World Tibet Network News Monday, June 22, 1998

By Thomas W. Lippman

Sunday, June 21, 1998; Page A21

Washington Post Staff Writer

As soon as the news that India had tested nuclear weapons reached a stunned Clinton administration on May 11, Washington began an intense campaign to punish India politically and economically for what the United States regarded as a reckless violation of international norms.

Six weeks later, India has been hit by economic sanctions from the United States, Japan and other countries, cut off from funding by international development banks, and verbally pummeled by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- still the only recognized nuclear powers -- and the group of eight major industrial nations.

Having orchestrated that response, the Clinton administration now faces a new question: What next?

India -- a proud, sensitive, democratic and nuclear-capable country of 1 billion people and immense potential -- has rejected the international criticism as ill-informed and wrongheaded, and has made clear it has no intention of giving up its nuclear program. Within the Clinton administration, realization is growing that if relations are to be repaired, India's position may have to be accommodated.

"We agree that they will be an important global power in the 21st

century," a senior administration official said last week. "We are trying assiduously to take into account the Indian world view," a view that he said includes resentment that China, a communist country with a long history of nuclear proliferation, is in favor with the Clinton administration while India, a democracy with no record of nuclear proliferation, is taking an international drubbing.

This official said some in the administration, seeing India only through the perspective of nuclear proliferation, want to do more to curb its aspirations to be a nuclear power. But others are more eager to put aside the administration's anger and sense of betrayal and resume efforts to build a constructive relationship with the South Asian giant.

"There still is danger here of further steps by [India or Pakistan] that could move us closer to a truly catastrophic event," White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger told Washington Post editors and reporters Wednesday. "But we have to keep in mind our long-term interest in the way India evolves. Listen to the president as he talked about the tests: He talked about the greatness of India and the potential of India and the tremendous benefits that could come from a closer relationship with India. . . . I don't want to lose sight and the president doesn't want to lose sight of the opportunity after the

Cold War to develop a fitting relationship with the world's largest democracy."

"We want to see India prosper and thrive and attain its aspirations for itself in the next century," said Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. "One of the reasons for the intensity of President Clinton's feelings, Secretary [of State Madeleine K.] Albright's feelings . . . is because it was particularly disappointing, and I would say even dismaying, coming from a country which otherwise seemed to be moving in

the right direction in so many ways. So in no sense is our policy

intended to be directed against India or anti-Indian."

During the Cold War, India was officially nonaligned but had warm

political and economic relations with the Soviet Union, while the United States was close to India's historic enemy, Pakistan. With the passing of Cold War attitudes, the Clinton administration had committed itself to building better economic and political ties to an India that was opening up its markets.

Albright went to India to advance that cause late last year, and Clinton was planning to visit this fall, a plan that is now officially described as "under review."

Albright and other officials were furious when the tests were announced, not just because they challenged the international consensus Washington had been building against further tests by anyone, but also because officials of India's ruling BJP party had assured the Americans that no tests were imminent -- even though their party campaigned on a pro-nuclear platform.

"The Indians embarrassed Bill Richardson," a State Department official said, referring to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who visited India and Pakistan just before the tests. "They made him look foolish to the Pakistanis, because he went to Islamabad saying the Indians had assured him of a policy of restraint."

"We were told by a former BJP president that while they recognized that ideology is the path to power, governance is the path to staying in power," another State Department official said. "It was a pretty reassuring statement. But preparations to test were already being made. We were certainly misled. Now, though, that's water under the bridge."

According to Indian Ambassador Naresh Chandra, however, the United States has concocted these tales of duplicity to deflect criticism of the failure of U.S. intelligence agencies to detect preparations for the May 11 nuclear blasts and for another set of tests two days later.

In an interview, Chandra said the U.S. response to India's tests has been misinformed and counterproductive on this and virtually every other point. He and other Indian officials said India acted out of legitimate security concerns, prompted by Chinese support for Pakistan's nuclear programs, and that India rejects lectures from countries that have their own nuclear arsenals.

Chandra said India sees China aiding Pakistan, militarizing Tibet and cementing ties to the military government in Burma -- in effect encircling India at the same time it is being courted by the United States.

"Should India live in constant trepidation?" Chandra asked. "To expect a people who constitute one-sixth of mankind to be outside the network of nuclear guarantees that others have is not acceptable."

Chandra was particularly scornful of Albright's comment that India has squandered the pacifist legacy of Mohandas K. Gandhi and of India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who often irritated the United States back in the 1950s by calling for a global ban on nuclear weapons, an objective India says it still seeks.

"I didn't know she admired Nehru so much," Chandra said. "He was never listened to by the United States back when he was calling for a nuclear standstill. I'm so glad he's been discovered."

Albright has insisted that India will never be permitted to enter the international nuclear nonproliferation system as a declared nuclear power. But to the Indians, such a position is pointless: India is a nuclear state because it has nuclear weapons, not because Washington says so.

"India is now a nuclear weapon state," Prime Minister Atal Bihari

Vajpayee said in a statement to parliament after the tests. "This is a reality that cannot be denied. It is not a conferment that we seek; nor is it a status for others to grant. It is an endowment to the nation by our scientists and engineers. It is India's due."