Clinton’s conciliatory stance in India reflects U.S. concern

Although the frontline of America’s war on global terrorism is Pakistan and Afghanistan, India’s role in the nuclear sweepstakes in that region of the world cannot be ignored. India and its long-time rival Pakistan have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that can take them deep into the other country. But with Pakistan’s central government under attack by Islamic militants tied the Taliban and al-Qaida, the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands is very real.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India and her conciliatory stance on the highly contentious subject of global warming suggest that the Obama administration wants to ensure that it has a dependable ally should Pakistan and Afghanistan’s pro-West governments be replaced by the militants.

Such a change would not only destabilize the entire region, but it would raise the stakes in the Middle East with Iran getting a major boost in its nuclear capability from the new government in Pakistan.

It is important, therefore, for the United States to have India in its camp. Clinton’s visit should go a long way toward reassuring the Indians that this nation is not choosing sides when it pays so much attention to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida, the Taliban and other terrorist groups “are connected in a way that is deeply troubling to us and I know to India,” Clinton said. “We expect every nation to take action against terrorism.”

But while the U.S. and India have a common enemy in terrorism — both countries have been the target of terrorist attacks — the issue of climate changes does pose a major challenge.

Reassurance

Clinton, who was joined by Todd Stern, special U.S. envoy for climate change, insisted that it is not the administration’s goal to undermine the economic growth necessary to lift millions out of poverty. She added that the U.S. “will not do anything that would limit India’s economic progress.”

But President Barack Obama wants India to accept limits on carbon emissions as part of an international climate change agreement. At the same time, however, developing countries argue that the industrialized nations are the world’s major polluters and they should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions.

To illustrate just how difficult it will be to find a solution to global warming, consider this statement from India’s minister for environment and forests: “There is simply no case for the pressure that we — who have among the lowest emissions per capita — face to actually reduce emissions,” Jairam Ramesh told Clinton and her visiting delegation. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”

Clinton responded by saying that Ramesh presented a “fair argument.” But she said India’s case “loses force” because the fast-growing country’s absolute level of carbon emissions — as opposed to the per capita amount — is “going up and dramatically.”

However, she insisted that India and the U.S. can jointly devise a breakthrough plan for fighting climate change that will generate massive new investments and millions of jobs.

On Monday, the secretary of state signed agreements with Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna to expand American access of key Indian markets.

One agreement would result in U.S. companies being able to sell civilian nuclear power reactors. That could mean $10 billion worth of business.

Such strengthening of the relationship is not only good from an economic standpoint, but is important for the region, which could face major turmoil if Pakistan and Afghanistan fall into the wrong hands.