Al Ahram, p.4, (7/3/2006)
Everybody agrees that the visit of George W. Bush to India is not less important than the visit paid by former US President Richard Nixon to China in the seventies. Both visits represent turning points in the relationship between a major power and another emerging major power. However, Bush’s visit is considered a bold gambling from a president who is visiting a country that was so proud of its independence and cultural heritage. He went there asking for forgiveness and giving gifts including a nuclear agreement, strategic partnership and strengthening of bilateral cooperation in the economic, scientific and space fields.
But in the field of relations among countries, there are no gifts without something in return. One party gives in advance to get something in return later on. It seems that Bush has strong justifications for the Congress to convince it of making India and exception of the NPT and ending its status as rogue nuclear country in spite of the fact that it did not agree except to put two thirds of its nuclear facilities under international supervision. It maintained the remaining third to be used for military purposes and not to maintain an unrestricted freedom to produce nuclear weapons.
The first justification is that India could be a power balancing the military , political and economic power of China in Asia. But this can not be done under the policy of containment and without being a recognized member in the nuclear club.
The second justification is that if India does not obtain the needed technology for having its energy requirements from nuclear plants used for peaceful purposes, it would represent a pressure on the world demand of oil and this would lead to increase its global prices. This would ultimately affect the US consumers.
The third justification is that without reaching this nuclear agreement, the US companies would not be able to make use of the rapidly growing Indian market and its demand on nuclear reactors.
The fourth justification is that without an Indian active role, it would be difficult to reach an international consensus in the Security Council to contain the Iranian nuclear program.
As Bush admitted, the agreement is necessary and justifies the amendment of the US laws to lift sanctions imposed on India. But it might not be enough for guaranteeing the full conformity of policies of the two countries. India would continue opposing changing regimes by force; it would also oppose unfair international trade agreements; it would oppose any foreign intervention in its region and would oppose anything that affect its independence in taking decisions. We can confirm that India managed to make the US change its laws as it proved that this would be in Washington’s interest, but would Hamas succeed to do the same?
******