F. N. YURLOV, Doctor of Historical Sciences Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences

global crisis Keywords:, India, China, USA

In the context of the global financial and economic crisis, relations between India, China and the United States are becoming very important, especially given the recession in Europe and the sluggish growth of the American economy. Despite the crisis, India and China are showing strong economic growth. However, they are not isolated from the global economy, and each country reacts differently to its manifestations.

India is experiencing more serious difficulties than the PRC, as it was unable to solve a number of fundamental development problems before the crisis, such as the poverty of huge masses of the population and weak infrastructure, while at the same time becoming more open to external influences as a result of the liberalization of its economy. It is easier for China to cope with the impact of the crisis, as it has managed to achieve high economic growth rates over the past two decades and to expand its domestic market to a certain extent. In turn, the United States has to deal with difficult problems associated with slow economic growth, high unemployment and the weakening of its position in the world.

All this affects not only the relations between these three countries, but also the situation in the world and the prospects for overcoming the current crisis.

In times of crisis, the developed countries of the West, especially the United States, are increasingly turning their eyes to the East, mainly towards China and India, which can significantly accelerate the very slow and unstable recovery of the global economy. Moreover, the role of these countries is growing. This is evidenced, for example, by the June 2012 announcement by China and India of their readiness to make a significant contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in order to overcome the crisis in the euro area (China - $43 billion, India - $10 billion)^.1

Today, it can be argued that the discussion that has continued in recent years about the changing balance of economic forces in the world has essentially ended with the recognition that economic power is gradually moving from West to East. The former world economic order, dominated by the United States and Western Europe, is forced to give way to a new system in which non-Western countries are beginning to prevail. More and more scientists (and at least politicians) are coming to the conclusion that the advantage of the West as a whole is becoming a thing of the past. It is becoming increasingly difficult for Western countries to defend the old system of international financial and economic relations.²

Fast-growing countries-China, India, Brazil and others-represent a different set of civilizational, cultural, economic and political values than the West. Some of them still view the world through the historical lens of their anti-imperialist and anti-colonial past. They have a different attitude to the problems of the "golden billion", which is covered by the financial and economic crisis that began in the United States and spread to other countries. Now the American model of liberal capitalism is being questioned, including confidence in the fairness of the market economy. This is especially evident against the backdrop of large-scale social problems facing India, China, as well as other Asian, Latin American and African countries. They are increasingly raising the issue of revising the

Developing countries benefit from a financial and economic system that retains the leadership of the United States, the West, and Japan.

For example, at the BRICS summit held in New Delhi in March 2012, the heads of State of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa accused the rich countries that their policies had destabilized the global economy and caused a financial crisis. At this forum, it was also said that the monetary policy of the West gives huge advantages to developed countries and creates obstacles for developing countries. BRICS members have demanded a review of their voting share in the IMF as their role in the global economy grows. They also expressed the need to establish a development bank (within the BRICS framework)to facilitate access to financing sources for less developed countries. ³

According to the IMF, in 2011, the world economy grew by 3.8% compared to the previous year and amounted to $78.897 trillion. At the same time, China and India ranked 2nd and 4th in the world in terms of GDP (purchasing power parity-PPP). Accordingly: the United States - $15.075 trillion, China - $11.3 trillion, Japan - $4.44 trillion, India - $4.42 trillion, Germany - $3.11 trillion ⁴*.

The economies of China, India, and the United States grew by 9.2%, 6.8%, and 1.6% respectively over the same year, while Germany's GDP grew by 3.1%, and Japan's contracted by 0.8%. The top ten largest economies in 2011 included Russia (4.3% growth), Brazil (2.7%), the United Kingdom (0.8%), France (1.7%), and Italy (0.4%).5

According to the IMF's forecast, the global economy will grow by 3.3% in 2012 compared to the previous year. In developed countries, growth will be 1.3%, including in the United States-2.2%, in Japan-2.2%, in the European Union there will be a decline of 0.4%. At the same time, emerging and developing economies are expected to grow at 5.3%, including 7.8% in China and 4.9% in India.⁶

In just five years, the global economy may change significantly in favor of emerging market countries, primarily China and India. According to IMF forecasts, in 2017, China's economy will be $20.336 (PPP), the United States - $19.704 trillion, India - $7.574 trillion, Japan - $5.324 trillion ⁷**.

