Home | Logout | Welcome sono.punam | Profile

Home Archives Categories CSS/PMS Past Papers Forums Authors Subscribe About Us Events Relevant Books Jobs

Home » International Affairs » Democracy Rekindles » Obama’s Nuclear Agenda, a Realistic View

Obama’s Nuclear Agenda, a Realistic ViewIt is because of the fact that nuclear weapons are considered as an agent of peace, stability and security in the international arena.

Democracy RekindlesSaturday, May 01, 2010

Related Issues

Election to European Parliament

SEEING IN IRAQ THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN

The Future of CHINESE MODEL GOVERNANCE

Are we sliding to World War III

Boko Haram Attacks on Indian

Consulates and Emerging Trends in Indo-Pak Relations

Will India's Modi

In the realm of 21st century, the US President Barrack Obama has spearheaded amove to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. He has set a very ambitious and arduous goal. It is because of the fact that nuclear weapons are considered as anagent of peace, stability and security inthe international arena. Though it is another debate that sometimes peace out of the balance of terror hangs in balance. However, there are some impediments which need to be rectified inorder to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

Before outlining the main points, it is pertinent to elaborate certain points of Obama’s nuclear agenda. Firstly, he vows to reduce the significance of nukes in national security strategy. Secondly, he embarks upon to get the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) ratified by the US Senate. Thirdly, he pledges that the US will maintain a safe, secure

Be A Reformer? Friends in Need:

Geopolitics of China-Russia Energy Relations

The Perils of Asia's Nationalist PowerGame

America's Purpose and Role In A Changed World

Advertisement

and effective arsenal to deter its enemies as long as such arms continue to exist.

Fourthly, the American President makes a commitment to sign the START-1 Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia and brings others into its sphere.Fifthly, he seeks a new treaty that verifiably ends production of fissile material. Sixthly, he vows to strengthen the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty 1970). Lastly, he vows to support the Iranian right to civilian use of nuclear energy as per under Article (iv) of the NPT.

Indo-Pak rivalry is best suited examplein this case. In order to maintain abalance of power in the region, Pakistanwas forced to reciprocate India’s nuclearexplosions in May 1998. In a nutshell,this factor also hinders progress in theway of achieving a nuclear weapon freeworld.However, there are some factors which impede the goal of nuclear weapons free world. Some of these obstacles are given below: firstly, nuclear weapons are considered as an agent of peace and security. It sponsors nuclear deterrence.This phenomenon has avoided war between nuclear adversaries. So due to this factor, states are reluctant to cooperatewith each other. Charles De Gaulle has rightly pointed out:                                                  “No country without an atom bomb could consider itself independent.”

Then the major powers like the US and Russia having 95% of the world’s nuclear weapon stockpiles are more concerned withthe threat of horizontal proliferation than achieving the goal of disarmament. The other three legal nuclear power states- France, the UK and China- are also following the former suit.

Furthermore, the role of dilapidated and dichotomous NPT is also very decisive. Article (vi) of the NPT reiterates that all the nuclear weapon states endeavor togo for nuclear disarmament. Then article (ix) of the NPT is discriminatory in nature because it recognized only five states as the legal nuclear weapon stateswhich went nuclear before 1970.

Moreover, in this anarchical world, states always go for relative goals and national interests which ignite conflictsand clash of interests. Liberals believe that arms race creates fear and fear leads to insecurity which leads to arms race which is a vicious cycle. The arms race often creates conventional disparities and security dilemmas for theweaker states. So in order to overcome these disparities, states go for nuclear weapons. Indo-Pak rivalry is best suited example in this case. In order to maintain a balance of power in the region, Pakistan was forced to reciprocate India’s nuclear explosions inMay 1998. In a nutshell, this factor alsohinders progress in the way of achieving a nuclear weapon free world.

Hindrance in the way of nuclear free world is the double standards of the west. The US and the west never dare to chide Israel for its hidden nuclear programme.

