US and us (a non-expert view)

Absence of expertise imposes constraints on me. I cannot be sure as to what has been achieved on the nuclear issue in Washington. But when the Economist, tongue firmly in cheek, says ‘Now We Are Six’, I am inclined to believe the prime minister has come back with something substantive. According to the Economist (the magazine is actually whining about the deal), the 1968 Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) restricted membership of the nuclear club to the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, countries which became nuclear weapons states before the NPT came into being. Now India is being given advantages available only to the P5 — hence the sarcastic headline:‘Now We Are Six’. Sounds terrific, but the quid pro quo involved will be debated for some time to come. Clearly, more people have to be taken into confidence, in Washington as well as in New Delhi, for an informed debate.

What amazes me, however, is the obsequiousness which conditions some folks in South Block when dealing with the US. The good news is that the prime minister, and the minister of external affairs and petroleum, respectively, are intellectually equipped to manage what would otherwise be a tilt conditioned not by national interest but excessive caution. Do not touch anything with a barge-pole, however deep our interest, just in case it upsets the Americans! A variation on the Biblical dictum, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, render unto God the things that are God’s”, has to be brought into play.

Of course, the US is India’s most important friend today. But that happens to be the case because the US also needs New Delhi for all the obvious reasons. Just as Pakistan is “indispensable” to the US to sort out Afghanistan, India is “indispensable” to enable the US to sketch a strategic design for global stability. Hopefully, we are not in the game because the neo-cons hate China. We are in it for a stable strategic balance.

We are being given an opening to come out of our South Asian foxhole. This entails that we bring into play the whole web of international relationships we have woven over the years. We abandon these and we become less important to the US. One of the most important of these equations is the one we have with Iran. The gas pipeline project is structured on that equation. The prime minister rather cautiously described the pipeline as being at a stage of “preliminary discussions”. The Cabinet approved the pipeline in February 2005. The prime minister himself has discussed the subject with General Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. The three petroleum ministers have met several times. In addition to the joint working group on hydro-carbons, a special joint working group on the pipeline has been formed. Mani Shankar Aiyar has been shuttling between the three capitals.

Iran’s partner and founding sponsor of the project happens to be Australia’s mining giant, BHP-Billiton. Bigger investors are not being named as a bargaining strategy. The Iran-Libya sanctions Act of 1996 (ISLA 96) has never been applied by the US. Indeed, true blue American companies like Haliburton Dubai have investments in Iranian projects.

While public rhetoric in Washington is about Iran’s nuclear behaviour, US dealings with Iran are at a level that matters. Iran’s Kamal Kharazi was the first foreign minister since the occupation to have been escorted from the Green Zone in Baghdad to Najaf. More recently, Iraq’s Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafri was flown to Tehran. The collaboration on Afghanistan is equally deep. The Americans said not a word to Manmohan Singh on the pipeline. The media, encouraged by identifiable folk in South Block, has meanwhile inaugurated a debate on assumptions that are faulty.

Write to saeednaqvi@expressindia.com