The Chinese view

The Chinese view cited here on the US aims behind the deal is quite perceptive, insightful and realistic. It quite aptly foregrounds the "strategic" objectives over the likely commercial benefits that the deal may offer to the US. To what extent these commercial benefits are going to be realised, however, remain to be seen.

Compare this with the following:

I.
Quote
A transformed bilateral relationship that makes the
United States, as Rice put it, "a reliable partner for
India as it makes its move as a global power" will
ultimately advance America's own global interests in
defeating terrorism, arresting nuclear proliferation,
promoting democracy, and preserving a stable balance
of power in Asia over the long term.
Unquote

[Ashley Tellis in 'Indo-US Relations Headed for a Grand
Transformation?', 14 July 2005,
at http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5999]

II.
Quote
The president's gamble is premised on the conviction
that whatever specific Indian policies at any point
may be, India's national interests converge
fundamentally with that of the U.S. Consequently,
India will remain a friendly state whose growth in
capabilities ought to be assisted because it comports
with larger American interests in Asia and globally.
Unquote

[Ashley Tellis in 'American Giver', Sep 29 2008
at
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/29/bush-singh-nuclear-oped-cx_at_0929tellis.html]

III.
Quote
[Q:] What does the Indo-US nuclear agreement really
mean for India?

[A:] I would say it means three things. (One) It is a
changing of a very powerful set of global rules to
accommodate India; it is a recognition of India's
responsibility and its rising capabilities; and the
importance of the US-India partnership. Two, it gives
India access to something it has never had for the
last 30-odd years, and that is nuclear energy
cooperation with a whole range of countries, which is
going to be vital if India is going to meet its
developmental goals. The third is more symbolic, in
that it means the end of the nuclear apartheid regime
to use (former external affairs minister) Jaswant
Singh's famous phrase, that kept India out of the
group of elite countries. I think it is truly a
transformative event and when historians write about
in the coming decades, I have absolutely no doubt in
my mind that this will have been one of those turning
points in India's march towards becoming a great
power.
Unquote

[Ashley Tellis in an interview, Sep 28 2008
at
http://www.livemint.com/2008/09/28220522/De-facto-not-de-jure--India.html]

IV.
Quote
From the Indian side, the main driver is its elite's
mindless obsession with attaining a full-scale nuclear
status – global recognition of its nuclear weapon
capability and continuing programme, and also
safeguarding and promoting its nuclear energy
industry. From its point of view, a closer relation
with the US, even as a sub-junior partner, will also
serve the other major 'strategic goals' viz. emerging
as a mini-hegemon in Asia / South Asia, firmly
establish its clear superiority over Pakistan, the
traditional rival and neighbour – one-sixth of its
size in terms of population, and neutralise (much
stronger) China – to whatever extent possible. India
will, however, not like to completely surrender its
autonomy of options within this broader framework, in
so far as these are perceived to be in alignment with
these 'strategic goals', and engage with other
regional/global powers – including Russia, France and
even China, who pose varying degrees of challenge to
the global hegemon. Indian Prime Minister's recent
sojourn to Russia goes to further underscore this
aspect and the complex nature of the game it is out to
play in the global arena.

By offering this sop, Washington evidently wants to
coopt India as a (sub-junior but nevertheless
valuable) partner in its global gambit for unilateral
domination(8). To demonstrate its power and sincerity
it has already engineered India's inclusion as a
member of the (highly prestigious!) International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project.
Evidently this would have had not been possible
without aggressive string pulling by the Bush
administration(9).

It goes without saying that from the perspective of
the peace movement, this is a very worrying
development. On the one hand, it aids, abets and
further encourages the neocon coterie-led US drive for
an unfettered global Empire and, on the other,
signifies India's transmutation from a champion of the
global underdogs and consequent emergence as a
continually growing threat, as exemplified through its
earlier rejection of the CTBT in 96 culminating in the
May 98 nuclear explosions, to the prospects of global
peace and nuclear disarmament in its own right – US,
or no US.
Unquote

[Excerpted from 'Indo-US Nuke Deal: Disturbing and
Destabilising Development' by Sukla Sen, Jan. 20 2006
at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/india-unity/message/8159]

Sukla

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/10/chinese-analysis-on-aims-behind-on-us.html

11 October 2008
Chinese analysis on 'aims behind on U.S.-India nuclear
deal'

In a nutshell, Zhang Quanyi, an associate professor at
Zhejiang Wanli University in Ningbo, argues:

Geopolitical analysts see this deal as a U.S. move
to balance the rise of Chinese influence... In the
eyes of some countries, including India, China looks
set to resume its historical position as a dominant
power in Asia, and is thereby seen as a threat or at
least a challenge to the present international
system...

Another target of the U.S.-India deal is Russia...
U.S. anxiety over India's engagement with Russia is
not unfounded. Under former President Vladimir Putin
Russia has sought to exert greater influence
militarily and economically on the global level.
Russia is viewed historically as an ambitious, if not
aggressive, country. Its recent clashes with Western
countries over Georgia's independence and military
cooperation with Venezuela, as well as the two
1,000-megawatt reactors it is building in the southern
Indian state of Tamil Nadu, have raised concerns in
the United States...

Of course, the nuclear deal will also bring
economic benefits, opening up a market worth billions
of dollars to U.S. companies able to meet India's huge
energy needs... The deal may also have been conceived
as a remedy for the current U.S. financial crisis,
even though it was conceived three years ago.

