WHAT'S INDISPENSABLE?

 As happened in July 2005, it will take some time to grasp the full scope of the evolution in the Indo-US partnership that has been achieved as a result of the state visit of the Indian prime minister to Washington, DC. Looking through the rosy haze of the time elapsed, there is a widespread nostalgia about George W. Bush and his warmth for India. There is no denying that Bush very successfully persuaded the entire international community to agree to the modification of an international regime and give India waiver from the technology denial to which it had been subjected for three decades. The US at that stage recognised India as a responsible power with advanced nuclear technology. Today President Barack Obama accepts India as a nuclear weapon power, though it may still not qualify under the definition of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That should set at rest the nightmares of some of our people who conjure up any number of Machiavellian tricks the Washington nuclear ayatollahs could play on India. The three Democratic Senators who lent powerful support to Bush in getting the Indo-US nuclear deal through, Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, are the leaders of the present administration and therefore are likely to ensure the fruition of the deal.

While Bush was extraordinarily friendly to this country and liberated India from nuclear technology denial, he was unfortunately extremely permissive of Pakistan nurturing terrorism as an instrument of state policy. General Musharraf used Pakistani terrorist organisations not only to perpetrate acts of terror on India but also to make a number of attempts on the US itself. Thanks to the efficiency of the US intelligence and security agencies none of them succeeded. It was necessary for Pakistani generals to keep the US under threat of terror to milk from it billions of dollars under the pretext of fighting terrorism. The maximum growth of terrorist capabilities of Pakistan took place on Bush's watch. This is not to play down his extraordinary support to India in its attempt to become a world-class power, but to recognise a very unfortunate reality.

It is Obama who told Pakistan that India did not pose a threat to that country and that the extremist threat, if not tackled effectively, is a cancer that will kill Pakistan. He has identified not only Al Qaeda but also its associate organisations as the enemy. His administration has exposed the Lashkar-e-Toiba as a terrorist organisation operating in the US. Washington came in with full support to the

Indian investigation in the wake of 26/11 and the cooperation in counter-intelligence between

India and the US has made very significant progress. On Obama's watch the Kerry-Lugar legislation has been tightened to ensure accountability of the Pakistan army. Finally Obama has been able to compel the Pakistan army to act against their own Taliban at present and is keeping up the pressure on them to act against others.

No doubt, for the US the bilateral relationship with China is the most important one at present because China has made itself the banker of the US and holds $800 billion in dollar assets and continues to buy US treasury bonds as the US is running monstrous budget deficits. It should be obvious that US-China bilateral relations are the most important not only to the US but to the world as a whole reeling under the financial crisis since the dollar is the world's reserve currency.

Obama termed India as an indispensable nation for the 21st century the US wants to build. While China is the present nemesis of the US,

India is the future hope for the US if it were to realise what many Americans used to term "the American century". Therefore the emphasis is on economic, technological and R&D cooperation and joint efforts to bring about a knowledge century, through partnership and on new emerging technologies, such as clean energy and green products. An understanding to this end and follow-up strategic planning are perhaps the most meaningful result of this summit. That does not have the sex appeal of the Indo-US nuclear agreement with spectacular displays of Congressional hearings and voting. But this is the solid foundation on which the Indo-US cooperative effort to shape an international system based on values they share has to be built. It is fortunate that both countries have at present self-avowed liberals with commitment to pluralism as leaders. They are also pledged to work for a nuclear weapon-free world.

Much has been made in India and elsewhere of the reference to South Asia in the US-China joint statement. The reference read, "The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region." The prime minister has brushed aside the whole issue with his remark that he was not concerned about what the two leaders did between themselves. The history of South Asia in the last 40 years is one of continuous Chinese intervention in favour of Pakistan, including the proliferation of nuclear weapons and strengthening Pakistani capabilities to use terrorism as state policy and the US looking away to the longer-term detriment of its own interests. If they are to engage in a dialogue to promote peace and stability, good luck to them.

A comparison of the joint statements issued between US and China last week and the present joint statement makes abundantly clear the qualitative difference in the two relationships. The Beijing statement mentioned that the two countries believed that to nurture and deepen bilateral strategic trust was essential to US-China relations in the new era, implying that is not available in abundance at present. It did not talk of partnership. While it mentioned interdependence it did not refer to indispensability or shared values. Though there is a large Chinese expatriate population in the US, they have not been cited as a vibrant linkage between the two countries as has been done in respect of the Indian-American community in the absence of shared values between the US and China.

Underlying all this talk of partnership is an unspoken understanding. The US is under challenge by China in respect of its pre-eminence as an economic, technological and military power. Inevitably in the next two to three decades, China will have the world's highest GDP. Given China's population and efforts to impart higher education and skills to its population four times the size of that of the US, the economic and technological pre-eminence of the latter is also likely to come under challenge. If the US is to forestall that, it needs a partner with a population approximately equal to China's. India, English-speaking, democratic and pluralistic, has a vibrant people-to-people relationship with the US.