Nuclear India and Indian-American relations

Orbis

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 59-74

  Ayoob, Mohammed ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033474652     PISSN: 00304387     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0030-4387(99)80057-X     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. 1 For details of this argument, see Mohammed Ayoob, "India in South Asia: The Quest for Regional Predominance," World Policy Journal, Winter 1989-90, pp. 107-33.
2. 2 According to this formulation, "India will neither intervene in the domestic affairs of any states in the region, unless requested to do so, nor tolerate such intervention by an outside power; if external assistance is needed to meet an internal crisis, states should first look within the region for help." Quoted in P. Venkateshwar Rao, "Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: India's Role and Perception," Asian Survey, April 1988, p. 422.
3. 3 For details of the Gujral Doctrine, see Bhabani Sen Gupta, "India in the Twenty-first Century," International Affairs, vol. 73, no. 2, 1997, pp. 308-10. The author, a well-known academic and publicist, was reportedly the brain behind the Gujral Doctrine.
4. 4 For a well-reasoned critique of both these paradigms, see Muthiah Alagappa, "International Response to Nuclear Tests in South Asia: The Need for a New Policy Framework," Asia Pacific Issues, June 15, 1998.
5. 5 Statement of Robert J. Einhorn, deputy assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation, before the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, of the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 10, 1997. In the same statement, Einhorn acknowledged, "In the nuclear area, we have long had concerns about China's assistance to Pakistan's efforts to produce unsafeguarded fissile materials and to Pakistan's program to develop nuclear explosives. These concerns were especially acute in the 1980s but have continued even after China acceded to the NPT in 1992. During 1995 we received compelling information that a Chinese entity transferred a large number of custom-built ring magnets to the entity in Pakistan responsible for that country's unsafeguarded gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment program." It was not surprising that the Indians saw the Chinese commitment made to the United States in May 1996 as a case of closing the stable gates after the horse had bolted.
6. 6 For a perceptive analysis of India's assessment of the China factor in relation to its nuclear decision, see Ashutosh Varshney, "The Folly of America's Nuclear Diplomacy: US-China Relations, not India-Pakistan, Are the Real Cause for Concern in South Asia," Financial Times (London), August 6, 1998.
7. 7 For details of Indian perceptions of, and arguments against, the draft treaty, see Arundhati Ghose, "Negotiating the CTBT: India's Security Concerns and Nuclear Disarmament," Journal of International Affairs, Summer 1997, pp. 239-261. Ghose was the Indian ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament when the CTBT was debated there.
8. 8 For one competent summary of the debate, see Savita Pande, "CTBT and India," Strategic Analysis (New Delhi), May 1996, pp. 157-182.
9. 9 For an eloquent statement of the position defending India's policy of nuclear restraint and "recessed deterrence," see Jasjit Singh, "The Challenges of Strategic Defence," Frontline (Chennai), April 24, 1998, pp. 13-16.
10. 10 These observations are based on the author's conversations in New Delhi in March-April 1998.
11. 11 Based on the author's conversations with strategic analysts in New Delhi, March-April 1998.
12. 12 C. Raja Mohan, "Rethinking CTBT and FMCT," Hindu (Chennai), June 16, 1998.
13. 13 "Talks on to Arrive at a Decision on CTBT: PM," Hindu (Chennai), August 5, 1998.
14. 14 Mohan, "Rethinking CTBT and FMCT."
15. 15 Observations regarding the American position are based on conversations with well-informed policy-making circles and analysts in Washington, August 1998.
16. 16 John D. Holum, "The CTBT and Nuclear Disarmament - The U.S. View," Journal of International Affairs, Summer 1997, p. 278.
17. 17 This seemed to be the general thrust of the testimony given on July 13, 1998, by Karl F. Inderfurth, assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, to the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
18. 18 Dileep Padgaonkar, "India Ready to Sign CTBT, Onus on Other Countries," Times of India (New Delhi), September 25, 1998.