Senator Joseph Biden, running mate to Barrack
Obama in the U.S. presidential election next month,
described the nuclear bill as implicit recognition of
India's long-term value to the United States, "as a
counterweight to China, as a rising military power, as
an energy consumer, as an economic force, as a bulwark
against terrorism and extremism, as a cultural beacon
throughout Asia and the world."

Whether or not India meets U.S. expectations as a
responsible citizen, partner or beacon of democracy,
it is still a bold decision for Bush to decide to
ignore international regimes and norms by allowing
India to flout the NPT. It sets a precedent that other
would-be nuclear states may be all too ready to
follow.

In case the link above dies, the full text is posted
below as well.

October 9 2008
UPI Asia

Aims behind the U.S.-India nuclear deal

By Zhang Quanyi

Ningbo, China — U.S. President George W. Bush signed
the long-expected nuclear deal with India into law on
Wednesday, following its approval by the U.S. Congress
last week. A formal bilateral document will be signed
Friday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

With this deal, the United States is formally
embracing India as its nuclear partner, breaking
Washington's three-decade barricade against
transferring nuclear technology to New Delhi, which
conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and again in 1998.

Critics of the deal say that it undermines years of
international efforts in banning weapons of mass
destruction, and could weaken efforts to persuade
countries like North Korea and Iran to give up their
nuclear programs.

Before the Senate vote, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin
voiced objections to the bill. "If we pass this
legislation, we will reward India for flouting the
most important arms control agreement in history, the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and we will gravely
undermine our case against hostile nations that seek
to do the same," Harkin said.

Daryl Kimball, head of the Washington-based Arms
Control Association, called the agreement "a
non-proliferation disaster."

Geopolitical analysts see this deal as a U.S. move to
balance the rise of Chinese influence. In addition to
its global economic clout, China's successful hosting
of the Beijing Olympics in August and completion of a
spacewalk mission last month have raised its profile
in the world.

In the eyes of some countries, including India, China
looks set to resume its historical position as a
dominant power in Asia, and is thereby seen as a
threat or at least a challenge to the present
international system. In reality China is still a
developing country, lagging far behind developed
countries in many fields, including governance and
rule of law.

Another target of the U.S.-India deal is Russia. While
India has been a nonaligned country, in fact it had a
quasi-alliance with the former Soviet Union during the
Cold War, giving it some leverage against its
neighbors China and Pakistan. India fought a border
war with China in 1962; in 1947 and 1965 it fought
Pakistan over Kashmir, and in 1971 over what is now
Bangladesh.

U.S. anxiety over India's engagement with Russia is
not unfounded. Under former President Vladimir Putin
Russia has sought to exert greater influence
militarily and economically on the global level.
Russia is viewed historically as an ambitious, if not
aggressive, country. Its recent clashes with Western
countries over Georgia's independence and military
cooperation with Venezuela, as well as the two
1,000-megawatt reactors it is building in the southern
Indian state of Tamil Nadu, have raised concerns in
the United States.

Of course, the nuclear deal will also bring economic
benefits, opening up a market worth billions of
dollars to U.S. companies able to meet India's huge
energy needs. The deal will give U.S. companies an
advantage in the Indian market, where other countries
with nuclear technology, such as Russia, France, Japan
and even China, are also aiming for a piece of the
pie.

U.S. companies are expected to have even greater
opportunities as India gradually opens its vast
market, in areas ranging from investments in Indian
real estate to selling soybean oil and fighter planes.

The deal may also have been conceived as a remedy for
the current U.S. financial crisis, even though it was
conceived three years ago. In 2006, financial writer
Peter D. Shiff published a book, "Crash Proof: How to
Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse," in which he
warned of a looming period of sizeable tax hikes, loss
of retirement benefits and double-digit inflation. He
compared the United States to a house of cards –
impressive on the outside, but a disaster waiting to
happen. He predicted that the country would go from
the world's largest creditor to its greatest debtor;
that the value of the dollar would decline; and that
domestic manufacturing would give way to
non-exportable services.

Perhaps U.S. President George W. Bush also saw this
coming and viewed the India deal as a precautionary
measure?

There is also the democracy factor. The United States
regards India as a model of democracy in Asia, at
least among the developing countries. Despite its
numerous problems – including unemployment,
starvation, ethnic conflicts and inefficient
governance – the United States still sees India as a
natural ally in Asia and a model for other countries
to follow because of its democratic system.

Senator Joseph Biden, running mate to Barrack Obama in
the U.S. presidential election next month, described
the nuclear bill as implicit recognition of India's
long-term value to the United States, "as a
counterweight to China, as a rising military power, as
an energy consumer, as an economic force, as a bulwark
against terrorism and extremism, as a cultural beacon
throughout Asia and the world."

Whether or not India meets U.S. expectations as a
responsible citizen, partner or beacon of democracy,
it is still a bold decision for Bush to decide to
ignore international regimes and norms by allowing
India to flout the NPT. It sets a precedent that other
would-be nuclear states may be all too ready to
follow.

--

(Dr. Zhang Quanyi is associate professor at Zhejiang
Wanli University in Ningbo, China, and a guest
researcher at the Center for the Study of
Non-traditional Security and Peaceful Development at
Zhejiang University in Hangzhou. His research interest
revolves around the creation of a world state. He can
be contacted at qyzhangupi@gmail.com. ©Copyright Zhang
Quanyi)