Bush Visits South Asia

President Meets With Leaders in Afghanistan, India

Stephen P. Cohen , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in South Asian security issues, was online Thursday, March 2, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss President Bush 's trip to South Asia and his visits with leaders in Afghanistan and India. Bush made a surprise stop in Kabul Wednesday and held a joint press conference with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai . Today the President and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached a major deal under which the U.S. would provide nuclear power assistance to India while conducting routine inspections of its nuclear facilities. The visit coincides with increasing concern over Iran's development of nuclear capabilities.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Stephen P. Cohen: Hi, this is Steve Cohen, my apologies for signing on a bit late, but there's been big news from New Delhi, and its hard to think and talk and write at the same time. Let's get to the first Q and A now.

SPC

_______________________

Manchester, N.H.: Dear Stephen P. Cohen, will the NPT die its natural death? I see that NPT did not produce any tangible benefits so far, and will not, going forward. Thanks.

Stephen P. Cohen: I hope it does not die , but that it is reincarnated in some more effective fashion. I was disappointed in Bush's lack of reference to the broader proliferation problem, the administration may say more now that the India deal is done. I'd like to see a new or modified NPT regime include more than the "Proliferation security Initiative." States that really feel insecure will seek the bomb, the answer is not a treaty, but addressing their (in)security needs in some cases, it may be direct action in others, and it may be a half-way house, such as that provided to India, in still others. The basic NPT agreement has been unraveling, this is going to have to be an issue that the Bush administration deals with, especially because the India agreement modifies the NPT in some ways.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why do U.S. presidents combine visits to India with Pakistan all the time, whereas whenever they visit China, or Japan, the President goes to China or Japan only, like any other major country in like Russia. Don't you think it makes India feel bad?

Stephen P. Cohen: I believe that originally he wanted to go to India early in his first term, but 9/11 changed priorities around. I agree, that it might have been better if he had made two separate trips, linking the Pakistan visit (which was very important, however) to perhaps a trip to Turkey or Central Asia, and doing India in connection with a visit to (perhaps) another Asian democracy (Sri Lanka?).

_______________________

Gujranwala, Pakistan: The current basis of U.S.-Pakistan relationship is negative: antiterrorism and anti-proliferation. What could be in your view, positive long-term basis for this relationship?

Stephen P. Cohen: You've identified the problem correctly--Pakistan is important for negative reasons. A re-democratized Pakistan, that had a normal relationship with India, would be a great asset. I've discussed this at length in my just-published book, "The Idea of Pakistan." Right now, Pakistan could turn out to be America's biggest foreign policy problem of the next five years, although I do believe that there are more than enough Pakistanis to run a modern, free, and economically viable state. This is also in India's interest.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Why are non-proliferation experts in the U.S. so angry over allowing civilian nuclear technology access to democratic India while allowing it readily to China which has a dictatorship at the helm and has been a terrible proliferator?

Stephen P. Cohen: Many of them dealt with India over the last several decades, and the Indians simply lied about their military program (which was embedded in a supposedly civilian program), while lecturing the US about its nuclear weapons and the need for eliminating all nukes. So, they have a history of distrust and anger, which is exactly matched by those in the Indian nuclear program. With luck and political skill, these passions can be put aside, and a workable deal, that will separate the Indian military and civilian program to Congress' satisfaction (and that of the Nuclear Suppliers group), can be consummated, but I foresee a lot of debate and many hearings in Congress. However, even if the deal does not go through this time, the idea is a good one, and both sides may try it again before the end of Bush's term as president. India should realize that another president may not be as interested in South Asia, and that Bush's political influence in the US itself is in decline.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The oft-stated U.S. policy objectives in SA seem to be to 1. help India develop into a great power status and 2. bring Pakistan back from religious extremism and help develop it into a model modern Muslim state. While #1 is do-able, do you think #2 is probable, especially given the perceived radioactivity of U.S. and Bush in particular in Pakistan, even in its moderate society?

Stephen P. Cohen: India will emerge as a great power based on its own actions, notably continuing and accelerated economic reform; it is also undergoing many domestic revolutions (caste, class, federal, and others), that I discuss in my "India:Emerging Power" book, published a few years ago. However, it will be an inward looking great power; this is the calculation that I think is important in projecting India as nuclear weapons state, and why I think that those who are opposed to the deal are wrong. The US can provide marginal help to India, but I wish that along the way India would provide help to the US in running our elections fairly and efficiently! (in the last Indian election everyone voted electorally, there were no hanging chads, no frauds, and it was done quickly and fairly).

