[sacw] [ACT] NYT: An American defends the Indian Bomb

[Harsh Kapoor]

FYI - Here's a truely bizzare plea by an American professor to let India
have its Nuclear Bomb.
(South Asians Against Nukes)
___________

New York Times
March 24, 2000
Op-Ed.

India Needs the Bomb

By JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER

HICAGO -- Despite its huge population, booming economy and growing
nuclear arsenal, President Clinton, like his predecessors, refuses to
show India the respect it deserves. He thereby perpetuates a needless
estrangement between two natural allies.
This disrespect is most apparent on the nuclear front. In his address to
the Indian Parliament on Wednesday, Mr. Clinton acknowledged many of
India's concerns, but he did not give up his call for India to abandon
its nuclear weapons. The administration wants India to sign both the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of
Nuclear Weapons. India, however, refused to sign the nonproliferation
treaty when it took effect in 1970 and refused again when the treaty was
extended in 1995. India tested nuclear weapons in 1998 and has made it
clear that it intends to build powerful nuclear forces.

The Clinton administration should stop opposing these moves and
recognize that India is not going to give up its nuclear arsenal. India
did not acquire these weapons for frivolous reasons, like misplaced
pride or domestic politics, as some Americans believe. Rather, India,
like the United States, had sound strategic reasons for wanting them.

Nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent against aggression, and India
lives in a dangerous neighborhood. Since gaining independence in 1947,
it has fought three wars with Pakistan and has come close to war with
Pakistan three other times. India also fought a losing war with China in
1962 over the still-contested Sino-Indian border. Moreover, both
Pakistan and China have their own nuclear weapons, and over the next two
decades, China will move to develop a much larger arsenal. India would
be foolish to allow China to gain a nuclear advantage over it.

The Persian Gulf war of 1991 and the Kosovo war in 1999 also hardened
India's determination to possess nuclear weapons. The United States
easily beat Iraq and Serbia by exploiting its enormous advantage in
conventional arms. Had either foe possessed nuclear weapons, the United
States might not have gone to war. This lesson was not lost on India.

Finally, as President Clinton acknowledged on Wednesday, American
hypocrisy on nuclear issues rubs Indians the wrong way. The United
States allows itself to have nuclear weapons for its own security but
says India should not have them for the same purpose. We expect India to
sign the test ban treaty even though the United States Senate rejected
it.

The Clinton administration should reverse course and recognize that
India is a legitimate nuclear state, like Britain and Russia, not a
dangerous nuclear rogue like North Korea. It should allow India to keep
its nuclear weapons and sign the nonproliferation treaty, with all the
attendant rights and obligations.

As a start toward closer political ties, the administration could
support India's membership in the United Nations Security Council. At
the same time, however, the United States should not one-sidedly favor
India against Pakistan when Pakistan has legitimate concerns. Instead,
the United States should strive to be a fair broker when disputes arise.

A more realistic policy toward India would benefit both Asia and
American interests.

First, the United States could do more to resolve the conflict between
India and Pakistan over the territory of Kashmir. India adamantly
refuses to allow the United States to mediate that 53-year-old conflict
because it has long felt that Washington favors Pakistan. But if the
United States demonstrated even-handedness, showing greater sensitivity
to India's interests, India might conceivably welcome constructive
mediation.

Second, a more realistic policy would promote nuclear stability on the
subcontinent. For example, by dropping its prohibition on nuclear
weapons, the United States could provide India and Pakistan modern
command-and-control technologies that would make their arsenals safer
and more reliable. It could also share valuable safety lessons it
learned from its competition with the Soviet Union.

hird, in the not-too-distant future, the United States may need other
Asian countries to help it contain China. It would be difficult to
fashion an effective coalition of Asian countries without India as a
central pillar.

Fourth, with its increasing economic power, especially in software and
pharmaceuticals, India is becoming an important player in international
economic groups like the World Trade Organization. The United States has
an interest in making India a cooperative rather than a disruptive force
in those institutions.

India and the United States are the world's two largest democracies, and
they are both multicultural democracies to boot. It only makes sense for
them to be on the same side. It is thus not only in America's economic
and strategic interests to become closer to India, but fully in line
with its principles and ideals.

John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the
University of Chicago.