In general, we can say that a new economic system is gradually developing in the world, in which large growing countries such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, etc. occupy an increasing place.

Does this mean that the entire post-World War II international order will be radically revised? It should be taken into account that the West, led by the United States, still has great power and influence, which makes it possible to prevent radical changes in this direction. In addition, the growth of new economies is itself linked to the already established world order.*** These economies do not yet represent a solid unity that would allow them to promote their ideas more decisively. The foreign policy orientation of countries such as India, as well as other fast-growing countries, still remains unclear, and it seems that they have not yet decided what place they should occupy in this rapidly changing world.

At the same time, it is also clear that in the context of current global changes and a prolonged crisis, the balance of power on the world stage is changing and may be subject to even deeper changes in the foreseeable future.

INDIA'S TOP PRIORITY IS INTERNAL TRANSFORMATION

The changes in Indian politics are largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent fundamental changes in the balance of power on the world stage. A significant role is also played by the increasing weight in international relations of India itself as a fast-growing economic and political power. A country's foreign policy is also influenced by its economy, social sphere, demography, ecology, etc.

India's vast human resources are themselves an important factor in international life. Moreover, India is a young country: people under the age of 35 make up more than half of the total population. However, the implementation of this "dividend", which is considered to be the human resource of Indian politicians and specialists, is a very difficult task. First, it is necessary to provide jobs for more than 18 million people entering the labor market every year. Secondly, in order to turn such a "dividend" into an advantage over aging countries (Japan, South Korea, China, most of the European Union countries), it is necessary to give these Indians an education, and this is very difficult in a country where more than a quarter of the population is illiterate.

* At the nominal (market dollar exchange rate) GDP figures look somewhat different: the US - $15.075 trillion, China - $7.298 trillion, Japan - $5.866 trillion, India - $1.826 trillion, Germany - $3.11 trillion (editor's note).

** In terms of nominal GDP, the United States will remain in first place ($19,704), followed by China ( $13.212 trillion), Japan ($5.866 trillion), Germany ($3.725 trillion), and India ($3.171 trillion).

* * * It seems that we should also take into account the fact that the international economic order that emerged after the Second World War has already undergone fundamental changes: in particular, in 1971, one of its main pillars, the "gold standard", collapsed. Prior to this de facto cancellation of the dollar's convertibility to gold, the price of a troy ounce of gold-31.1 g-did not exceed $35, and in September 2011, the historical maximum was reached - $1896.5 (editor's note by E. Rusakov).

And another very difficult problem that hinders the development of India is colossal poverty. 455 million people are living beyond absolute poverty. Their income is $1.25 per day. And this is despite the fact that 48 Indian oligarchs hold assets worth more than a quarter of the country's GDP. In such circumstances, economic growth and the global integration of a relatively small elite group are unlikely to create enough employment to fully employ people of working age (16-56 years), who make up the majority of the population of 1.2 billion people. "Experience shows the opposite trend," writes Indian scholar Mehta, "of increasing the number of poor people and increasing their exclusion from the growth-oriented global economy." ⁸

Moreover, Western countries are interested, especially in times of crisis, in creating jobs at home, and not in developing countries. So, during a visit to India in 2010, US President Barack Obama set out to promote American goods to the Indian market in order to create additional jobs in America. It was assumed that the agreements signed during the visit were supposed to provide 53.7 thousand jobs in the United States9.

But India is woefully short of jobs. Unemployment is rising, and employment is at a very low level. The most significant program to increase rural employment, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, adopted in 2005, provides for one job per household for only 100 working days per year, with a salary of 80 rupees per day (less than $2) ^.10 In 2011-2012, this program covered about 50 million people.

India has made considerable progress in the development of information technology. This is facilitated by the fact that India is the third country in the world after the United States and China in terms of the availability of scientific and technical personnel. In 2011, software sales totaled more than $70 billion. Until recently, it was one of the fastest growing global markets in the information sector, including electronics. The country aims to provide 100 thousand schools with computers and conduct digital television in 70 million schools. households, etc. ¹¹

However, these large-scale plans face serious internal constraints related to the poverty and illiteracy of a large part of the population and the lack of appropriate infrastructure. It is no coincidence that India dropped from 42nd place in the world in 2010 to 48th in 2011 in terms of information and communication technology development. At the same time, China rose from 51st place to 36th. One of the main reasons for the slowdown and even setback in the development of such technologies is that India ranks only 117th in the world in terms of their individual use ¹².