Last but not the least, hindrance in theway of nuclear free world is the doublestandards of the west. The US and thewest never dare to chide Israel for itshidden nuclear programme. On the otherhand, they are pushing Iran which is alsoa signatory to the NPT. Then the123 Indo-US Nuclear Deal 2008 is also anignominious example of western doublestandards. It is igniting radicalism inthe Muslim world which is a bad omen forthe peace and security of the world.Martin Luther King said:

                                  

                               “Injustice anywhere is a threat tojustice everywhere.”

 

The long and short of the matter is thatthe dichotomy between that is preachedand what is practiced is a stumblingblock in the way of achieving a nukesfree world. We can achieve a world freeof nuclear weapons by reducing thediscrepancy between the words and thedeeds. Being the only power to have usedthe nuclear weapons against an adversary-Japan, the US has a moral obligation tostart off with the disarmament process.There is a need for incremental andholistic approach to get out of this

quagmire.

The NPT is still far away from achievingits desired objective. So there is a needto strengthen the non-proliferationregime by enforcing the NPT with trueletter and spirit. Furthermore, the issueof conventional disparities should alsobe discussed with great care. Moreover,the grievances of the smaller statesshould also be discussed. The doublestandards of the west must be redressed.The US should make a civilian nucleardeal with Pakistan as it had signed withIndia. In the end, the major nuclearpower states should go for disarmamentinstead of thwarting the horizontalproliferation. The euphoria created byObama’s nuclear policy needs to beconsolidated. To conclude, we should doaway with these lethal weapons that wouldbe a great hope to the humanity.Churchill has rightly said:

                                          

                                    “If you go on with this nuclear armsrace,

                                     all you are going to do is to makethe rubble

                                     bounce.”Mohammad Shoaib NissoanaArticle viewed 787 times.

Home Magazine Archives CSS/PMS Past Papers Categories Authors

Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us Copyright

Copyright © jWorldTimes.com 2010 - 2014, All Rights are Reserved

Home | Logout | Welcome sono.punam | Profile

Home Archives Categories CSS/PMS Past Papers Forums

Authors Subscribe About Us Events Relevant Books Jobs

Home » International Affairs » Pak-China relationship New Horizons » Obama’s Asian visit: the Pak, China factor

Obama’s Asian visit: the Pak, China factorIn the weeks preceding Obama’s visit to India, there was an attempt by theObama Administration to remove the impression among the Indians the US was giving greater priority to China

Pak-China relationship New HorizonsSaturday, January 01, 2011

The top most agenda of Present Obama’s visit to Asia, prticularly India was a frank exchange of views with the leaderships of these countries on

Related Issues

Election to European Parliament

SEEING IN IRAQ THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN

The Future of CHINESE MODEL GOVERNANCE

Are we sliding to World War III

Boko Haram Attacks on Indian

Consulates and Emerging Trends in Indo-Pak Relations

Will India's Modi Be A Reformer?

Friends in Need: Geopolitics of China-Russia Energy Relations

The Perils of Asia's Nationalist PowerGame

America's Purpose and Role In A

Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rise of China. In fact the US sees a bigger role for India in the region, especially with its unease over China's growing economic development. The question arises that whether a strong Indo-US relationship willhave any impact an already strained Indo-China relationship? In New Delhi there is a great degree of concern over Obama's Pakistan policy. The Obama administration depends mainly on Pakistan in the war on terror. For this purpose, the US has announced military aid worth US$2 billion for Pakistan. Actually Americans have a plan to  maintain a balance between India and Pakistan. On the other hand, the US has now embarked upon a strategy to prop up India as a counterweight to China’s growing political and economic power.

