Vienna Triumph: A Herald of New Epochal Shift in World Politics

(Published by the Manglam, A Peer Reviewed Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Allahabad India, August 2015)

Abstract:

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 heralded an epochal shift in world politics due to its far reaching implications from Hindukush Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea. The Revolution did not put only the Tehran and the Washington on opposing fronts but, also started a regional based rivalry between the Saudi Arabia and the Iran. These bilateral rivalries gave birth to the different nuisances to which the West Asian region and world at large is confronted with. The present ISIL is one accentuate offspring of these rivalries. Now, the historical nuclear agreement between the Iran and the P5+1 at Vienna may prove a second epochal ship which would help to resolve all the geo-political issues in the West Asian region and in its beyond.  

Key Words:

(Iran-US Nuclear Deal, Epochal Shift, Iranian Revolution, Axis of Evil, Islamic Republic, IAEA, West Asia)      

There are two broad ways to deconstruct the recent Iran-US nuclear agreement concluded at Vienna, Austria. One from the realist point of view, the agreement is product of the national interest of both the Tehran and the Washington, the main contestant of the Iranian nuclear programme with other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the European Union. The Washington compromised on its earlier stand on the premises that in the long run, the Tehran cooperation would be indispensable in settling the geo-political issues from Hindhukush Mountains to Mediterranean Sea and particularly the cooperation would be more critical vis-à-vis ISIL threat in the region.[i] One more calculation in the Washington is based on the fact that the agreement would allow the international inspection of the Iranian nuclear installations, thereby, would substantiate non-proliferation efforts and it would also strengthen the Israeli’s security. Therefore, not listening to the neoconservative sections of the Israel-US lobby in the Washington, who were looking for military solution to the Iranian nuclear programme, the Washington found diplomacy more profitable than military strike.

On the other side the Tehran would be very much pleased as the agreement would end the international sanctions on its crippling economy.  The agreement would not only bring economic opportunities to eighty million Iranian but it would also yield high economic dividends to some European powers and to the US as well. The Germany would sell more cars in the Iranian market which some estimates is tantamount to $10 billion. It would provide Iran oil deal worth of $100 billion and the US based Apple company would also get huge economic advantages.[ii] Moreover, the Tehran would be more pleased as the agreement would recognize the Tehran’s persistent argument that pursuing nuclear programme for peaceful purposes is his natural right. Therefore, for Tehran the deal is very much sellable to its domestic audiences.

The second way of deconstruction to the agreement would be based on the liberal perspective argument that diplomacy and the institutional based resolution of the conflicts are still viable ways in dealing with the inter-state conflicts. The diplomatic triumph at the Vienna over the Iranian nuclear issue may set an exemplary precedence for other conflicts in the West Asia region, Korean Peninsula and in its beyond. The agreement may unveil a new era in world politics characterized with “institutional-cum-diplomatic” based resolutions to the conflicts rather than “preemptive strike” doctrine and “unilateralism” reinvented under the Bush regimes. 

1979 and birth of strangeness:      

The 1979 Iranian revolution was one of the attributes of the ‘epochal shift’ in the world power as outlined by the Christian Caryl in the “Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the 21^st Century”. The author argued that the Islamic revolution became one of the factors which ushered a new era in the world history and shaped its discourses to which the today’s world is living with. The other dominant factors to the author were Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and emergence of four leaders’ viz. Ayatollah Khomeini, Deng Xiaoping, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.[iii]

The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought the Tehran and the Washington on conflicting lines on some tricky issues pertaining to the West Asian region and in its beyond. The Tehran-Washington conflict is premised on several narratives. To some scholars the bottom-line of the conflict is rooted in the Persian civilization which West considers a threat to its values and their model of liberal democracy. After the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, which changed the Washington nurtured status quo in the Persian Gulf, the baseline of US foreign policy in the oil rich Middle East has been evolved around anti Iranian policies and amity with Saudi Arabia.[iv]  

The Washington-Tehran animosity has deep roots and the events in the post Second World War brought two countries on opposite sides on the international issues. The CIA with British intelligence move that toppled the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and latter US reinstalled the Shah-Reza Pahlavi as Iranian head of state. Mr. Mossadegh had earlier intended to nationalize the Iranian oil which was against western oil interests in the Middle East.[v] The bilateral relationship got further deteriorated after the US backed Iraq invasion on Iran which casted about one million deaths. Iran has also been accused for supporting some anti Israel elements in the region viz. Hezbollah, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood.

These militant groups are fundamentally anti Israel and anti US in the region. Iran’s support to these groups caused ex US President Bush to label Iran as ‘axis of evil’ in 2002. The former president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made certain rough policies against Israel and some severe statements against the Bush administration in Washington by calling Bush as ‘great Satan (evil) on earth’ made significant strains in the Iran-US bilateral relations.[vi] The main objective of US strategies in the region is to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region for which Saudi’s alignment was necessary.

  Russian Angle:

The Russian intelligence in the year 2008 had reports that Washington and Tell Evi are in preparation for military strike over the Iran. After Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s hard tone at the United Nations General Assembly over the Israel, there was general feeling that the strike is inevitable. The Iranian President in his speech said that “state of Israel is in terminal decline and that eclipse of the American empire is on the horizon”.[vii]

The invasion of the Russia over the Georgia in the year 2008 is also in this background. The Russian envoy to the NATO in the September 2008 said that the Russia had intelligence inputs about the probable US-Israel strike over the Iran and it would be carried from the Georgian airfields. The strike from the Georgia would have been easier, as they just have to cross the Caspian Sea to reach Iran. The subsequent Russian moment over the Abkhazia and South Ossetia was to ensure that the US would think before striking the Iran. This was not only reason which stopped US from attacking Iran. The 2008 economic recession would have been another roadblock.[viii] 

Since the Iranian revolution no American president tried to reach out to Iran’s state psychology, which is based on civilizational pride and past glory. Iran was always willing to get engage with the US leadership provided they take the Tehran with full respect and recognize its regional role. The Iran had always talked about the fact that the Washington should learn to deal with Iran on “principles of equality and respect”. Besides this the Tehran had perception that for any successful Iran-US cooperation would be impossible without an unambiguous US policy on some sensitive concerns. The US has to recognize the fact that Israel-Arab lobby against the Iran is not based on true perception and is partisan in nature.[ix] Therefore, the US has to liberate itself from these lobbies before coming for dialogue with the Iran. Moreover, the Washington has to recognize significance of the Iran in the West Asian on the lines of geo-strategic parameters.