It is not for nothing that many Indians believe that the main task of the country in the foreseeable future, the most important priority of its domestic and foreign policy, is to improve the lives of a huge number of the population. India has made some progress along this path, but there is still much work to be done, which may require several more decades of high annual economic growth.

India is extremely interested in a peaceful periphery around it and stability in the entire Asian region. It also needs not only high technologies for its development, but also resources - oil, high-quality coal, fertilizers, and non-ferrous metals. New Delhi is already making efforts to strengthen trade and economic cooperation with countries in Africa, South-East and West Asia. Central Asia can also become an important source of resources for India.

According to Shivankar Menon, a professional diplomat and national security adviser to the Prime Minister, India should first of all solve the most important internal problems. As for foreign policy, he believes that India plays the role of a peculiar

a balancer that helps maintain balance in world politics. Within its capabilities, the country will contribute to solving global problems that are particularly important for itself, such as ensuring freedom of navigation on the seas, especially in ^the Indian Ocean13.

CHANGING FOREIGN POLICY ORIENTATION

The dramatic change in the international situation since the end of the Cold War has required India to adopt new approaches to national security. The emerging new structure of power and influence in the world in the twenty-first century forces the countries of the former "third world", including India, to adapt to the new balance of power. If earlier they had the opportunity to take advantage of the rivalry between the two superpowers, then with the end of the cold war, these states were faced with the need for a radical revision of many foreign policy positions.

India's foreign policy has always been characterized by pragmatism, a realistic assessment of current events in the world, and global coverage of the main economic and political problems facing the international community. New Delhi adapts flexibly to changes in the world, based on national interests. As Raja Mohan, an Indian political scientist and member of the Indian National Security Advisory Council, notes, this approach has historical roots. In the book " Incredible Allies. Nuclear India, the United States, and the Global Order " refers to an episode from the great Indian epic Mahabharata. After the battle of the two clans - the Pandavas and the Kauravas - one of the heroes of the story, Bhishma, said: "There are no eternal, permanent friends and enemies. Friendship and enmity are determined by interests and benefits. Friendship can turn into hostility over time. An enemy can become a friend. Circumstances create friends and enemies." Immediately, Mohan adds, " There is no evidence to suggest that this lesson has been forgotten by the Indian State."¹⁴

NATO's aggression in Yugoslavia in 1999 showed many developing countries that they cannot be indifferent, even in remote regions of the world. New Delhi condemned the use of force by the United States and its allies against a sovereign State as contrary to the UN Charter and international legal norms. According to the then Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia confirmed the correctness of India's nuclear choice in 1998. ¹⁵

In its foreign policy, New Delhi takes into account, in particular, other fundamental changes taking place in Europe: the expansion of NATO to the East, the readiness of new members of the alliance to deploy its troops and weapons, the intentions of Georgia and Ukraine to join the alliance. The attempts of the United States and the European Union to significantly increase their influence in Transcaucasia and Central Asia do not go unnoticed.

Initially, New Delhi took a critical position on Washington's intentions to create a national missile defense system, noting that all arms control agreements must be fully implemented in order to strengthen stability in the world. Actions related to the possibility of violating the ABM treaty "are perceived by us as inconsistent in the context of existing agreements," Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh said on the eve of a visit to Moscow in 2000. They "can limit the prospects for further nuclear disarmament, weaken the nonproliferation regime, and push nuclear Powers to reconsider their plans to modernize strategic weapons." ¹⁶

However, in 2001, after the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the Indians changed their position on this issue. The Indian government supported the US initiative as a rejection of Cold War norms in favor of"cooperation, not confrontation." Delhi stated that "there is a strategic and technological inevitability in the transition from a world that is held hostage."-

a transition from the doctrine of mutual assured destruction*, to a world based on cooperation, to a defense transition period in which weapons will be further reduced and nuclear missiles will be removed from combat duty"¹⁷. The latter provision came into a certain contradiction with India's previous statements that there is no drastic reduction of nuclear weapons in the world, which prompted it to conduct nuclear tests in 1998. A number of political parties, including the Indian National Congress, which was in opposition, then opposed the US plans for missile defense, considering that they could negatively affect the prospects for nuclear disarmament. ¹⁸

THE GREAT U-TURN

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, India began to reassess its relations with the United States. However, the process of rapprochement between the two countries lasted for a whole decade, which was largely facilitated in 1998 by the testing of nuclear weapons by India and the subsequent sanctions by Washington.