Regarding Obama’s visit to India and its influence on Pakistan, the first point is that Obama maintained silence on Kashmir rather giving statements asking India and Pakistan to resolve their longstanding issues. His support for a step-by-step solution to first tackle the ‘easy’ issuesis, in fact, backing of the Indian approach to the Indo-Pak talks. However, he supported the demand of ending human rights violations in Myanmar but did not utter even a single word about right abuses in Indian-held Kashmir.To bring India closer to the US, PresidentObama offered maximum incentives to New Delhi, including recognition of Indian global leadership, easing of controls on high-tech exports, backing of its role in Afghanistan and support for Indian

Changed World

Advertisement

membership of four multilateral export control regimes.The strategic prize for India was Obama’s support for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council permanent seat which topped Delhi’s old desire.

On the other side of the border, China andPakistan are looking at Obama’s visit froma different angle. They are considering itas a warning not to underestimate the Indian designs. Obama is the first US President, who visited India while flying over Pakistan. Skipping Islamabad is considered ignoring Pakistan’s frontline role in the US war on terror. In Pakistan,people may not like the US but they love Obama. There could be so many reasons for this liking but the most prominent of all these reasons is President Obama’s unannounced relationship with Islam. He isperhaps the only American president whose success was warmly celebrated in Pakistan.There was a very common feeling in Pakistan that President Obama would minimize the distances created by the Bushadministration between the two countries. Now it seems that all those feelings were nothing but a sweet dream; whether black or white, Americans are Americans; they all think and act in the same way and the same direction; this is what now people ofPakistan opine.

Side-lining Pakistan is, in fact, a message to the people of Pakistan from their most loved and admired US leader Obama that Pakistan is a means not the destination; they must not over-estimate

their actual position. No doubt it is a very bitter message but it would help themrealise the situation and act accordingly in future. For the last many decades, Pakistan has been sacrificing almost all it could, but it got nothing in return. Obama’s visit to India is the best exampleof this distrust and disbelief.

In the weeks preceding Obama’s visit to India, there was an attempt by the Obama Administration to remove the impression among the Indians the US was giving greater priority to China and was encouraging a strategic role for China in South Asia in the context of Afghanistan and Indo-Pak relations. The US policy was clarified by Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, in a speech on October28 this year. She said: "The relationship between China and the United States is complex and of enormous consequence but weare committed to getting it right. There are some in both countries who believe that China's interests and ours are fundamentally at odds. They apply a zero-sum calculation to our relationship, so whenever one of us succeeds, the other must fail. But that is not our view. In the 21st century, it is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries. In a crowded field of highly dynamic, increasingly influential emerging nations,two stand out: India and China. Their simultaneous rise is reshaping the world and our ability to cooperate effectively with these countries will be a critical test of our leadership."

The policy of cooperating effectively withIndia and China was also underlined by Obama’s White House aides in their interactions with the media before President Obama’s visit to India. This policy of equality of strategic relationship with India and China without favouring one to the detriment of the other is reflected  in the references to India’s engagement with the East in Obama’s address to the Indian Parliament and in the joint statement issued at the end of his visit to India: “The two leaders have a shared vision for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, the Indian Ocean region and the Pacific regionand committed to work together, and with others in the region, for the evolution ofan open, balanced and inclusive architecture in the region. In this context, the two leaders reaffirmed their support for the East Asia Summit and committed to regular consultations in thisregard. It is evident that the US will notlike to get involved in matters relating to the Sino-Indian border dispute. Remarksby Hillary Clinton and other US officials have indicated that the US will not be averse to playing a role in the search fora mutually satisfactory solution to the maritime disputes involving China with Japan in the East China Sea and with some ASEAN countries in the South China Sea. But, it does not envisage a role for itself in the territorial disputes betweenIndia and China. This suits India too which prefers sorting out bilateral issues— whether with Pakistan or China — at the

bilateral level without the involvement ofthird party. President Obama’s visit brought a vivid change in the political scenario of South Asia. Instead of patronizing India, US should try to improve its relationship with China and Pakistan. All these countries enjoy a better repute in the region than India. Relationship with thesecountries would add to the honour and credibility of the US. In fact, India has earned a lot of bad reputation because of its involvement in various nefarious activities in the region. It has so many conflicts and confrontation with the neighbouring countries. China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and above all Sri Lanka,all are in trouble at the hands of New Delhi. Pakistan has always been the worst victim to the Indian atrocities. The hegemonic desires of India have turned this region into a battlefield. President Obama should cast a deep look into the state of affairs. His role must be of a solicitor not that of an instigator. It istime for Obama to show his statesmanship and convince Indian leadership to resolve Kashmir dispute as per the UN resolutions.President Obama is a wise and intelligent politician, who prefers rightful and fair deals and knows very well how to tackle the situation. Being ambassador of world peace, he can initiate and guarantee a long term peace and prosperity in the region.

— JWT desk

JWT DeskArticle viewed 578 times.

Home Magazine Archives CSS/PMS Past Papers Categories Authors

Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us Copyright

Copyright © jWorldTimes.com 2010 - 2014, All Rights are Reserved

Home | Logout | Welcome sono.punam | Profile

Home Archives Categories CSS/PMS Past Papers Forums Authors Subscribe About Us Events Relevant Books Jobs

Home » International Affairs » Pak-China relationship New Horizons » Obama’s Asian visit: the Pak, China factor

Related Issues

Election to European

Obama’s Asian visit: the Pak, China factorIn the weeks preceding Obama’s visit to India, there was an attempt by theObama Administration to remove the impression among the Indians the US was giving greater priority to China

Pak-China relationship New HorizonsSaturday, January 01, 2011

The top most agenda of Present Obama’s visit to Asia, prticularly India was a frank exchange of views with the leaderships of these countries on Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rise of China. In fact the US sees a bigger role for India in the region, especially with its unease over China's growing economic development. The question arises that whether a strong Indo-US relationship willhave any impact an already strained Indo-China relationship? In New Delhi there is a great degree of concern over Obama's Pakistan policy. The Obama administration depends mainly on Pakistan in the war on

Parliament SEEING IN IRAQ

THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN

The Future of CHINESE MODEL GOVERNANCE

Are we sliding to World War III

Boko Haram Attacks on Indian

Consulates and Emerging Trends in Indo-Pak Relations

Will India's Modi Be A Reformer?

Friends in Need: Geopolitics of China-Russia Energy Relations

The Perils of Asia's Nationalist PowerGame

America's Purpose and Role In A Changed World

Advertisement

terror. For this purpose, the US has announced military aid worth US$2 billion for Pakistan. Actually Americans have a plan to  maintain a balance between India and Pakistan. On the other hand, the US has now embarked upon a strategy to prop up India as a counterweight to China’s growing political and economic power.

Regarding Obama’s visit to India and its influence on Pakistan, the first point is that Obama maintained silence on Kashmir rather giving statements asking India and Pakistan to resolve their longstanding issues. His support for a step-by-step solution to first tackle the ‘easy’ issuesis, in fact, backing of the Indian approach to the Indo-Pak talks. However, he supported the demand of ending human rights violations in Myanmar but did not utter even a single word about right abuses in Indian-held Kashmir.To bring India closer to the US, PresidentObama offered maximum incentives to New Delhi, including recognition of Indian global leadership, easing of controls on high-tech exports, backing of its role in Afghanistan and support for Indian membership of four multilateral export control regimes.The strategic prize for India was Obama’s support for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council permanent seat which topped Delhi’s old desire.

On the other side of the border, China andPakistan are looking at Obama’s visit froma different angle. They are considering itas a warning not to underestimate the

Indian designs. Obama is the first US President, who visited India while flying over Pakistan. Skipping Islamabad is considered ignoring Pakistan’s frontline role in the US war on terror. In Pakistan,people may not like the US but they love Obama. There could be so many reasons for this liking but the most prominent of all these reasons is President Obama’s unannounced relationship with Islam. He isperhaps the only American president whose success was warmly celebrated in Pakistan.There was a very common feeling in Pakistan that President Obama would minimize the distances created by the Bushadministration between the two countries. Now it seems that all those feelings were nothing but a sweet dream; whether black or white, Americans are Americans; they all think and act in the same way and the same direction; this is what now people ofPakistan opine.