The incumbent US president Obama was first American president in recent years who reached to the Iranian people and state in substantive terms. After becoming the US president in 2009, he while addressing the Iran referred it as the “Islamic Republic” and he recognized the legitimacy of the Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979. The Obama regime in the Washington started to reconcile with the Iranian counterparts by way of throwing away the “regime change” policy of neoconservatives during the Bush era.[x] The Obama noted that “my administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the US-Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect”.[xi] This was a accentuated shift from “axis of evil” to “Islamic republic” in the US policy vis-à-vis Iran.        

Over the last few years the Iran-US cooperation becomes more critical over the issue of regional tensions from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza. It is well recognized fact that the Iran wields high influence over the Syrian regime under Busher-al Assad and Syria is its strategic alley and both are being cooperating in the region over many years now. Earlier the Syria had been facilitating Tehran’s clandestine support to Hezbollah into Bekka Valley across the border in Lebanon. The Iranian influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah is well established and it has been supporting the Hamas for many years against the Israel occupation in Palestine. Therefore, the nuclear agreement between the US and the Iran would have “strategic consequences” as it would help in reconciliation and resolution to a turbulent region stretching from ‘Hindukush Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea’.[xii]    

Nuclear Issue:

Nuclear issue is the latest irritant in Iran-US relations. Iran is signatory to NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) and as per the provisions of the treaty Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear programme. But the western powers headed by the US do not agree to the Iranian point. The US blames Iran that Tehran is enriching its uranium production in order to convert it into nuclear bomb which Iran has denied since its inception.

The US is apprehensive about the security in the Middle East and particularly about Israel security. They believe that if Iran gets bomb it will be an annihilating threat to Israel existence and it will destabilize the balance of power in the region. But there is counter argument by Kenneth Waltz, an eminent scholar of international relations, that if Iran gets bomb it will stabilize the middle east region than destabilize, he made this argument in his article ‘why Iran wants to get bomb’ published in foreign Affairs.[xiii] There is a paradoxical situation in the region. Israel is not signatory to NPT and it is a nuclear weaponry state while as Iran is signatory to this treaty but it has been denied even to pursue peaceful nuclear programme.

 The dispute between the US and the Iran over the nuclear issue accelerated after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in September 2005 declared that the Iran is in “breach of its safeguard obligations”. The IAEA latter in February 2006 further noticed about the Iran’s clandestine nuclear programme. The issue got exacerbated after Tehran disclosed to the IAEA about its unsolicited document received from the A. Q. Khan network in 1987 about the casting of uranium in hemispherical shape and the US intelligence report about Iran’s research on a nuclear capable missile and on uranium conversion.[xiv]  

The Israel lobby and the neoconservative Bush regime in the Washington took no time to put harsh unilateral sanctions over the Iran. The US congress also maneuvered the Iran counterproliferation act to target the countries especially Russia for cooperating with Tehran in nuclear field. From 2005 onwards the Bush regime consolidated the economic sanctions over Iran which crippled its economy over the years.

Iran-SA Cold War:

Another narrative to the incongruence of Iran-US policies in the Middle-East region is based on the Iran-Saudi rivalry which too incepted in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution. The Iran and the Saudi Arabia have been historically on odd sides’ vis-à-vis any geo-political and geo-economical discourses in the region are concerned. The Riyadh considered Iranian Islamic revolution threat not only to its undemocratic regime but also from the point of view that the Iran would try to substantiate Shiite based proxies to dominate the region. Over the years there is a sense of understanding in the Riyadh that Tehran is supporting groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood in order to substantiate its hold over the West Asia region.[xv]

The relation between Saudi and Iran has gone through many phases from strategic alliance in pre Iranian revolution to cold war in the post Iranian revolution. The Saudi represents Arab world while as Iran represents Persian and both accuse each other for nurturing their dominance in the region. Saudi which represents the sunni sect believe that Iran is trying to export its revolution in the other parts of the region which goes against its core interest as it may lead towards Shiite dominance in the region. The United States is using this sectarian and ethnic card to maneuver its interest in the oil rich region which the Arab and Persian world have failed to understand.[xvi]         

Over the years a cold-war like situation has emerged between the Riyadh and the Tehran. Both the countries are playing proxies against each other that over the years have substantiated the crisis to which the whole region is presently engulfed-in.[xvii] Some are interpreting Riyadh-Tehran rivalry is product of US hatched conspiracy in the region. There is one narrative that the ISIL is CIA proxy which has also a tacit understanding with the Israeli agencies. Therefore, the present crisis in the West Asia region from Syria, Yemen to the ISIL threat have some roots in the Iranian 1979 revolution and the asymmetrical policies, thereafter, pursued  by the Washington and the Tehran one side and the Iran-Riyadh another side.  

The Washington based Israel lobby always derailed any thaw between the Iran and the US. The Arab oil lobby also hampered any reconciliation between the two countries on the ground that such reconciliation would legitimate Tehran as strong “contender for preeminence in the hierarchy of the Arab-Islamic world”. These lobbies would continue to sabotage any closer cooperation between the Iran and the US.[xviii]      

 One of the Republican candidates for 2016 presidential election Gov. Walker has recently remarked that “we need to terminate the deal with Iran on the very first day in office”.[xix] Just after the deal the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini noted that the Tehran would not change its policy both at international and regional level. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while reacting on the deal said that the “deal is not only threat to the Israel but to the whole world” and it is “stunning historical mistake”.[xx]     

Some scholars believe that the nuclear agreement may bring more destabilization in the region as Saudis may not be fit in the Iranian based geopolitical presentation. The deal may infuriate consequently bring Riyadh and Israel on same side to make the region more volatile. On the other side there is possibility of joint Iran-US action in Iraq against the ISIS and may deepen their cooperation beyond the Iraq border or US may use only Iran militarily to stop the resurgence of ISIL as President Obama in his last address on foreign policy at West Point Military Academy did pointed out that US itself will not indulge in any unilateral military strike beyond its borders.