The first noticeable progress in Indian-American relations took place during the visit of US President B. Clinton to India in March 2000.

India's line of engagement with the United States was vigorously pursued by the National Democratic Alliance Government led by A. B. Vajpayee and the George W. Bush administration. Back in his first presidential campaign in 2000, Bush described India as an "important but unfairly forgotten" country, noting that for many years America had been India's main trading partner, but the two countries lacked closer political cooperation.

India, with its rapidly growing economy, is a huge market for the United States, including in the field of civil nuclear energy. In July 2005, the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, and the President of the United States, J. R. R. Tolkien.The two presidents signed an agreement on cooperation in this area in Washington. This laid the foundation for partnership between the two countries in other areas as well.

During Singh's visit to the United States in 2009, both sides stated that they were beginning a new stage of global strategic partnership, based on the fact that the commonality of their ideals and complementary power create the basis for the United States and India to jointly confront the challenges of the twenty-first century. Washington has announced its desire to see a stable and prosperous India play an ever-increasing role in world affairs.

Relations between the two countries began to develop more dynamically. From 2002 to 2010, the trade turnover increased from $30 billion. up to $66 billion. The volume of mutual investments increased ¹⁹.

Taking the path of dynamic development of relations with America, the Indians persistently emphasize the equal nature of these relations. Their sense of patriotism has never left them since the struggle for national liberation. In this regard, the following episode is characteristic.

In July 2012, US President Barack Obama, in an interview with the Indian news agency Press Trust of India, generally praised the trade and economic relations between the two countries and the Indian economy. At the same time, he noted that the American business community, which actively supports partnership between the two countries, expresses concern about the deterioration of the investment climate in India: "In many industries, in particular in retail, India restricts or prohibits foreign investment, which is necessary for creating jobs in both countries and for further economic growth countries " ²⁰.

Responding to Obama's interview, India's Minister of Co-operative Affairs, V. Moili, said that the US president "was misinformed about the state of affairs, moreover, India has a solid economic foundation", while the idea of the deteriorating investment climate in the country is based not on economic data, but on the opinion of individual entrepreneurs and investors. The Minister stressed that there was no economic crisis in India, "while the United States and other countries faced it not once, but twice - in 2008 and 2010." Moily also noted that in the last decade, India has demonstrated high economic growth rates, reaching 8-9,5%,

* The concept of mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, was based on the assumption that the United States and the Soviet Union had the potential to launch a nuclear missile response that would guarantee that enemy territory would turn into a nuclear desert, which kept both sides from a disarming first strike. Despite the ominous name (among other things, mad in Russian means "madness"), this idea also contained a rational grain: it recognized the advantages of approximate equality of the two sides in strategic weapons, which happened in the 1970s. The most fierce criticism of VSU and strategic balance was subjected to Washington "hawks"."who believed that the United States should achieve superiority in strategic weapons and guarantee "victory" in a general nuclear missile war.

Despite the major changes in the global strategic environment that have taken place over the past two decades, this main goal of the "hawks" and the strategists who joined them remains. And any attempts to justify the deployment of NPRO, including references to the fact that we need to get rid of the" horrors "of the VSU, seeking to reduce nuclear arsenals and" world peace", is, as it seems, a fig leaf. Today there is such a situation that the strategic arms race, even in the case of a hypothetical deep reduction of nuclear missile arsenals (and China, India, Great Britain and France do not express a desire to join the Russian Federation and the United States in such negotiations), will continue, moving into the field of anti-missiles (interceptor missiles) and anti-missiles, as well as into space (ed. by E. Rusakov).

and if not for the economic crisis in the United States and Western Europe, the country would have passed the 10.5% mark21.

