There was nothing surprising in the egregious comments made by the US ambassador in India, David Mulford, in an interview with the PTI in which he almost warned India of serious consequences should New Delhi refuse to go along with the US-EU efforts to refer the matter of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme to the Security Council. After all, Indians of all shades continue to doubt America’s profession of friendship for India. The US is seen as imperious in its behaviour and has a propensity to be insensitive to Indian concerns and domestic pulls while all the time talking about its own real and imaginary security concerns and the worries of the non-proliferation Ayatollahs in Washington.
The shadow of US haughtiness will surely fall on the proposed visit of the US president to India in March with the Left and its coat-tail parties deciding to greet Bush in India with ‘go back’ slogans. If the crisis snowballs fast, as it well might, the Indian visit of Bush should be called off. George Bush will, no doubt, be happy to spend more time with his bosom pal in our neighbourhood, who is fighting to save terrorists hiding in his country’s western borders from American rockets fired from across the Durand Line.
The manner in which the US administration disowned Mulford’s comments, calling them his ‘personal’ opinion was no less insulting than the arrogance of the envoy. The State Department spokesman, Seam McCormark, said that Mulford was ‘reflecting’ the ‘very strongly held feelings about Iran’ in the Congress.
Just a week before Mulford’ egregious comments, Undersecretary of State, Nicholas Burns, said in New Delhi after two days of talks with officials that the nuclear deal faced ‘difficulties’ and he was categorical in asserting that a lot depended on the separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities in India. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, who had lost the last presidential election to Republican George Bush, was on a visit to India, Before he left, he made only some diplomatic remarks about agreeing ‘in principle’ with the nuclear deal but said that its progress depended on many other factors like the attitude of the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, changes to be brought in the Atomic Energy Advisory Board and the adoption of the Fissile Technology Control Committee. Kerry has strong views on the issue of non-proliferation. He has not shown any enthusiasm for supporting the July 18 deal Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had initialled with President Bush Jr.
It is clear now that the so-called civilian nuclear deal with the US is headed for many more hurdles even if the immediate one (Iran’s referral to the UNSC) is crossed somehow. The US has sent not one but several signals to suggest that the deal will not sail through easily unless India does all that the US wants it to do, regardless of India’s ‘national interest’.
That the nuclear deal signed in Washington was going to benefit India’s nuclear energy programme can perhaps not be doubted. Many experts and commentators in India have said that the ‘objectionable’ part in the deal regarding the separation of the country’s civilian and military nuclear programmes can be sorted out without harming India’s security concerns.
But this is possible if the separation list is drawn entirely within this country, keeping ‘national interest’ in mind. The US is now making it clear that the separation list has to be drawn to its satisfaction which will prevent India from meeting any future security concerns from its nuclear armed neighbour who, despite its known proliferation record, enjoys full backing of the Americans.
If the nuclear deal is going to decide the length of India’s honeymoon with the US it is better if the government prepares itself for an abrupt termination and be ready to face all the ‘devastating’ consequences that will inevitably follow. It will, however, remain a mystery why any adverse affect in Indo-US relations should harm only India and leave the US untouched. With its ‘friends’ in the world decreasing fast, the US should perhaps be more interested in having a friendly India rather than an antagonistic India.
The Americans prefer to pursue short-term goals and cultivating India can drop off Washington’s agenda. Indian officials should have been wiser by now after seeing how the Americans have been shifting the goal post after July 18 and also the US history of ditching its ‘friends’ whenever it suits Washington—in ‘national interest’. New Delhi should not be bogged down by the fear that the current momentum of its development and growth will suffer by the loss of a ‘cosy’ relationship with Washington.
The nuclear programme in India will have to be continued without the US help, as has been the case for long. The old US ‘tilt’ against India may resurface in a more pronounced manner. India may also discover that all the hype about its having ‘arrived’ at the international stage would be reduced to rubble with the US becoming more active in belittling India and scuttling its efforts at becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. Trade and commerce will also be hit. These developments would probably make India’s ‘enemy’ ecstatic. Making history repeat once again!
Courtesy : Syndicate Features
Printer-Friendly Version