  Heralding New Era

The nuclear agreement may unveil a new era of cooperation between the US and Iran which may help to resolve the regional crisis amicably and diplomatically. The agreement may also be an exemplary to other such conflicts such as North Korean nuclear issue and it would prove productive in making the West Asia a free nuclear weapons zone. Instead of this pessimistic analysis the fact cannot be denied that the deal is per se an ‘epochal shift’ in the West Asian politics and in the world politics as well.

            The deal may help more to the European powers than the US and the Iran. The two countries are still living in historical mistrust and old nurtured suspicion over each other and it cannot be removed overnight. Majority of the Americans still don’t trust the Iranians and the Iran is not far away from the “regime change” perception. The European powers like Germany would be benefited two ways. One the deal would allow the European powers to do business with the Iran and earn avail economic opportunities available in the Iranian market. From the other side the European states would assert independent foreign policy from the American counterpart.[xxi]

            The Israeli apprehension on the nuclear agreement, which per se is based on two propositions. One, that the agreement would allow Iran to substantiate its nuclear programme which resultantly, can give atomic bomb to Iran. Another apprehension of the Israel is about the fact that end of economic sanction over Iran would yield economic advantages which could be diverted for Iran proxies in the region. Majority of the experts disagree with both of the Israeli arguments rather there is consensus that the deal would substantiate Israeli security as the Iranian nuclear programme would now come under IAEA scrutiny which earlier was not available and Israel would concentrate on other security issues and threats in the region.[xxii]      

            Idealistically, the new shift may change the geopolitical landscape of not only the West Asian region but of whole world. If the United States succeeded in persuading the two vehement critics of US-Iran nuclear agreement- Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the premises that the deal would not compromise their national interest and would not jeopardize the regional security, rather it would help in overcoming the present chaos, then there is likelihood of real “epochal ship” in world politics which would be very benign. This idealistic deconstruction is unlikely keeping in view the geo-political dynamism of the West Asian region and the rival power bargaining between the big powers and the regional ones. But, the fact of the matter is that the deal per se is a “epochal shift”.

---

[i] Aneja Atul, “Towards Defusing Tension in West Asia”, The Hindu, 2 June, 2009.

[ii] Geranmayel Ellie, “Europe’s Edge: By Engaging With Iran, Europe can assert its Power ”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July, 2015.

[iii] Caryl Christian, Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty First Century (New York: Basic Books, 2014).

[iv] Bhaderkumar M., “Obama Breaks Middle Eastern Taboos”, The Hindu, 26 May, 2009.

[v] Bhadrakumar M., “Beijing Cautions US over Iran”, The Hindu, 22 June, 2009.

[vi] “Obama Offers New Start with Iran”, The Hindu, Online Edition, accessed on 21 March, 2009.

[vii] Aneja Atul, “Why a War against Iran is not Inevitable”, The Hindu, 13 October, 2008.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Aneja Atul, “Iran Lukewarm but Ready for Talks with US”, The Hindu, 13 March, 2009.

[x] Aneja Atul, “Iran Consolidates Position in West Asia”, The Hindu, 25 July, 2008.

[xi] Aneja Atul, “Obama Breaks Fresh Ground in Iran”, The Hindu, 11 April, 2009.

[xii] “The Nuclear Deal with Iran s Better Than the Alternatives-War or No Deal at All”, The Economist, Online Edition, Accessed on 18 July, 2015.

[xiii] Clinton Hillary, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy, Online Edition, accessed in November 2011.

[xiv] Veradarajan Siddharth, “On Iran no News is Good News”, The Hindu, 17 November, 2007.

[xv] Johny Stanly, “The Hot Saudi-Iran Cold War”, The Hindu, 15 June, 2015.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] “The Morning after the Nuclear Deal”, Editorial, New York Times, Online Edition, Accessed on 18 July, 2015.

[xviii] Aneja Anul, “Israel Feels Pain as Obama Engages Iran”, 15 May, 2009.

[xix] Abrams Elliott, “Unraveling the Iran Nuclear Deal on Day One”, Council on Foreign Relations, Online Edition, Accessed on 17 July, 2015.

[xx] Sasley Brent, “How Israel can Live with the Iranian Nuclear Agreement”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 17 July, 2015.

[xxi] Geranmayel Ellie, “Europe’s Edge: By Engaging With Iran, Europe can assert its Power ”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July, 2015.

[xxii] Freilich Chuck, “A Good Deal for Israel”, New York Times, Global Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July 2015.

An epochal shift in world politics

published by risingkashmir

There are two ways to deconstruct the Iran-US nuclear agreement. One from the realist point of view; the agreement is product of the national interest of both Tehran and Washington, the main contestant of the Iranian nuclear programme with the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the European Union. Washington compromised on its earlier stand on the premise that the Tehran cooperation would be indispensable in settling the West Asian chaos from Syria to Yemen and particularly the cooperation would be more critical vis-à-vis ISIL threat in the region. Therefore, not listening to the neoconservative sections of the Israel-US lobby in the Washington, who were looking for military solution to the Iranian nuclear programme, Washington found diplomacy more profitable than military strike.

Meanwhile, Tehran would be very much pleased as the agreement would end the international sanctions that had crippled its economy. Moreover, Tehran would be more pleased as the agreement would recognize Tehran’s persistent argument that pursuing nuclear programme for peaceful purposes is her natural right. Therefore, for Tehran the deal is very much sellable to its domestic audiences.

The second way of deconstructing the agreement would be based on the liberal perspective argument that diplomacy and the institutional based resolution of the conflicts are still viable ways in dealing with the inter-state conflicts. The diplomatic triumph at the Vienna over the Iranian nuclear issue may set an exemplary precedence for other conflicts in the West Asia region and beyond.    