India's Minister of Trade and Industry, Sharma, said that policy-making and decision-making, including foreign investment, are the sovereign right of India. It is one of the most attractive countries for foreign investors: in 2011, the number of foreign investors in the world increased by 10%. India has received investments worth more than $50 billion, or 34-35% more than in previous years.²²

A number of other major political parties also criticized the US president's statement. In particular, it was noted that the planned access to retail trade in India by such American retail giants as Walmart could harm 40 million people employed in this sector.²³

INDIA - CHINA: A TANGLE OF CONTRADICTIONS AND MUTUAL INTERESTS

India's relations with China play an important role in its foreign policy. According to Shivankar Menon, China's rise comes amid a loss of political will and economic confidence in the West. Over the past 30 years, China's economy has grown phenomenally-almost 10-fold. All of this raises concerns in India: will a fast-growing China become a hegemon in Asia? Will it become one of the leading countries in the global economy? Will China rebuild the world order for itself, as the United States did after World War II? Or will it rely on the existing security system and other structures that have so far served its growth well? There are no clear answers to these questions, either in India or in other countries.²⁴

Both Asian giants consider themselves major fast-growing powers. However, according to American researchers Teresita and Howard Schaffner, China does not consider India as an equal country in terms of economic development, based on the fact that India's overall economic and military power is inferior to China's by three to four times. The development gap between the two countries continues to grow, including in terms of per capita income, although a few decades ago these figures were approximately equal. Some Chinese experts believe that India's global ambitions are "quite understandable" but unrealistic. India is not yet ready to assume the role of one of the leading powers in the world. So, in the development of missile technologies, it lags behind China by 10 years. And today, India's desire to "put both countries on the same level can be compared to the desire of a student who gets good grades to compete with a round of excellent students" ²⁵. The real correlation of economic opportunities is reflected, in particular, in the fact that China is India's largest trading partner, while it occupies only 10% of China's trade-e place. In addition, India's trade deficit with China was $²⁷ billion in 2011.26

In the immediate Indian periphery, the situation is not easy. On the one hand, India seeks to develop cooperation with neighboring countries. On the other hand, China is also actively strengthening its relations with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar and, traditionally, with Pakistan. These states often play both the "Chinese" and "Indian ""cards". Delhi objects to any external Power acting as a balancing force in South Asia, whether in Kashmir or the Indian Ocean zone. Indians consider the Indian Ocean to be a determining factor in the country's politics and, moreover, in the historical fate of India.

Some Indian experts believe that in the eastern Indian Ocean, India should more dynamically strengthen ties with Myanmar, Indonesia, Singapore, as well as Vietnam, South Korea and Australia, which could potentially form a kind of "diamond necklace" of India-friendly countries. However, it is publicly emphasized that this should not be a cover for the creation of an anti-Chinese alliance.²⁷

There are important elements of cooperation with China, for example, in trade, which has exceeded $70 billion, as well as in international organizations and groupings such as BRICS. However, India's dialogue with China on bilateral and regional issues faces considerable difficulties. The border problem that emerged after India's defeat in a military conflict with China in 1962, according to the Chinese, does not get its solution because of the "extreme ambition" of the Indians. Its resolution on the basis of facts and representations from 50 years ago is hardly possible. New approaches are needed, taking into account the current conditions, including changes in the balance of power in the region.

Recently, in addition to the border issue, there has been another possible irritant in relations between India and China. October 2011 India and Vietnam have signed an agreement to explore oil and gas fields in the South China Sea near the Paracel Islands (Xisha), which are claimed by China, and the Spratly Archipelago (Nanung), which has become the subject of a dispute, not counting Taiwan, six states (China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Sultanate of Brunei).*. Beijing said the project is a "serious missile defense system."-

* For more information, see: Lokshin G. M. Clouds move gloomily over the Eastern Sea / / Asia and Africa Today, 2010, No. 8 (editor's note).

vocation", as it considers the South China Sea to be its sovereign part. A Chinese Foreign Ministry official suggested that India refrain from exploring for oil in the region to ensure peace and stability. The Indian Foreign Minister said that the South China Sea belongs to the whole world. Trade relations should be free from interference by any countries ²⁸.

