumsfeld stated as follows: "It is increasingly clear that anti-proliferation efforts, coupled with the inevitable imposition of still more sanctions--which already cover a large majority of the people on earth--are not stopping other nations from acquiring increasingly sophisticated weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies. There are two schools of thought as to how to deal with this obvious failure: One is to try still harder and impose still more sanctions. The second approach is to seriously work to prevent the availability of the most important technologies, try to delay the availability of the next tier of information, but to recognize that we live in a world where those who don`t wish us well will inevitably gain sophisticated weapons, and that, therefore, the answer is to invest as necessary in the offensive and defense capabilities and the intelligence assets that will enable us to live with these increasingly dangerous threats. "
The Heritage Foundation`s paper advises Mr. Bush as follows: " Washington should not be swayed, either by rhetoric about India`s democracy and its new nuclear power status or by suggestions of increased trade, into placing India`s interests before U.S. national security concerns. At the same time, the United States must recognize that India is a great emerging democracy that is redefining its identity and future goals. A new strategy for improving relations with India should focus on how to improve regional security by restraining nuclear proliferation and avoiding technology cooperation that could advance ballistic missile programs, as well as on how to improve trade."
It adds: "The Administration should ensure that any satellite and space launch activities between India and American businesses have the same parameters that the United States imposed on Russia and China, such as implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1999, creation of a satellite licensing authority within the State Department, heightened requirements for Defense Department monitoring of foreign launches, and other safeguards listed in the Cox Committee report. Though limits necessarily will be placed on how far U.S. companies may go in assisting India`s space and satellite launch industries, Washington must ensure the careful application of export control policies on any dual-use items and technologies in the satellite and space-launch sectors. U.S.interests will be served best if India is encouraged to limit its nuclear and missile programs, to refrain from proliferating missile technologies, and to reach peaceful negotiated agreements on territorial disputes."
Their writings and statements indicate a more relaxed attitude on the Kashmir question which, they feel, does not affect US national interests and, therefore, should be left to be solved by India and Pakistan.
The Heritage Foundation`s advice is as follows: " Pakistan`s long-brewing hostility toward India dates back to the creation of these countries as separate states in 1947. Pakistan continues to be ruled by a military dictatorship that is troubled by a rapidly unraveling economy, while India is evolving as a stable and strong democracy with a reforming economy. Yet there is no American advantage in taking sides in their conflict over Kashmir. Correct and sincere neutrality will benefit the situation as well as U.S. interests."
It says of India`s desire for permanent membership of the UN Security Council: "Expanding the number of members on the Security Council is not in the best interests of the United States. Adding new permanent members would increase the complexity and difficulty of negotiating resolutions and thereby reduce the Security Council`s effectiveness. Gridlock in the Security Council would be of little benefit to the United States or to India.
"Certainly, other countries have strong arguments for obtaining a permanent seat on the council. Japan and Germany, for example, are major contributors to the U.N. budgets. Japan contributes $216 million annually and Germany contributes $104 million, compared with India`s annual $350,000. Both Japan and Germany are developed countries and economic powers; India is neither. In pursuing nuclear capabilities, India hopes to demonstrate that, despite its economic problems, it is a major world power and deserves a seat on the council. But acceding to its demands could encourage other developing nations to pursue nuclear capabilities as well, if only to use them as leverage in the United Nations.
"Finally, the United States has little reason to expect India to side with its positions in the Security Council if it were to become a permanent member. India, which takes pride in its traditional independent stance, sided with the United States on U.N. votes in 1999 less than 22 per cent of the time. The Russian Federation, by comparison, voted with the United States 46 per cent of the time. Among Asian nations, only China, Laos, Vietnam, Burma, and North Korea voted with the United States fewer times than did India. A 1997 analysis of U.N. votes showed that India--the fifth highest recipient of U.S. aid in FY 1997--had voted against the United States at the U.N. an astounding 80 per cent of the time, more than any of the top 10 aid recipients."
The Heritage Foundation`s final conclusion::"Consulting with India on matters of mutual interest in the long term may bring India into a closer strategic alignment with the United States and convince its next generation of leaders to view cooperation with America as more important to its future stability and relations than the appearance of independence. India has clearly demonstrated its interest in developing a closer relationship with the United States. Washington should take this opportunity to foster a meaningful strategic dialogue with Indian officials about U.S. concerns, such as proliferation, and to find ways to limit mischief by China and Russia in the region. Such an approach could result in better cooperation in both trade and security in the future."
One could sense a greater concern amongst analysts close to the Bush Administration over the situation in Afghanistan than was evident in the Clinton Administration. . In their view, it is in the USA`s national interests that the oil and gas resources of the Central Asian Republics (CARs) remain under the control of elements well-disposed towards the USA and if the Taliban or pro-Taliban elements get control of them, that would be detrimental to US national interests.
They feel that the Clinton Administration trivialised the Afghan problem by over-focussing on the Osama bin Laden issue without keeping the focus on the Taliban and that it is in the US national interest to work for the overthrow of not only President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, but also of the Taliban, which should be declared an international terrorist organisation.
A Heritage Foundation`s paper of July, 2000, on the Taliban said: "Washington`s neglect of Afghanistan`s festering problems has allowed the Taliban to dominate Afghanistan and export terrorism, revolution, and opium. Through disengagement, America squandered its influence in the region and left itself with few options besides hurling cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden`s easily replaceable training camps and bracing for further terrorist attacks.
"This "chuck and duck" approach is doomed to failure. Even if the United States were fortunate enough to eliminate bin Laden by military means, other Islamic radicals will continue to threaten American security and American allies from Afghan bases as long as the Taliban prevails there.
"Rather than focusing narrowly on bin Laden, the United States should focus on uprooting the Taliban regime that sustains him and others like him. Washington should develop a regional strategy to halt Pakistan`s support of the Taliban, build up Afghan opposition to the Taliban, and encourage defections from its ranks. The ultimate U.S. goal should be a stable, tolerant, inclusive Afghan government that poses no threats to its neighbors or to its own ethnic and religious minorities. To accomplish this, Washington should cooperate with the broad anti-Taliban coalition that surrounds Afghanistan and help to forge a broad anti-Taliban coalition inside Afghanistan."
The paper makes the following recommendations: " Specifically, the United States should: Maximize international pressure on the Taliban, including additional United Nations sanctions, to halt its support of terrorism; pressure Pakistan to end its support of the Taliban.; provide military, diplomatic, and economic support to the anti-Taliban opposition; forge a regional coalition to support the anti-Taliban opposition and support an Afghan peace settlement.; build an internal Afghan consensus for peace; designate the Taliban as a terrorist organization to set the stage for declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism if it continues to support the Taliban; provide humanitarian aid to non-Taliban areas of Afghanistan;appoint a special envoy for Afghanistan to raise the priority of Afghan policy within the U.S. government and coordinate U.S. policy with other governments;allow the Afghan opposition to reopen the Afghan embassy in Washington, which has been closed since 1997; revive bipartisan congressional activism on Afghanistan similar to the broad coalition that supported aid for the Afghans during the Cold War. "