The 1979 Iranian revolution was one of the attributes of the ‘epochal shift’ in the world power as outlined by the Christian Caryl in the “Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the 21st Century”. The author argued that the Islamic revolution became one of the factors which ushered a new era in the world history and shaped its discourses to which the present day world is living with. The other dominant factors that appeared to the author were Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and emergence of four leaders’ viz. Ayatollah Khomeini, Deng Xiaoping, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought Tehran and Washington on conflicting lines on some tricky issues pertaining to the West Asian region and beyond. The Tehran-Washington conflict is premised on several narratives. To some scholars the bottom-line of the conflict is rooted in the Persian civilization which West considers a threat to its values and their model of liberal democracy. Another narrative to the incongruence of Iran-US policies in the Middle-East region is based on the Iran-Saudi rivalry which too incepted in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution.

The Iran and the Saudi Arabia have been historically on odd sides’ vis-à-vis any geo-political and geo-economical discourses in the region. Riyadh considered Iranian Islamic revolution threat not only to its undemocratic regime but also from the point of view that Iran would try to substantiate Shiite based proxies to dominate the region. Over the years there is a sense of understanding in the Riyadh that Tehran is supporting groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood in order to substantiate its hold over the West Asia region.         

Over the years a cold-war like situation has emerged between Riyadh and Tehran. Both the countries are playing proxies against each other that over the years have substantiated the crisis to which the whole region is presently engulfed in. Some are interpreting Riyadh-Tehran rivalry as product of US-hatched conspiracy in the region. There is one narrative that the ISIL is CIA proxy which has also a tacit understanding with the Israeli agencies. Therefore, the present crisis in the West Asia region from Syria, Yemen to the ISIL threat have some roots in the Iranian 1979 revolution and the asymmetrical policies thereafter pursued by Washington.

The nuclear agreement may unveil a new era of cooperation between the US and Iran which may help resolve the regional crisis amicably and diplomatically. The agreement may also be exemplary to other such conflicts such as North Korean nuclear issue, and it would prove productive in making the West Asia a free nuclear weapons zone. But, at the same time some analyst argue that the nuclear deal between the Iran and the P5+1 would infuriate the Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia, which may consequently bring Riyadh and Israel on same side to make the region more volatile. Instead of this pessimistic analysis the fact cannot be denied that the deal is per se an ‘epochal shift’ in the West Asian politics and in the world politics as well.

Indo-US Relations: A Big Leap forward

The meeting between the visiting US President Barak Hussain Obama and the Indian Prime Minister Narendir Modi at New Delhi has cemented the ‘new journey’ in the bilateral relationship. The latest meeting has gone beyond the symbolic gestures and protocols and has moved the Indo-US bilateral relations towards a new direction. The Obama’s visit to the India and his joint press conference with the India Prime Minister after the scheduled bilateral dialogue meeting vindicates its significance both symbolically and substantially as well.

The Symbolic significance of the Obama’s visit is that he became the only president who visited the India twice during his tenure as the US president. He is the first US president who became the Chief Guest during the India’s Republic Day celebrations. From the Indian side, the Prime Minister broke the official protocol while he himself received the US president at the airport. The ‘walk the talk’ and ‘Chai Pai Chercha’ where other symbolic gestures which were seen during the one to one meeting between the two heads of the governments.

The substantial importance of the visit is based on the fact that the Indo-US relations have moved from slogans to the actions. The Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement of 2005 which was one of the big irritants in the further progress of bilateral engagements due its non-operationalization has now been resolved. The agreement is been credited as a ‘centerpiece’ in transforming the bilateral engagements and making Indo-US partnership what the US president called “defining partnership in the 21^st century”.

The related part of the civil nuclear agreement was the Indian nuclear liability act of 2010. The US companies were not ready to do business as they were apprehensive about some provisions of the Indian liability law. The main issues were the provision of torts and liability on the part of supplier. The section 17 (b) of the act which enforces that in case of a nuclear accident the suppliers of the equipments shall be responsible for unlimited liability and under its section 46 even the affected individual can sue the supplier. These apprehensions raised by the US companies have now been addressed and therefore, the logjam on the implementation of the nuclear agreement has ended.

The other contentious issue raised by the Indian side related to the nuclear deal was ‘tracking clause’ of the supplied fuel and equipments by the USA under the agreement. The Obama has used his executive powers to withdraw this clause therefore; the supplied fuel and the equipments for the Indian nuclear reactors would not be tracked and verified by the US.

The Indo-US bilateral relations have taken a new leaf on defense front. The two sides have agreed to extend the Defense Framework Agreement for further ten years. It is pertinent to mention that the defense agreement was dome in June 2005 and it was likely to get expire this year. The two sides have also agreed in principal to move for co-development and co-production of weapons under the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI). Moreover the US has also accepted to pursue Indian membership in five nuclear related groups and agreements like NSG (Nuclear Supplies Group), Australia Group, Wassenaar Arrangement etc.

The US President has also reiterated its position on the issue of India’s permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council while saying that the US supports the reformation of the UN Security Council and India’s candidature. The two sides also resolved that a hotline would be launched between the two heads of the governments and at foreign secretaries’ level. The two sides also signed the three MOU’s on the smart city project initiated by the Modi’s government.

On defense and nuclear side the two countries are in win-win situation. The US companies can now sell the nuclear reactors and equipments to the India and can earn huge business fortunes. There is a one estimation which suggests that one nuclear reactor can generate ten thousand employees in the United States. From the Indian perspective the deal is not too bad. The deficiency in the electricity generation can now be met through the nuclear energy. The nuclear agreement can prove decisive in realizing the Modi’s dream of providing 24 hours electricity to the whole India.

            The bilateral meeting has also raised certain sensitive far implicating issues. The mentioning of India’s cooperation against the ISIS in the West Asia and in the Afghanistan is geo-politically vulnerable for the India’s security. The Indian stand so far had been not to align in any military conflict with the big powers. The US is insisting India to play a major role in the international counter terrorism. It is yet to clear whether India is formally joining the US anti terrorism policy. On the Afghanistan issue the major US alley Pakistan will not welcome any role of India in the Afghanistan. Therefore, the Indian involvement in both the regions can prove counterproductive to the India from its security point of view. Moreover, the all weather Indian friend Russia is not one the same line vis-à-vis the conflict in the West Asia is concern.