In the future, a new problem may arise in India-China relations. It is connected to the Brahmaputra River. The fact is that China plans to work on the use of the waters of this river in its territory, where it is called Tsangpo. The Indians fear that China may withdraw water from the Brahmaputra in its upper reaches. We are talking about the planned construction of a high-rise dam in eastern Tibet, as well as a number of dams on the same river, which may seriously affect the water resources of north-eastern India. This issue was discussed by the Prime Ministers of India and China on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit of the world's leading economic powers in Mexico in ^{June 2012.29}

In multilateral organizations and groupings such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), India and China find a broader field of interaction on global and regional issues. For example, at the SCO summit in Beijing in June 2012. India, which has observer status in the group, expressed support for a number of initiatives of its members. It supported their proposals aimed at enhancing the role of Delhi in Afghanistan and expressed interest in closer coordination of efforts with the group in the fight against terrorism. At the summit, India announced its readiness to contribute $2 billion. to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

India's Foreign Minister Somanahalli Malaya Krishna said that his country would be happy to play a broader and more constructive role in the SCO as a full member when the organization decides to expand. In his opinion, a broader and more representative SCO will be able to "more effectively cope with the common challenges of security and development in our region." ³⁰

However, Beijing shows no interest in India becoming a full member of the SCO. On the possible inclusion of India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council in the event of its reorganization, he also takes a reserved position, limiting himself to general statements that this could be useful.

For its part, India, working with China, Russia, Brazil and South Africa in BRICS, from time to time comes up with initiatives within the framework of the India - Brazil - South Africa dialogue forum, which creates a certain imbalance in BRICS.

EVERYONE SUSPECTS EACH OTHER

Beijing is wary of India's claims to a global role and increased cooperation between Delhi and Washington, believing that the United States supports India in its "unrealistic ambitions." Washington's statements that the United States wants to help India become a "great power" in the twenty-first century, that India is becoming one of the powers that shape world politics in this century and make a significant contribution to ensuring international security in Asia, are also very negatively evaluated. China is particularly concerned about the possible strengthening of India's role in Southeast Asia.

In turn, New Delhi is watching the development of US-Chinese relations with increased attention, even suspicion. They fear that with the rise of the PRC in Asia and the world, there will be a threat of creating a US-Chinese "condominium" - a joint world domination of these two powers. As a result, India would remain aloof from resolving even those issues that directly affect its territorial integrity. We are talking about China's claims to Indian territories, including most of the state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this regard, Indian experts wonder whether the United States really wants India to play the role of a "balancing" force in Asia, or whether it is only a conditional, not very significant priority for America.

More specifically, their question sounds like this: will the United States be ready to help India in the event of a complication of the situation on the India-China border? At the same time, it is indicated that, from the point of view of ensuring national security, India considers China as a top priority, while China does not consider India as such.³¹

It seems that the Indians, like the Americans, do not yet have a convincing answer to the question of how much the common interests of both countries can complement each other when developing a strategic line on a global scale.

It is noteworthy that in one of his speeches in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed that India takes into account the difficulties in developing an increasingly interdependent and multipolar world. While the country recognizes that the United States is the dominant power in the world and that India's good relations with them are in its national interest, this does not in any way affect its assessment of the overall situation in international relations. There are many areas of cooperation with the United States, but at the same time, there are many areas in which the United States has a significant role to play.-

India has differences with America, and it is not afraid to tell it about it, including in public. India will not allow any other country, including the United States, to influence its policies, the Indian Prime Minister said. During a visit to the United States in 2005, he stated that the US intervention in Iraq was a mistake, and confirmed this to President Bush during his visit to India in March 2006, saying that India was not a supporter of regime change in Iraq.³²

M. Singh also stressed that India will not accept the interference of any countries in the development of its military nuclear program. Moreover, it will not allow this to become a condition for future nuclear cooperation between India and the international community.

In December 2006, Bush signed the US-India Peaceful Nuclear Energy Cooperation Act. At its core, the law reversed decades of Washington's policy of allowing India to receive U.S. nuclear technology and nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. However, according to the law, the US President undertakes to stop exporting nuclear materials to India if it conducts a nuclear weapons test*.