In the case of Pakistan I am still hopeful--but as my former boss, George Schultz said, "hope is not a policy." We need to put more pressure on Pakistan to reform domestically, and we need to back that up not with military aid but with verifiable aid and assistance to Pakistan's educational sector, the judiciary, and by interacting and supporting the major centrist Pakistani political parties. Many Pakistanis are angry with the US for supporting military dictatorships (even though Musharraf is a benign one), our policy must be to demand that the next elections be truly free, this means allowing the parties and the press to operate free from government direction(he noted in his Asia Society speech that the free Pakistani press was at times harassed by "security forces", so he's aware of the problem).

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Hi Mr. Cohen,

Do you think that after all said and done will the U.S. renege on its promises and will it not push India into joining China and Russia in a broader strategic alliance. What would be the consequences to the world order?

Stephen P. Cohen: China, Russia, and India all value their relationship more with the US than their relationship with each other. This is a world of five or six powers, the US may now be the most important, but it does not pose a threat to the others that would force them together in any kind of alliance relationship. N nuclear weapons ,if nothing else, make military competition impossible, although all of these states will be competing for oil and energy resources, and still have ideological differences.

_______________________

Winston Salem, N.C.: How can the President agree to approve a giant commercial nuclear deal with India who will still only allow partial inspection of its nuclear program while not ever signing the TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS? What kind of standard is he upholding?

Stephen P. Cohen: First, India cannot sign the NPT except[as a non-wea[pons state, which it won't do, as it tested after the cutoff date. Second, our own law, not the NPT, prohibits assistance to India's civilian energy program. The NSG is another restraint,but that operates on the basis of consensus, and the Russians are building reactors in India at this moment. So, this deal represents a half-way house, designed to accommodate a friendly state that has a nuclear weapons program, but insists that the military program be separated from its civilian framework ,and that India participate actively in the global non-proliferation regime.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: As an India expert are you surprised how far the country has come in just the last few yrs? It never used to be in the news as much. But now it seems to be the one of the more happening countries in foreign policy and trade. Just this amateur's two cent observation.

Stephen P. Cohen: I'm astonished, and generally pleased. I go to India every six months or so, and find significant changes in some ways even in this period of time. however,r India still has half of the world's poorest people, plenty of domestic violence (especially in the eastern side, where there is a belt of instability), casteism in the universities and schools, and an agricultural base that is badly in need of repair. India was asleep for fifteen years or more, but I find today's India more aware and more realistic about its own problems than ever before.

_______________________

Dulles, Va.: What, in you opinion, is different between the current trip of President Bush and that by President Clinton to India?

Stephen P. Cohen: The Clinton visit began the turnaround of American perceptions of India; it was brilliant in terms of human contact, he was like a rock star among groupies; Bush is no Clinton in this regard, but has moved American policy very quickly, moving to remove many of the obstacles that had clouded it for decades. this requires new thinking in both countries, which is always painful, but I think they are on the right track not to become "allies,' but at least more understanding and responsible partners in a wide variety of economic, cultural, and even strategic arenas.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Does finally the U.S. acknowledge that India, for her own, security, needs nuclear weapons? Surrounded by suspicious countries like China and Pakistan, India needs to defend herself?

Stephen P. Cohen: the US can hardly say that it doesn,t but a legitimate question is how many nuclear weapons does India really need? Must it be able to kill every Pakistani living in Lahore four or five times over to deter Pakistani? And the same with Chinese in Shanghai? Or does India need to be able to drop a bomb on Los an geles or London to be regarded as a great power? Just asking these questions indicates how absurd the issue is; India may need a modest nuclear force to deter a nuclear attack, but it will also have to act in such a way that it does not trigger off a meaningless arms race with its neighbors.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Wasn't some form of violence predictable, as demonstrated by the consul bombing in Karachi, if George Bush decided to visit Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is nearby and isn't he very popular in the area. Hasn't the possibly of large street demonstrations been considered, which could cause problems for the government? Or was just another example of George Bush's "Bring them on" mentality?

Stephen P. Cohen: No, I think the calculation was that he HAD to take some risk and show that he was willing to support Musharraf; I hope he takes the opportunity, however, to deliver some tough messages (preferably privately) to Pakistan's president/army chief.

_______________________

Portland, Maine: Which corporate executives from the nuclear industry accompanied President Bush to India? Which corporations are the likely beneficiaries if this agreement on nuclear sharing is approved by the U.S. Congress? Specifically, what is the likelihood that President Bush and the Republicans are influenced by past and future campaign and party contributions from Energy, Duke Energy, and Westinghouse in favoring the promotion of the nuclear energy industry at home and abroad in the Bush energy policies?

Stephen P. Cohen: As far as I know none went with him, but he did meet with Indian and America CEO's who were already in Delhi at a newly-created CEO forum. p[erhaps they did not go with because he stopover first in Afghanistan.

_______________________

Minot, Nd.: Do you believe that the U.S.-India strategic partnership will alter the world like the U.S.-China deal in the 1970s?

Stephen P. Cohen: No, that brought the US and China into alignment against the USSR, this only acknowledges India's role as one of several major powers in the world; I don't think that it will lead to a close US-India "alliance" against anyone, but if a situation arises, then Washington and Delhi will be better-able to work together. (or not, should they disagree on the proper response).

_______________________

Santa Clara, Calif.: Dear Mr. Stephen Cohen,

Does this deal mean US has now recognize India as a nuclear power? Also, what does it do to India's case of making herself a permanent member of UN Security council?

Thank you.

Stephen P. Cohen: India's UN ambitions will not be affected by this agreement--soon. other countries, notably France and China, are not eager to see India come on to the UNSC, and of course Japan and Germany have claims to a seat as well. I think that UN "reform" is dead.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: If you had a crystal ball, what would you predict the Indo-U.S.. relationship to be like 5 and 10 years from now?

Stephen P. Cohen: This is the toughest question I've had, but in some ways the most important. Maybe I'll write a book on the subject! My view is that this should be taken one step at a time, that most of these long-range projections turn out to be wrong or irrelevant (remember all those books about a rising Japan, and then a threatening China?). India will continue to be preoccupied domestically, pushing through its various social and economic revolutions, and the US should be supportive, although there's not much that it can do directly. Strategically, I see the two counties working together, but the danger is that we will expect too much from India too soon,perhaps in the Middle East, and that the Indians will want us to go and bash the Pakistanis if there is another crisis in the region.

Alas, my crystal ball refuses to provide new answers, but this is a question that ought to be asked NOW, and then we ought to look at the answers five and ten years from now. Generally, policy analysts are very bad at looking at their own record and trying to figure out why they were wrong. We tend to gloat about those few times when we were right!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Any polls on the how the American public views this deal? Does it even register? It doesn't, by at least one measure -- the deal is NOT on the list of The Post's five most read articles on the site.

How does this indifference affect the possible passage of the deal? How about I phrase it more forwardly: Do Americans really care whether we supply nuclear power to India or not?

Stephen P. Cohen: Good points, my answer is that it is up to the politicians to phrase the issue so that it can be understood and appreciated by many people. this is one reason why Bush has stressed the energy aspect of the n-deal, he repeatedly says that this means that India will not need as much oil/gas, and that this will somehow lower the price for Americans. I find this unpersuasive factually, but politically very skillful--it reminds me of Clinton's justification for his trip to INDIA--that there were two million Americans of Indian origin, and hence this trip to a country that he had just sanctioned was politically justifiable.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: What specific energy needs does India have that makes this deal so important for them?

Stephen P. Cohen: India (and China) are going to require huge amounts of energy to sustain growth, and to sustain consumption of the growing middle class. this has to come from outside of India, which has very large but very polluting and inefficient coal reserves. You may see India buying coal from West Virginia, doing more gas exploration, and building a whole new generation of nuclear power plants. Even then it will not be enough. energy competition is real, it is a shame that the US does not pay enough attention to the biggest way of providing more energy, conservation.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: On an off beat note, Bush said that he has never seen a welcome like the Indians gave him yesterday. Did you find that statement a bit interesting and funny?

Stephen P. Cohen: Maybe he was jet lagged, it struck a peculiar note in my ears. yet, the pics show him smiling,--he wanted to visit India long ago, and this is being billed as his great foreign policy accomplishment. (which is one reason some people will want to sabotage it when the legislation goes to Congress).

_______________________

Towson, Md.: Today's deal between India and the Bush administration is garnering a lot of attention. One of the main reasons according to the experts is that it stamps India's arrival among the global players. Or it is seen as a turning point between two nations that seemingly are getting closer and closer. Is the importance overstated? And can you put it in relative terms? Thanks.

Stephen P. Cohen: It is a big symbolic thing, but India was recognized as a rising or emerging power long ago--I wrote a book with that title in 1979, although I had a question mark in the title, the question mark was removed in my 2001 book, published by Brookings, "India: Emerging POWER", which pretty accurately tracked India's movement from obscurity to near-front rank status. I wrote that India had to be treated as Asia's third great state, but it does operate outside of Asia, increasingly, in many ways, so India's movement was faster than even I thought it would be.

_______________________

Twincities, Minn.: Sir, the strategic reason(s) cited for the nuclear deal with India are very solid. My concern is a 'what if' scenario: What if somewhere down the road India is no longer as friendly to the U.S. as it appears to be now? Won't the nuclear capabilities we are helping build there come back to bite us? Has the U.S. government (including the White House and Congress) thought through this? Appreciate any insights you may have.

Thank you.

Stephen P. Cohen: I share your apprehension, but the two governments have a pretty good understanding of the limits of the new relationship. Will the next US administration (or Indian one), be as strongly committed? Possibly, as the objective reasons for the new relationship are deep-rooted, notably the new economic ties, shared commitment to democracy, the Indian-American community, a shared view of the world made up of several (not just one) great powers, etc., but the relationship is not very well institutionalized, and in some ways is still very unequal and uneven.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: In a nutshell, where do the agreements we'll have with India leave Pakistan? So far, they've had our ear to a certain extent, but they're also certain to feel left out and 'demoted'. What's our answer to their demand to have nuclear-parity with India?

Stephen P. Cohen: If Pakistan were to come clean on its past nuclear policies, and sharing of technology with other states, and were to be less troublesome regarding interference in its neighbors to the east and west, I'd make them a similar offer--but China may do this in any case.

_______________________

Ottawa, Canada: Hi Mr. Cohen,

Do you see any reduction in madrassa schooling in Pakistan in the near future? Is Musharraf sincere in his efforts to reform the school system in his country, and what kind of Pakistan do you see once he is out of politics/military?

Stephen P. Cohen: Madrassas fill a hole left by the deterioration of the Pakistani public school system, or its non-existence. Zia and his successors systematically dismantled this system, most madrassas are not teaching jehadi subjects, but few of them provide a proper education for the modern world, and a few also teach Jehadi 101. Musharraf has not kept to his promises, he seems to be afraid to take on the Islamists, who have street power, if not popular support. yet he is also unwilling to allow the "normal" centrist political parties to operate freely, and chased their leaders outside of Pakistan. Not a good way to run a country.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Now that even Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA has expressed his satisfaction with the U.S.-India nuclear agreement, how hard do you think it will be for the agreement to make it through Congress?

Does the U.S.-India agreement formally open the door to countries like France (which just signed a similar agreement with India), to actually start exporting nuclear materials and technology?

Stephen P. Cohen: he was the very first person to express his support--more reactors for the IAEA to inspect!

France may want to join Russia in building reactors in India, and the US will also try to sell some, and several countries will want to provide Uranium fuel for India's existing reactors, IF (and repeat, IF) the Nuclear Suppliers group ratifies the deal. What happens, however, if Congress rejects it--will the NSG still approve it? (or possibly , vice versa?).

_______________________

Tokyo, Japan: I am an Indian living in Japan. Many Indians like me admire America but also have suspicions that U.S. does only lip service on democracy. For example, the communist China could get any hi-tech items traded but the democratic India is shut out of this process. Don't give the excuse of some international norms. We all know how China circumvents those rules. Is India friend or foe according to official America?

Stephen P. Cohen: HI, I'm visiting Japan next week. You point out an anomaly in our policies,but you have to remember that India itself hangs out with some very undemocratic leaders, notably Burmese generals and the PLO; both states have to balance out a commitment to democracy with "realist" calculations of balance of power, etc.

_______________________

Stephen P. Cohen: SORRY, I must break away, it's been good chatting with you, Please check out the Brookings web page (http://www.brookings.edu/) for more of what I (and others) have written about India, Pakistan, and this trip.

Regards

Steve Cohen

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.