The US has number of goals to achieve during the visit of their president to the India. Other than big business contracts the US has also an eye on the rising China threat and India’s role as a balancer. The joint press conference of Modi-Obama did mention about the mutual cooperation in the Asia Pacific. The US policy of Asia Pivot announced in 2011 by the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is nothing but to counter the Chinese aggressive policies in the region. The US project the India as ‘lynchpin’ to its new policy in the region. It is yet to seen to what extent India is ready to play its role for the US against the China, but one thing can be asserted that India has to pursue its policy in a calculate manner as the US is habitual to take turns 360 degree. Who knows tomorrow G2 (US-China) become a reality. If it happened then it would be difficult for India to balance.

The bilateral relation does not end here. There are other issue like climate and the US investment in the infrastructure building in the India. The Indian stand on the climate issue is not in line with the United States. From the Indian perspective the bottom line on climate issue is “shared but differentiated responsibility”. The Modi during the joint press conference said that “we will not come under pressure on the issue of climate.” Therefore, the climate issue may prove very contentious between the two countries. Moreover, the India needs the US in order to achieve its ten Million project of Smart Cities. Other than these issues India aims that the US will cooperate in the field of agriculture, renewable energy, education cyber security and space. The future will tell to what extent the bilateral realtions will blossom, but, one thing is explicit that the Indo-US bilateral relations have got new direction and forward moment.

Obama’s Visit: Does it help to Break Impasse in the Indo-Pak relation

The American President Barak Hussain Obama is visiting India on its Republic Day as a Chief Guest. This will be first time that any US president is visiting the New Delhi on the 26^th January and more significantly he will be the first US president to visit the India twice during his tenure as president in the White House. Before leaving to the New Delhi the United States has warned the Pakistan to carry out any terror strike in the India during the visit of their president. This may not be the first time that the US is warning his only non-NATO ally in the region but, what makes it more interesting is the fact that the US has warned Pakistan publically that too when its President is visiting to the region.

The visit of the US president is limited to the New Delhi and he will not be crossing the Pakistan. There were some reports that President Obama has spoke on telephone about his visit to the India with the Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief and it has also been reported that Nawaz Sharief might have told US president to travel Pakistan too, but answer was next time. This de-hyphenation policy (constructing a relationship with the India and the Pakistan separately on the basis of merit), has not marked any big breakthrough in resolving the Indo-Pak rivalry. The de-hyphenation policy was adopted by the George W. Bush when he came in office in 2001 as a break from a long US policy of looking on the region through Indo-Pak stalemate.

The USA has also told Pakistan to handover Zakir-ul-Rehman Lakvi, an indicted man on Mumbai terror attack in 2011 to the India. What makes the US this time to take directly on Pakistan on the issue of terrorism vis-à-vis Indian security concerns? The US Secretary of State some days before was in Pakistan, where he did talk about that “US-Pakistan relation goes beyond the terrorism.” He also reiterated that the USA will be with the Pakistan on the issue of terror which has recently stroked the Peshaver School. While in Pakistan US Secretary of State did not use tough words against the Pakistan.

Now the US President is travelling to the India and at the same time US has directly take on Pakistan on the issues which India has been asking for. The US President has eye on some good deals with the India during his three days visit. The US is eager to get through the Indian Nuclear Liability Law of 2010 which imposes some tough condition for selling nuclear reactors to the India on the issue of future nuclear accident. This act is big obstruction to the implementation of famous 2005 nuclear deal. The US has certain objections with regard to the provisions of section 17 (b) and 46 of this law which imposes unlimited liability and operator’s right of recourse on supplier’s incase of future nuclear accident.

The USA is also intended to ask India for its cooperation against the war on ISIL in the West Asia. The US also needs India on its policy of ‘Asia Pivot’, which is broadly about rebalancing and a counter measure against the Chinese growing assertiveness in the Asia Pacific region. The US used to call India as ‘lynchpin’ of this new policy. Other than these issues India is also very important on the issues related to the trade and commerce in the WTO and climate negotiation.

On the other side India too is expecting big breakthrough on the issues of transferring cutting-edge defense technology, co-development and co-production of weapons and equipments, liberalization of visa policy with regard to H1B1 etc.

Sidelining the Pakistan in the region may not be helpful in resolution of the conflicts in the region particularly the Indo-Pak disputes. The existence of so called terrorist groups in Pakistan is not their creation; it is again the United States which nurtured these groups in the region against the Soviet Communism. Therefore, accusing and alienating Pakistan on the terror issue is not a right way to confront this menace in the region. The recent Council on Foreign Relations special report No. 68 suggests that the USA should integrate the Pakistan into broader US policies in the Asia. Therefore, the US is here to address their interest as always used to be and de-hyphenating the two rival countries in the region will encourage those groups which are against the peace and stability in the region.

India and an Emerging Dynamics of the Asia Pacific Region: An Appraisal

(the article was originally published by the Third Concept, An International Journal of Ideas in its January addition of 2015 )

Abstract:

The geopolitics and geo-economics of the Asia Pacific region is emerging in a new dynamism in the 21^st century as the region does provide highly significant trade routes, energy, and rich island with huge resources which make this region much attractive not only to the Asia Pacific countries, but even to those who are not directly part of it. Since the rise of China as a significant power it has poses a huge challenges to the other powers of the region, particularly to the USA and its alliance partners. India being one of the Asia Pacific countries has significant stakes in the geopolitics of the region. The paper has divulged in the dynamism of new emerging power equations in the region and the challenges it has posed to the Indian state.       

Geopolitics of Asia Pacific:

The Asia pacific Region is one of the largest dynamic regions in the world not only in context of its large size as it stretches from Indian Ocean to the shores of Americas, but also from the point that the region is very productive and promising interms of trade, resources, navigation etc. The Asia Pacific Region is highly debatable in the domain of international politics particularly after the announcement of the ‘Asia Pivot’ by the United States in 2011, by then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.[i] The broader contours of the pivot was about “strategic rebalance” and “Asia focus” vis-à-vis United States’ policies in the 21^st century are concerned. Some analysts interpret the ‘pivot’ as a hedge towards the assertive China and its growing militarism in the region.[ii]

In the recent times some accentuated developments in the Asia Pacific region have exacerbated the fishing process in the domain of geo-politics of the region. The dispute between China and Japan over the islands of Diaoyu/Senkaku in the East China Sea, the Chinese ‘indisputable claims’ in the South China Sea and the recent India-Vietnam understanding over the explorations in the South China Sea and the dragging of USA by the feeling of insecurity by certain countries in the region such as Vietnam, Philippines, Japan etc. have made the region more volatile and complicated in the spheres of geopolitics and geo-economics of the region.[iii] The involvement of the United States and its containment policy towards China has given birth to the new paradigms and power equations in the region. One side US try to get quadrilateral approach which consists of US, Japan, India and Australia a group to be maneuvered towards a growing threat of Chinese designs in the region. On the another side USA has also contemplations on the G2 formula (USA and China) which is unlikely to get harness keeping in view the traditional alliance of USA with the some countries in the region such as Japan, Philippines, South Korea etc. and their traditional wedge with the China.

The first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in his autobiography ‘Discovery of India’ has also dealt with the Asia Pacific and the significance of the region for future independent India and he was probably first one who did talk about the sort of ‘pivot’.[iv] There are three power equations emerged in the post World War II period vis-à-vis geopolitics of Asia Pacific region. One which Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State, created ones he tried to broke the communist bloc by patronizing the rise of China in 1970’s during the Cold War Era. This was a triangular bloc consists of USA, Japan and China and the premises of this power equation was to contain the former Soviet Union. That time US played China card against India as India was inclined towards the Soviet Union.[v] There is another power equation in the Asia Pacific region encompasses USA, Japan and India which US want to maneuver against the rising China and its associated challenges in the Asia Pacific region. There is another triangle consists of India, Japan and China, which is unlikely to get mature keeping in view the historical rift in their bilateral relations. A deep analysis of these triangular power equations reflects the US centered policy which they use for their own national interests. They used the China against the Soviet Union and now they try to use India against the Chinese rising threat.

In the Year 2012 Chinese President Xi Jinping during his visit to United States introduced the new Idea of a ‘new power of great power relationship’ in the domain of US-Sino bilateral relationship. There are some experts who believe that rising China would create what some referred to as “the Thucydides trap”, a situation when power shifts from emerged power to an emerging one as has happened during the rise of ancient Athens and the fear it created among the Spartans in the 5^th century BC.[vi] The rising China poses a ‘big power dilemma’ in the US and in some European countries and therefore, there is an expected counter approach to the ‘Chinese rise’ from US and its partners in Europe and Asia.         

Delhi-Tokyo Chemistry:

The recent concluded visit of Japan by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has unveiled a new dimension in the geopolitics of the Asia Pacific region. The visit has commenced ‘a new start’ in the form of “special strategic and global partnership” in the Delhi-Tokyo bilateral relationship, which per se is a recalibration of earlier concluded “strategic and global partnership”. The visit is successful in some areas as Japan has promised to invest US $35.5 billion in infrastructure development, energy sector and for the skill development in India.[vii]

The larger approach of the visit was to concede a big breakthrough on Indo-Japan civil nuclear agreement but, no such breakthrough was achieved on this front as Japan has certain reservation vis-à-vis India’s stand on Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The nuclear issue is lingering there since Indo-US nuclear agreement signed in 2008, because India is non-signatory to the Nuclear proliferation treaty (NPT) which Japan is adherent to. Nevertheless, Japan has promised India for its membership into the Multilateral Export Control Regime (MECR), an international body to use their national export control system such as- Wassenaar Arrangements, Nuclear Suppliers group, Australia Group and Missile Technology Control Regime (MCTR), if achieved it will be a huge bonus for India’s nuclear programme and also it will substantiate India’s global power dream.[viii]      

The visit to Japan by Indian Prime Minister brings scant comfort to the Asian Dragon China as in the editorial of the Global Times, one of the leading newspapers in China, quoted “Modi-Abe intimacy brings scant comfort” to Beijing during the Modi’s recent visit to Japan.[ix] When Dr. Manmohan Singh, ex prime Minister of India visited Japan in October 2008 said that India’s economic and security relations with Tokyo would not be “at the cost of any third country, least of all China”. This time the Indian Prime Minister Modi while interacting with the business leaders in Tokyo did talk about the deepening of strategic and security cooperation between New Delhi and Tokyo would bring ‘prosperity and peace’ in the Asia but at the same time he also talk about ‘countering an expansionist mindset’. He was also quoted by the Global Times on his saying that “everywhere around us, we see an 18^th century expansionist mind set: encroaching on another country, intruding in others waters, invading other countries and capturing territory”.[x] This was an explicit reference of China’s recent policies in the Asia Pacific. Therefore, one would expect a serious reaction from the Beijing to the Modi-Abe intimacy.

Modi’s succinct reference of China in Japan had not been welcomed in the circles of Chinese strategists and may probably intimidate the dragon to take extra measures to counter India-Japan security cooperation. Mr. Modi emphasized on the Chinese expansionist policies in Japan, while countering China directly would it benefit India strategically? China is India’s indispensable neighbor and economically there are colossal opportunities in the peaceful bilateral relations. India and China signed “shared vision on the 21^st century” during the visit of Dr. Manmohan Singh to Beijing at the beginning of the year 2009. There is a prospective growth in the bilateral economic and trade cooperation worth of about US$ 65 billion, which has ability to reach a bench mark of US$ 100 billion.