On this occasion, the Indian Prime Minister said that such a condition was unacceptable, even though India had unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear testing: "The possession and development of nuclear weapons is an integral part of our national security."³³

Part of the political class in India believes that the India-US nuclear agreement served the purpose of pitting India against China. But official Washington rejects this idea. They claim that the case of India is "unique" because it has ensured the protection of its nuclear technology and has not distributed it in other countries. Moreover, the agreement with India strengthened US ties with this " largest democratic power in Asia and around the world." At the same time, China reacted negatively to the Indian-American nuclear agreement, while Pakistan condemned the agreement.³⁴

Many Indian analysts are also dissatisfied with Washington's policy towards Pakistan, especially since some influential American political and public figures insisted that India make concessions to Islamabad. In particular, it was about the Kashmir issue: the Americans sought to settle it at the expense of India, in the hope that then Pakistan would relocate troops from its eastern border with India and focus them on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. New Delhi, for which Afghanistan is one of the key countries in India's immediate periphery, attaches great importance to the Afghan settlement, but cooperation with Washington in this direction has not been crowned with success. ³⁵

(The ending follows)

* For more information, see: Yurlov F. N. India: na puti k globalnoi derzhave [India: on the Path to Global Power].

^{Sharma Amol} 1 and Bob Davis. China, India Grapple with Growth Challenges // The Wall Street Journal, 09.07.2012.

^{Ikenberry John.} 2 The Future of the Liberal World Order. Internationalism After America // Foreign Affairs. May/June, 2011, p. 56 - 68.

³ The Hindu. 29.03.2012; 10.04.2012.

⁴ World Economic and Financial Surveys. World Economic Outlook Database. October 2012. By Countries (country-level data) - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo /2012/02/weodata/index.aspx

⁵ World Economic Outlook. October 2012. Coping with High Debt and Sluggish Growth. International Monetary Fund, p. 2 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/20 12/02/pdf/text.pdf

⁶ Ibidem.

⁷ World Economic and Financial Surveys. World Economic Outlook Database. October 2012...

^{Mehta Jaya.} 8 Union Budget "Pro-Poor" Exercise// Mainstream. 25.03.1995.

⁹ The White House. FACT SHEET: The National Export Initiative: U.S. - India Transactions. 06.11.2010 - http://www.white-house.gov/the-press-office/2010/ll/06/

¹⁰ United Nations. Committee for Development Policy. Report of the fourteenth session (12-16 March 2012). Economic and Social Council, pp. 8-9 - http://www.un.org/en/ development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_ecosoc/e_ 2012 33_en. pdf

¹¹ Government of India invites expression of interest for setting up of semiconductor fabs // The Economist, 2 - 8.07.2011.

¹² The Hindu. 08.04.2012.

^{Menon Shivshankar.} 13 India and the Global Scene // World Affairs. July-September 2011, p. 166 - 176.

^{Mohan С. Raja.} 14 Impossible Allies. Nuclear India, United States and the global order. New Delhi: India Research Press, 2006, p. 283.

¹⁵ The Times of India. 29.03.1999. ¹⁶ Ramachandran R. Towards a New Arms Race // Frontline. July 22 - August 04, 2000.

¹⁷ The Hindu. 12.05.2001.

¹⁸ The Deccan Herald. 18.05.2001.

^{Feigenbaum Evan A.} 19 India's Rise, America's Interest. The Fate of the U.S. - Indian Partnership // Foreign Affairs. March/April 2010.

²⁰ The Hindu. 15.07.2012.

²¹ International lobbies spreading stories on Indian economy, says Moily // The Hindu, July 16, 2012.

²² The Hindu. 16.07.2012.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

^{Schaffer Teresita} 25 and Howard. Still seriously unmatched // The Hindu. 07.06.2012.

^{Krishnan Anant.} 26 With view to the future, India, China plot way forward to ties // The Hindu. 07.06.2012.

²⁷ The Hindu. 15.10.2011.

²⁸ The Hindu. 15.09.2011; 06.04.2012.

^{Prachi Bhuchar.} 29 China Wages Water War // India Today. 29.08.2011; The Hindu. 25.06.2012.

^{Krishnan Anant.} 30 India backs SCO role in Afganistan // The Hindu. 07.06.2012.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Excerpts from Prime Minister's Reply to Discussion in Rajya Sabha on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States on 17.08.2006 // The Hindu. 01.10.2006.

³³ The Hindu. 01.10.2006.

^{Gaan Narottam, Das Sudhansubala.} 34 Indo-US Relations Towards a Rapprochement: From Post Cold War to Post September 11 // India Quarterly. A Journal of International Studies. Indian Council of World Affairs. New Deli. July-December, 2000, p. 177 - 204.

^{Menon Shivshankar.} 35 Op. cit.; Gaan Narottam, Das Sudhansubala. Op. cit.

Permanent link to this publication: