Title: India Needs the
Bomb
Author: John J. Mearsheimer
Publication: The New
York Times
Date: March 24, 2000
CHICAGO -- 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.
Third, 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.)