India and the Dragon factor:

The policies of China in the Asia-Pacific are sending alarming signals to its neighboring countries. The announcement of ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) in the month of November 2013 in the East China Sea had brought insecurity in many countries such as Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan etc.[xi] The larger picture of the ADIZ is about the fact that it does also include the much disputed islands of Diaoyu/Senkaku which are claimed by both China and Japan. The Japan believes that declaring ADIZ along these Islands in the East China Sea is an attack on the sovereignty of Japan therefore; it won’t be acceptable to the Japan. The China has different argument as it believe the Islands were subjugated during the Japanese imperial rule. The situation gets more complicated with US involvement in the affairs of Asia pacific. The USA has its own ADIZ created in the aftermath of the World War II and was transferred to Japan in 1969. Some analysts believe that the recent agreement between Japan and India on flying uninterrupted civil aircrafts between the two countries is a counter measure to the Chinese ADIZ. Indian involvement in the exploration exercises in the region, as has been agreed with the government of Vietnam during the recent visit of Indian foreign minister, Sushima Swaraj. Some believe that India has accelerated its fishing in the Asia Pacific region.[xii] There is no doubt about the fact that India is an Asia Pacific country and it has every right to deal with the region as per its national interest. But, at the same time India need to be an extra vigilant about its involvement in the designs created by the USA and Japan vis-à-vis China. Since it is imperative from both politically as well as strategically on the part of Indian government to substantiate its interests and engagements in the Asia Pacific region, but it should not get trap in any sort of power bloc, that won’t be good for India in the longrun.

In the recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre, it has been identified that many Asian countries are of the view that Chinese “indisputable sovereignty” claim over the South China Sea and its dispute with Japan over the islands of Diaoyu/Senkaku would create a dangerous situation which may lead towards an inter-state war in the region. The keeping of oil rig deep into Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the month of August has made Vietnam much insecure and these policies of China in the region brings the USA, as most of East and South Asian countries believe USA as an credible hedge inorder to check the growing assertive the China.[xiii] The assertive Chinese and its counter parameters initiated by the US with its alliance partners; inorder to check the rising China has put the India in a sticky situation. In many ways, India and China are natural partners, since being neighbors who share a long boundary. For more than 5,000 years they were culturally and religiously interacting with each other, peacefully and normally, except for a relatively brief period of 20 years from 1958 to 1978. Though, India was among the first countries that recognized China as a communist state in 1949. The India and the China signed the Panchsheel agreement in 1954 which underlines the principles working as fundamentals in the bilateral relations.[xiv]

India and China accounts for one-third of the world’s population and are seen to be rising 21^st century powers and potential strategic rivals. The two countries fought a brief but intense border war in 1962 that left China in control of large swaths of territory still claimed by India. The clash ended previously friendly relationship between the two leaders of the cold war “non-aligned movement”. Although Sino-Indian relations have warmed considerable in recent years, the two countries have yet to reach a final boundary agreement. Adding to New Delhi’s sense of insecurity have been suspicions regarding Chinese long term nuclear weapons capabilities and strategic intentions in south and Southeast Asia.[xv] Beijing’s military and economic support of Pakistan is a major and ongoing source of friction. New Delhi also has taken note of Beijing’s security relations with neighboring Burma and the construction of military facilities on the Indian Ocean. The two countries also have competed for energy resources to feed their rapidly growing economies.

The recent visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to the India has started a ‘new mile Stone’ in the bilateral engagements. The two sides have decided to setup two industrial parks in India with Chinese investment in India equivalent to US$ 20 billion in the next five years. The two countries have committed to resolve all the sticky issues persisting between the two countries particularly the dispute over undemarcated boundary, issuing of stapled visas by China, trade imbalances etc

The China and India share some similar concerns and policies vis-à-vis some tricky international issues particularly on climate and international trade. Both the states have closely coordinated in the negotiations pertaining to the climate, Doha Round talks in World Trade Organization, energy and food cooperation and restructuring of international organizations particularly financial such as World Bank and International Monitory Fund. The recent development in the Indo-Sino bilateral relations is their cooperation in the BRICS’s (grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) recent Fortaleza Summit at Brazil wherein a New Development Bank of BRICS has been unveiled whose headquarter would be in China whereas its first president would be from Indian.[xvi]

The biggest irritant in the Sino-India engagements are unresolved border issue and Chinese attritions along the Indo-China border. The unresolved border cannot be pretext for any sort of war mongering and should not be made a hostage in the larger bilateral relations. There is always a chance of conspiracy theory in the Sino-India relations keeping in view the prospects and opportunities which can be achieved in the relations. It is well known fact that the 21^st century is Asian century and the two biggest giants of the Asia are none other than India and China. There is already a debate about the Western backlash against the new trend in geopolitics and geo-economics of the globe whose pendulum is inclined towards the two giants of Asia not USA or Great Brittan. The driving seat of the globe is likely to shift from Atlantic to Asia Pacific and the drivers would be India and China. Deng Xiaoping in 1988 said to then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that “the Asian Age could only come when China and India become developed”.[xvii] There is already a huge possibility about trap of the India and the China in the Western conspiracies. Kishore Mahbubani, a Singapore based academic and former diplomat in his book ‘The New Asian Hemisphere: the Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East’ has provided a deep analysis about the rise of Asia and the hypocritical attitude of West about the new reality. He further asserted that “end of era of Western domination” has culminated and West is not recognizing the fact that the tectonic plates of political landscape of the globe has shifted towards East. The Prof. Mahubani warned that there is “greater danger” if west do not come and accept this new reality.[xviii]

The West is playing duel game vis-à-vis their policies towards China and India. One side they project the democracy and the liberal values of freedom of speech and expression and the free opinion a bench mark for any Western engagements on the premises of that India is differentiated from China. But other side the undemocratic China is welcome as it is inevitable for West to ignore it simply because of the reason that the China is very close to become World’s largest economy. If India and China come close, it will pose a huge challenge to West to reckon with. There are already some visible signs about the fact that how tough it would be for West to deal with a situation if hindi-chini become real bhai-bhai. The Sino-India mutual cooperation in the climate negotiations, WTO etc are posing a huge challenge to the western dominance.

India should not indulge in any such activity hosted by the Western countries particularly in the Asia Pacific which would derail the prospects of better Sino-India bilateral relations. India cannot trust the West policies vis-à-vis China as they are habitual to change their stance as per their national interests. There are some unnecessary activities in the recent past on the part of India which might have accelerated certain negative signals in the Beijing. In the 2007 Malabar war games at sea involving ships from India, Japan, Australia, USA and Singapore.[xix] Not only China, even the all weather friend Russia also had shown certain reservations about such exercises. The quadrilateral dialogue involving India, USA, Japan and Australia is also not welcome in the Beijing. India will gain more if it get involved with Chinese and the war mongers on both sides won’t be able to highjack the peaceful and cooperative bilateral relations for their pretty interests since the fact is that no country would be so desperate and crazy to think about a war if that is at the cost of US $ billions.

