A sensible advice

The POST, Sun, Apr,9, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



There is no end to American interference in the internal affairs of many nations. Perhaps it is part of the responsibility of a global power. Once a power acquires a global stature along with necessary capability, it is assumed that it will play its expected role. Admittedly many would not approve the method adopted in pursuit of certain objectives but then one has to give certain amount of allowance to the power to follow the policy execution the way it deems fit for the attainment of the stated objective.

The end of the Cold war heralded an era in which it soon became clear that the world is moving towards unipolarity. The US emerged as the sole superpower following the death of the Cold War. The tragic event of September 11, 2001 made the newly emerged sole superpower much more assertive than what it practiced during the Cold War era. Admittedly the tragedy of 9/11 generated enormous anger among the Americans and it was deemed imperative to channelize this anger in some punitive pursuit in order to satisfy the injured American pride. Hence began an era of excessive American interferences. 

These interferences can be easily grouped into three categories. Sometimes these are positively orientated and meant to serve good purposes in the target area. In many ways these are aimed at facilitating the people of those countries with a view to improvise the existing operative systems. The welfare of the people and the country are given top priorities. In this connection most of the interferences are reflective of practical suggestions and sound advices.

The second category of interferences includes the ostensible efforts to improve the situation in a target area but sometimes these interferences reflect purely selfish motives. There is no doubt that great powers with global responsibilities go to a particular area with two specific aims in store. One is directly linked with their global ambitions such as enlisting players on your side as was done during the Cold war era. The second objective deals with a specific policy pursuit of the power for target area. It is the policy pursuits of this objective that invariably reflects selfish motives.

Third category includes regional considerations and may also be reflective of hidden agendas. For instance the American invaded Iraq bypassing the UN Security Council with ostensible aims to free the area from the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). So far they have been unable to discover the WMD on Iraqi soil. However many writers are of the view that the real reasons for Americans to invade Iraq were difference. The control over oil, the strengthening of Israeli security, and influencing the regional actors to their way of thinking are some of the factors frequently cited by many. Despite incurring enormous cost, both men and material, the American seemed to have opted to stay in the area.

For a great power to play its expected role does cause problems and invites different interpretations. Those supporting policy-pursuit may welcome it and dub it as a constructive approach whereas those opposing it would subject it to biting criticism. A great power is bound to experience both critical as well as appreciative interpretation. However if the approach is based on principles, then it becomes rather difficult for critics to highlight its adverse impact but if it is not based on principles or accepted norms of civilized behavior, then it invariably provides an open field to hit it from any side.

The American policy towards India in general and the recent nuclear agreement in particular is reflective of all the above mentioned categories of interferences. From an American point of view it is not too difficult to ascertain that they were serving both their global as well as regional objectives. While no body doubts the ability and right of every power to pursue the kind of policy its decision makers opt for, the policy based on different or double standard is bound to elicit criticism.

Following the recent visit of the US President to India and the finalization of its nuclear agreement with India, much criticism has been invoked in many quarters. There are those who felt rather strongly that President Bush its enthusiastic pursuit to please India has very badly damaged the non-proliferation regime despite being repeatedly made aware of its likely adverse consequences. Admittedly there some brave souls in the American Congress who are trying to impede its passage but it is a foregone conclusion that with Republican majority in the Congress the bill can be delayed but it would eventually be passed.

It is safe to assume that the passage of the bill would entail the amendment of some of American laws or bypassing them by some other methods. Thus it would establish a very bad precedent as far as the NPT regime is concerned. There is nothing worse than a bad precedent. It is not the first time that the Americans have struck another blow to NPT efforts but judged by all standard yardsticks this would be viewed as a great disastrous blow.

The other damaging aspect of this agreement is linked with the regional stability. In its quest the Americans have irreparably damaged the regional balance. In a major speech to students in Columbia University at New York Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has once again urged the Americans to adopt a package approach for India and Pakistan on civilian atomic cooperation in an effort to prevent an arms race and to promote the nuclear restraint regime in the region? He asserted that a selective and discriminatory approach will have serious implications for the security environment in South Asia as well as international non-proliferation efforts.

As far as the impeding the non proliferation efforts are concerned, it is part of American global policy pursuits and may even be swallowed its destructive potentialities by other supporters of NPT regime but a selective and discriminatory policy in region is certainly going to destabilize the region and is not at all welcomed by many in the region. It is not too far fetched to assume that it may even cause the unnecessary and expensive arms race. The advice to follow a balanced policy is indeed a very sane and sound advice which deserves serious considerations by the US decision makers. But it is not too difficult to perceive that to build India is part of the long standing agenda of the Americans.

One can go through a detailed analysis of American quest to befriend India during last sixty years but this would lengthen this piece too much. But let me mention few incidents reflective American efforts to be close to India. First when Pakistan was offered mutual defense assistance treaty in 1954, the US administration offered similar treaty to India but Nehru in its idealism refused to accept it and excessively ridiculed the American thinking. The US administration, however, did not loose hope. They began to focus more on the economic assistance and gave India much more than what they gave to their alliance partners.

The second incident that needs to be mentioned here is when India exploded a nuclear device in 1974 dubbing it to be a peaceful explosion. The Americans did not take a hard line on this development and were soon reconciled. The third development relates to the 1998 explosions which made India a nuclear weapon state, the American reaction was incredibly funny. Many Americans tried to put the excuse that they were unable to anticipate the coming Indian nuclear explosion. It sounded extremely funny to many as by then the US already had so many tracking devices in operation.

If the US aim is to facilitate India to meet its energy requirements, then equally pressing energy needs of Pakistan should have been given deserving treatment. The argument that A.Q.Khan affair is still haunting the decision makers, then they should have had a hard look at India’s record on chemical weapons convention and subsequent disclosure of stockpiles even after signing the convention and even on illegal provision of many nuclear related commercial deals. Such deals have frequently appeared in media. Finally it would not be out of the way to compare and to look at the legislations aimed to prevent any recurrence of nuclear commerce in both countries. There is still time to have a re-look at the regional nuclear policy and in this connection the Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz advice deserves serious considerations.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.