By Priscilla Huff

February 15, 2006

Indo-U.S. Nuke Deal Unlikely during Bush Visit, say U.S. Analysts

Washington: American analysts and experts familiar with South Asian affairs have expressed scepticism over India and the United States chances of finalising their July 18, 2005 bilateral civilian nuclear accord before or even during President George W. Bush's first visit to India in the first week of March.

Though preparations are in high gear for the historic visit to India and Pakistan, there has been a near unanimous _expression of doubt about the future of the landmark deal, that till now has been touted as the centrepiece of Bush's trip to New Delhi.

Now, Washington-based analysts remain unconvinced about anything being accomplished, other than Bush making historic stops in India and Pakistan.

“This is President Bush's first trip to the subcontinent, so this visit will be an opportunity to meet the region, and not just its leaders. It will be important for him to accelerate the positive and to stay clear of tendentious issues,” Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center told Asian News International.

Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute in Washington agrees, “I'm baffled by this trip—the one thing that they wanted to do,the nuclear deal, will probably not be do-able, at least by the time he goes, and they've done so much else, I would be surprised to find out that there's anything more to agree upon.”

Most say that the nuclear deal has gotten hung up on delicate negotiations. They question whether American law will be changed, and key members of the U.S. Congress have been quite sceptical about the details.

In an editorial in the January or February issue of Arms Control Today, Daryl Kimball, the association's executive director argues, “It is the responsibility of the president and the U.S. Congress not to aid and abet any other state's nuclear bomb program and unravel the non-proliferation system.”

In the same issue, Zian Mian of Princeton University and M.V. Raman of the Centre for Interdiscliplinary Studies in Environment and Development in Bangalore argue that the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal has many flaws.

“It undermines the aspirations of the vast majority of nations seeking global and regional nuclear disarmament. The deal also will create the potential for the rapid buildup of a much larger Indian nuclear arsenal. It will bail out a failing Indian nuclear energy program, but with little benefit to the poor and likely detriment to the environment and economy,” both said.

In an article for the International Herald Tribune, Brahma Chellaney of the Center for Policy Research, New Delhi observes, “Unless the United States rolls back its demands, it is almost certain that no formal nuclear agreement will be ready for signature when President George W. Bush arrives in New Delhi on March 1. A barren U.S. presidential visit would ensure a slow death for the accord.”

Bush's visit to Pakistan is also being viewed with some amount of scepticism. Some of the analysts interviewed by ANI have wondered if the recent violence in Pakistan over the Danish cartoons would cause the White House to cancel the trip.

The issue came up at briefings at the U.S. State Department and the White House. Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed concerns about cancellation.

“In terms of the cartoons and the controversy there, I think we've expressed what our views are. And the President has made it clear that all governments need to act to prevent violence. There have been some peaceful demonstrations. Peaceful demonstrations are one thing, but there's no justification for engaging in violence,” McClellan said.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has also changed his tone somewhat. He had been criticizing the U.S. for a missile strike on Pakistan's soil last month, but now has turned his energy toward the issue of combatting terrorists.

In an interview sponsored by the East-West, Musharraf said that cooperation with the American military in the war on terrorism is working well.

“The whole arrangement is very good,” said Musharraf. In response to a question from U.S. News, he professed satisfaction with Bush administration assurances that raids of the Damadola type will not be repeated. Musharraf, in what may be his most hard-hitting comments yet on the collusion of some Pakistanis with al Qaeda, singled out villagers who are abetting terrorists.

“They are guilty from all points of view,” he said. And he said foreign terrorists convening in Pakistan were “violating our sovereignty more” than the U.S. missile strikes did. “We want them out,” he said of the al Qaeda.

As far as Washington's ties with Islamabad are concerned, Paul Wiseman says in an article published in USA Today that all is not well between the two countries inspite of Pakistan being deemed a major non-NATO ally.

“Musharraf's problems are America's, too. The former Army chief of staff who seized power from an elected prime minister in a 1999 coup is considered a staunch U.S. ally in the war on terror, able to make tough decisions in part because he doesn't have to compromise with politicians. But Musharraf is learning that even a military dictator can't always get what he wants,” says Wiseman.

Frederic Grare, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment Foundation feels there is a key myth behind much of the policy toward Pakistan. That myth is that Pakistan is at risk for takeover by radical Islamists. Mr. Grare is convinced the Pakistani army is the real problem. He gives three major policy implications in debunking the myth:

1. President Musharaf should be pushed to crack down on militants in Kashmir and Afghanistan for fear of causing his overthrow by extremists.

2. Arms sales to Pakistan increase the Pakistani military's leverage to block major internal reforms,and are understood as implicit approval for the military's policies.

3. Invoking the “Islamist threat” as reason to support the military regime contributes to the perception in the Muslim world in general that democracy is something to be applied selectively.

Activists in the U.S. have been rallying critical support for the human rights question. The World Sindhi Institute has been working with U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo. In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (Republican-Colorado.) urged that the issue of Balochistan be raised with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Tancredo wants to see an end to the Baloch dispute and further loss of life prevented. He also argues that Pakistani military deployment to Balochistan is diverting critical resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

What then, will be the purpose and achievements of the Bush visit to India and Pakistan?

In the February 6 online issue of the New Yorker Magazine, reporter Steve Coll said: “The Indians and the Pakistanis have long experience with the West or with Russia coming into their disputes, and they've become quite sophisticated about how to manage this kind of intervention. They use it to achieve their goals. In this case, the Indians used American diplomacy to try to coerce Pakistan into reducing its support for jihadi groups. Equally, the Pakistanis used the Americans to put pressure on India to resolve the underlying problem of Kashmir, and also tried to make themselves indispensable to the Americans in Afghanistan. So there was a kind of a multiple-level chess game going on. And yet at the heart of it was a basic threat of war, which neither side ever relinquished; both India and Pakistan felt quite emotional about these issues even as they were manipulating the chessboard.”

So while prospects for the US India civilian nuclear deal are gloomy, it is expected that America's growing relationship, both diplomatically and economically will be stressed.

As Cohen says, “President Bush will undoubtedly reaffirm his strong belief in India as a country, and stress the technology and high-tech aspects of the relationship.”

Asked about possible security concerns for the South Asia trip, especially the Pakistan segment, Spokesman Scot McClellan reassured reporters, the trip would remain on the schedule, Is it wise for the President to possibly put himself in harm's way by going to Pakistan? “Well, first of all, we have full confidence in the President's security detail and the job that they do. The President's trip remains on schedule, and the President looks forward to going to both India and to Pakistan in a few weeks here.”