The US designs are to build up India as a counterweight in conventional forces and to some extent nuclear stalemate vis-à-vis China, without permitting a future rising economically powerful India to become a challenging nuclear power like Russia or China. Thus it wants to limit India’s fissile material stockpile and slow its ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles) and nuclear submarine capabilities by putting as many of India’s nuclear facilities as possible, under IAEA safeguards.  The instated benefit to United States appears to be its assessment that India could be counter-weight to a “rising China” in the region. Though this is not the view of some India policymakers who believe that a constructive engagement with China is more beneficial and not linked to any military or strategic relationship with the United States. “US policymakers of both political parties had long been concerned about a rising China, and by strengthening relations with China’s next-door neighbor, the administration saw the potential for a strategic hedge,” observe Michael A. Levi and Charles D. Ferguson.[xx]

India is “a potential hedge against a rising China”, notes Ashley Tellis in his Carnegie report, weaving together the threads of worry running through Washington. US leaders are concerned about the growth of the Chinese military, its monetary policy, its vicious attacks on Japan and its increasing power projection capabilities.[xxi] Ashley J Tellis, a senior State Department official and a key architect of the new strategic policy on India, has argued that a build-up of India’s nuclear arsenal is not only in New Delhi’s interest, but Washington’s too. It will cause Beijing to worry more about India and less about United States, Tellis says.[xxii] “This is an effort to counterbalance the rise of China, but I would not go so far as to say to contain China or to be antagonistic towards it” said L. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Mansfield foundations in Washington. He further said that, “We obviously have an interest in a large, democratic, multiethnic society as counterbalance to the Chinese in the region”.[xxiii]   

Other than some geopolitical rivalry India should more focus on substantiating of its soft power in the region which per se is possible only if India does not indulge in bloc or alliance politics in the region. Soft Power is a relevant weapon than hard power weaponry in the 21^st century in realms of a national power. The soft power has three broad dimensions: culture, political values and foreign policy with moral authority as has been conceptualized by Harvard Professor Joseph Nye (it was the Nye who coined the term soft power). In the book the Paradox of American Power, Nye argued that key to the successful foreign policy in the 21^st century lies in the soft power which per se is based on ones culture, multiple channels of communication and domestic and international performances.[xxiv] India has a huge bonus vis-à-vis soft power keeping in view its legacy of its rich civilization, birth place of many religions and cultures, India’s huge Diaspora, a rich traditional practice of Yoga and Ayurveda, software technology, Bollywood etc. Sunil Khilnani argued that the greatest dimension of India’s soft power is its “accumulated political legitimacy” rather than real accumulation of power.[xxv] Therefore, India should more focus on harnessing these opportunities provided in its soft power domain rather than indulging in the power politics.

Moreover, the India being an emerging Asia Pacific power should be highly vigilant towards the new emerging power equations in the region. Its approach should be more from the prism of its traditional legacy of NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) rather than from any polarity or alliance system.

The author is Assistant Professor in Political Science at GDC Dooru, University of Kashmir, J & K State, India.

(Endnot

---

[i] Clinton Hilary, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy, November 2011.

[ii] Morse S. Eric, “Pivot to Asia: Calculus and Consequences”, Vol. 21, Issue 4, February 2012, accessed at http://www.nationalstrategy .com

[iii] “China Recalibrates its territorial Posturing”, 08 August, 2014, accessed at http://www.aljazeera.com

[iv] Nehru Jawaharalal, the Discovery of India (New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2004)

[v] Malone M. David, Does the Elephant Dance: Contemporary Indian Foreign policy (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 154-57.

[vi] Zoellick B. Robert, “U.S., China and Thucydides”, Foreign Affairs, Issue July-August 2013, accessed at http://www.foreignaffairs .com

[vii] Accessed from, The Hindu, 02 September 2014.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] “Modi-Abe Intimacy Brings Scant Comfort”, Global Times, 02 September 2014 accessed at http://www.english.people.com.cn

[x] Ibid.

[xi] “What Happened to the Asia Pivot in 2013”, 20 December 2013, accessed at http://www.cfr.org

[xii] Minghao Zhao, “Mutual Great Power Ambitions Bring India and Japan Together”, Global Times, 01 September 2014, accessed at http://www.english.people.com.cn

[xiii] China Recalibrates its territorial Posturing”, 08 August, 2014, accessed at http://www.aljazeera.

[xiv] Jabin Jacob, “Indo-US Nuclear Deal: the China factor”, Available at htpp://www.comw.org./pda/0603india.

[xv] Venugopal Menon, “India-China relations: critical issues”, Rajen Harsha and K.M. Sethi.  Engaging with the World: critical reflections on India’s foreign policy (ed.), Oriental Longman, New Delhi, 2005, pp. 156-57.

[xvi] Saran Samir, “Waking up to the BRICS”, The Hindu, 06 August 2014.

[xvii] Yan Zhang, “India-China Relations in one of the best periods in history”, The Hindu, 09 April, 2009.

[xviii] Suroor Hassan, “The rise of Asia and West’s petulant response”, The Hindu, 30 May, 2008.

[xix] Bhadrakumar M. K., “Engaging China as a friendly neighbour”, The Hindu, 10 April, 2008.

[xx] Michael A. Levi and Charles D. Ferguson, “US-India Nuclear Cooperation: A Strategy for Moving Forward”, Council on Foreign relations, United States, CSR No. 16, June 2006, Available at http://www.cfr.org.

[xxi] Ashley J. Tellis. India as a New Global Power; An Action Agenda for the United States, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D.C., 2005, pp. 54-55.

[xxii] Ashley J. Tellis. Atoms for War: U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D. C., 2006, p. 42

[xxiii] “China urges India, US to follow rules”, The Dawn, Online edition, March 3, 2006.

[xxiv] Malone M. David, “Soft Power in Indian Foreign Policy”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLVI NO 36, 03 September, 2011.

[xxv] Ibid.