Bush's new best friends

The American president is betting on India becoming one of the world's great powers, writes Randeep Ramesh

Of all the British imperial figures that loomed over the south Asian landmass in the twilight of empire, none had the prescience of Sir Olaf Caroe, the last imperial foreign secretary in this part of the world.

Sir Olaf, who had a penchant for subcontinental Muslim culture - particularly that of the rugged northern belt and an antipathy to India's nascent freedom movement - spotted world trends early in the 1940s and tried to ensure that Britain, a spent force after World War II, did not suffer adversely.

His foresight was to recognise that the real challenge to the West would come from the Soviet Union via Afghanistan, which he called an "uncertain vestibule".

The second was to foresee the coming age of oil. In his prescient phrase he evolved ideas on how to secure the "wells of power" that lay in the Middle East.

Sir Olaf, at different times, advocated a separate Pathan state, toyed with a thin country carved out of pre-independence India that stretched from the Pamirs to the Arabian Sea before settling on West Pakistan, which corresponds to today's nation, as the "obvious base" for Western interests.

This became British policy and combined with Nehru's non-aligned policy and then India's creeping friendship with the Soviet Union saw Pakistan become part of the West Asian "brick wall" designed to counter the spread of communism.

George Bush has similarly gazed into the future to gauge how far he should recalibrate his nation's policies towards south Asia. But the US president is no mere imperial factotum - what George says, goes.

So while the world remains transfixed on the bloody ruins of the president's Middle East policies, shattering illusions that America's military punch would settle a political fight, George Bush and his secretary of state ,Condoleezza Rice, are seeking to take advantage of the changing power relations in another part of the globe.

The president's trip to south Asia must be seen the light of his nation's subtly shifting policies. Afghanistan gets a stopover visit from the president, stamping that country with a seal of approval. India gets its natural ally status and a bagful of American deals, especially its recognition as a nuclear power. Pakistan gets a press conference and a cricket match.

The reason for such contrasting stays is Bush's vision of south Asia is dominated, like that of Sir Olaf Caroe's, by the rise of a potential competitor and control of the planet's future energy resource.

This is not to say that the jehadi threat is undiminished or that global terrorism has receded, but that it might be contained: in Palestine, in the Sunni triangle and somewhere in the Hindu Kush.

As the centre of gravity of the world's economy shifts to Asia, there is recognition that India was needed as a strategic counterweight not only to China but to provide diplomatic options to Japan and Russia.

This period of history, at least in American eyes, is about relations between great powers, and in the Bush vision of India - with its dynamic economy - is about to become one of them. This alone challenges the notion that there is an emerging US empire in the world.

The second plank of Bush's policy that should also surprise many of the administration's critics is a tacit recognition of climate change.

America is the world's chimney stack when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, belching out a quarter of the world's atmosphere-altering fumes. China follows on 16%, while relatively unindustrialised India emits 6%. Mr Bush reasons that carbon emission rates are unsustainable - effectively buying the argument over climate change.

Not being disposed to government intervention, the American president has chosen to rely on new technology to fuel future clean growth.

Washington seems convinced that burning plutonium, the vital ingredient in any nuclear bomb, is the answer to clean energy generation and is pushing plans for a global project to do so. India has had 2,000 scientists working for three decades on such technology, most notably in its fast breeder programme.

The US therefore signed a nuclear deal with India on apparently favourable terms to Delhi. However it is dressed up, this is a tilt towards India.

The Bush visit has also motivated sections of society inimical to America's embrace. The left and Muslim groups have made it clear they do not buy America's new-found love for Indian democracy and "dazzling" social set up. Mr Bush cannot be blamed for all the country's ills, but many in India do not see the US as a benevolent nation.

If the protests were large in India, across the border they were explosive. Feelings against the Bush visit were already running high in Pakistan, casting the president almost as a threat to Islam.

In policy terms, Islamabad has responded to America's new India engagement by saying it too has strategic options, and hinting that it will seek a similar nuclear deal with its long-time ally China.

Beijing is already building a nuclear reactor in Pakistan and has another planned. To transfer more nuclear technology would, if Beijing followed international law, require approval of the 45-member group of nations that make up the nuclear suppliers group.

That is very unlikely, given the antics of A Q Khan, who headed Pakistan's nuclear programme for 25 years until being sacked in 2001 after being linked to the sale of uranium enrichment equipment to Middle Eastern nations.

However, the logic of the India deal can be extended to Pakistan if one accepts a parity between the two nuclear programmes, which both have a military component.

John Bolton, the American representative to the UN, tried to make this argument on the day of the Indo-US deal when he said both Indian and Pakistani nuclear regimes were acquired "legitimately".

But Mr Bolton, despite his reputation as a neo-con, is not close to President Bush. In fact he was removed from the state department because of his unwillingness to grasp the president's new strategy.

That line of thinking was shut down by Ms Rice later that day when she said Pakistan and India were in different "places".

Another effect of the President's trip is that Pakistan has sought to bolster its reputation on two fronts. One is to impress on the world Islamabad's role on the war against terrorism and hence the bombing in Wazirstan.

This is problematic in that it reinforces the impression within Pakistan that Mr Musharraf is fighting a war on America's behalf.

It has also reignited a public spat with Afghanistan, which has pushed the argument that Pakistani territory is being used by the Taliban to regroup and rearm before launching lethal attacks. For the Pakistani military, it has uncomfortable echoes of India's claims of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir.

The other, more promising, shift is Mr Musharraf's emphasis on development. He has made it clear that there was much work to be done in terms of advancing literacy and poverty alleviation and that Pakistan's vision should not be "India-centric".

However, he did say that the military would continue to be "India-centric for obvious reasons" - a sign to Delhi that Pakistan would remain vigilant against Indian attempts at hegemony in the region.

This might seem innocuous, but it would be better for Pakistan if the army stepped back into the shadows and reduced the amount of the country's GDP it eats up. Even better is to return the country to civilian rule.

It is important to remember that all these developments happened after President Bush's visit. They underline the strength of American power in the world today.

Yesterday's bombing in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi showed that the bombers can easily run amok in India's open society and analysts were quick to point out that being a US partner made the country vulnerable to attack.

With events threatening to overwhelm the British empire, Sir Olaf reached for a spectacular foreign policy solution. Despite the mess and incompetence of his Iraq misadventure and verbal blasting of Iran, Mr Bush again has also opted for a set of revolutionary policies in a part of the world that requires delicate handling.