Side-lining Pakistan is, in fact, a message to the people of Pakistan from their most loved and admired US leader Obama that Pakistan is a means not the destination; they must not over-estimate their actual position. No doubt it is a very bitter message but it would help themrealise the situation and act accordingly in future. For the last many decades, Pakistan has been sacrificing almost all it could, but it got nothing in return. Obama’s visit to India is the best exampleof this distrust and disbelief.

In the weeks preceding Obama’s visit to India, there was an attempt by the Obama

Administration to remove the impression among the Indians the US was giving greater priority to China and was encouraging a strategic role for China in South Asia in the context of Afghanistan and Indo-Pak relations. The US policy was clarified by Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, in a speech on October28 this year. She said: "The relationship between China and the United States is complex and of enormous consequence but weare committed to getting it right. There are some in both countries who believe that China's interests and ours are fundamentally at odds. They apply a zero-sum calculation to our relationship, so whenever one of us succeeds, the other must fail. But that is not our view. In the 21st century, it is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries. In a crowded field of highly dynamic, increasingly influential emerging nations,two stand out: India and China. Their simultaneous rise is reshaping the world and our ability to cooperate effectively with these countries will be a critical test of our leadership."

The policy of cooperating effectively withIndia and China was also underlined by Obama’s White House aides in their interactions with the media before President Obama’s visit to India. This policy of equality of strategic relationship with India and China without favouring one to the detriment of the other is reflected  in the references to India’s engagement with the East in

Obama’s address to the Indian Parliament and in the joint statement issued at the end of his visit to India: “The two leaders have a shared vision for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, the Indian Ocean region and the Pacific regionand committed to work together, and with others in the region, for the evolution ofan open, balanced and inclusive architecture in the region. In this context, the two leaders reaffirmed their support for the East Asia Summit and committed to regular consultations in thisregard. It is evident that the US will notlike to get involved in matters relating to the Sino-Indian border dispute. Remarksby Hillary Clinton and other US officials have indicated that the US will not be averse to playing a role in the search fora mutually satisfactory solution to the maritime disputes involving China with Japan in the East China Sea and with some ASEAN countries in the South China Sea. But, it does not envisage a role for itself in the territorial disputes betweenIndia and China. This suits India too which prefers sorting out bilateral issues— whether with Pakistan or China — at the bilateral level without the involvement ofthird party. President Obama’s visit brought a vivid change in the political scenario of South Asia. Instead of patronizing India, US should try to improve its relationship with China and Pakistan. All these countries enjoy a better repute in the region than India. Relationship with thesecountries would add to the honour and

credibility of the US. In fact, India has earned a lot of bad reputation because of its involvement in various nefarious activities in the region. It has so many conflicts and confrontation with the neighbouring countries. China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and above all Sri Lanka,all are in trouble at the hands of New Delhi. Pakistan has always been the worst victim to the Indian atrocities. The hegemonic desires of India have turned this region into a battlefield. President Obama should cast a deep look into the state of affairs. His role must be of a solicitor not that of an instigator. It istime for Obama to show his statesmanship and convince Indian leadership to resolve Kashmir dispute as per the UN resolutions.President Obama is a wise and intelligent politician, who prefers rightful and fair deals and knows very well how to tackle the situation. Being ambassador of world peace, he can initiate and guarantee a long term peace and prosperity in the region.

— JWT desk

JWT DeskArticle viewed 578 times.

Home Magazine Archives CSS/PMS Past Papers Categories Authors

Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us

Copyright

Copyright © jWorldTimes.com 2010 - 2014, All Rights are Reserved