Washington's decision to reopen access for India to civil nuclear technology is another example of the Bush administration's engagement of the South Asian nation as a counterweight to China, Indian analysts said on Tuesday.
"People have it in their minds that in Asia it should not be a wholly China-dominated scene," Indian former foreign secretary Salman Haider said.
"Japan has become more assertive and we are seen as a potential counterbalance. Whether it should take the form of rivalry with China, that's a separate question. I think the United States would like to bring us into play [vis-a-vis China]," he said.
China and India are the world's fastest-growing economies. While China is an established Asian giant, India, with its 7 percent growth rate last year, is seen as an emerging power.
But for India the issue of energy is becoming more and more important as it attempts to power the needs of its billion-plus population and fuel its booming economy.
US President George W. Bush said after a summit with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington on Monday that he would ask the US Congress and allied nations to lift sanctions preventing Indian access to civil nuclear technology.
Washington had imposed sanctions on India after its second round of nuclear tests in May 1998, but agreed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to waive those and other sanctions in return for support in the "war on terrorism."
However, as India is not party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, it is precluded under US law from receiving technology that could aid its nuclear program.
But Bush said he would "seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies" and work with "friends and allies to adjust international regimes" for such cooperation and trade with India.
"I think this agreement to reopen civil nuclear technology is perhaps the most significant aspect of what transpired in Washington," said the former Indian ambassador to the US, Pakistan Parthasarthy.
"The United States was claiming that it wanted India to be a partner and yet had imposed sanctions on India on nuclear space and high-technology transfers that were far more stringent than on China," he said. "So any kind of partnership was meaningless unless these were removed. It's the first step in that direction ... Full credit to President Bush. He is the friendliest president India has had in the White House."
Parthasarthy said the developments should be viewed in the context of "the emerging Asian balance of power [in which] the United States sees India as a partner."
Last month the countries signed a 10-year defense agreement paving the way for joint weapons production, cooperation on missile defense and a possible lifting of US export controls for sensitive military technologies.
Earlier this year, Washington offered sophisticated F-16 fighter jets to India, following up on its declaration that it would like to help India become a major power in the 21st century.
US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, while briefing reporters on the Bush-Singh talks, described the Indian prime minister's trip as "one of the most important visits of this year."
"We consider India to be one of our most important partners worldwide ... We've never had a relationship in nearly 60 years with India like the one we have now established," he added, according to a release by the US embassy in New Delhi.
Traditionally close to the erstwhile Soviet Union, India adopted a non-aligned position during the Cold War. It has long-established firm ties with Russia, which feed 70 percent of its defense needs.
However, with the opening up of the Indian economy in the early 1990s, ties with the US also started warming up, getting a major fillip when former US president Bill Clinton visited India in 2000.
Bush is slated to visit India within the next year.
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS