What distinguishes Monet’s Waterlilies or Botticelli’s Birth of Venus from other paintings is the attention their artists pay to the detail. Michelangelo’s Pieta and classical Greek sculptures like Samothrace are special for the same reason. Broad, brush strokes alone cannot make a work of real art. It requires using the chisel and hammer to good effect for bringing out the finer details, something, in his desire to paint a broad brush picture of failure of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, Prof Ames in his article: “Politics with a Punch line” misses out on. While it is good to be able to abstract out the details and recognize the forest from the trees, it is equally important to acknowledge that doing so runs the risk of missing out on important details, or worse misclassifying them.

 

I do not have the knowledge or interest to judge the Bush Administration’s performance on all foreign policy matters, but I definitely think the administration’s recognition of India as a nuclear power is not an “embarrassing diplomatic failure”, but merely a long due acknowledgement of a reality. Furthermore, it is an acknowledgment that advances, and not damages, the U.S. interests. Here is why.

 

First, India has developed the nuclear technology on its own and would continue doing so. It cannot ignore the existence of two nuclear powers right next door, besides others like North Korea and Iran who aspire to. Nor can it ignore the energy needs of its ever-growing economy. Even if the U.S. were to turn a blind eye to reality, India is not going to ignore its strategic interests just to please the U.S.

 

Second, the nuclear cooperation agreement does not fundamentally alter the status of NPT. It merely enhances the safety in use of nuclear technology by bringing the civilian reactors into the realm of international inspection.

 

Third, U.S. business relies on outsourcing to India for surviving and thriving in a competitive world, and those BPO firms need uninterrupted power. Nuclear energy is one way to fulfill the needs of these firms.

 

Fourth and most important, in a world in which U.S. has few allies, India is a natural ally for the U.S. Of course, it does not mean that India will accede to all the demands of the U.S. or always act in accordance with its interests. After all, it is a separate country with its own strategic interests, but there is a huge scope for give and take. On the balance, a more cooperative relationship with India is in the interest of the U.S. The important thing to remember is that the U.S. needs India as much as India needs U.S.

 

This is especially important in the light of four trends that are reshaping global power equations. First, China, riding on its economic success, is expanding its military and economic reach worldwide from Africa to Latin America, and not just in its immediate neighborhood. Russia, riding on rising oil prices and falling economic dependence on the west, is increasingly reasserting its clout. Europe is coming together and European Union would like to play a greater role in the world affairs, and the U.S. cannot take its leadership role for granted. Finally, war on terror has alienated Middle-East and Islamic countries to an unprecedented extent. Today, the U.S. might be the sole superpower but its stock is falling worldwide. Armed engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have not helped the U.S. cause much. This global reality leaves the U.S., among countries of any consequence, with just India and Israel as the possible allies. A strong India is a must for the U.S. to counterbalance the Chinese assertion in Asia and across the world.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the Bush Administration in this case at least recognized the world reality correctly. It did not “reward” India for violating the non-proliferation treaty, but acted in the self-interest of the United States. And since India is a responsible democratic country with an established track record of zero proliferation, it is in no way against the interests of the rest of the world.