Laurendjino Laurent
United States and India Civil Nuclear Agreement
University of Central Florida
American Foreign Policy and the Political Ambition Theory
Several theories and frameworks analyze and aim to explicate some of the most complex political topics, such as foreign policy. The U.S. strategy related to foreign policy has evolved over the years. From the end of the revolution period to the early 20th century, isolationism was at the center of the U.S. foreign policy. During this period, the United States stayed out to foreign affairs. This went on or a while, but, when the World War I, World War II and the Cold War occurred, the United States was forced to stepped out of its isolationism practices, and get involved into the war. And from this point on, the United States has played a major role as an influencer in the contemporary world of global politics.
In the 21st century, new dangers such as unconventional weapons technology, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, have significant implications on the U.S. foreign policy, as they are major threats, not only to the United States, but also to global security. In the face of those new dangers, the foreign policies that were implemented had some profound impacts globally. When it comes to American foreign policy, all of the decisions taken by the President serve the national interests of the United States and of its people. Specific goals, interests, and objectives, focusing on the protection of the national security, democratic values and trading system, are the driving force behind every American foreign policy that are pursued, and every political decision that are taken. As stated in the department of state and USAID strategic plan, their mission statement is to “create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community (Department of State, n.d). These decisions and more can analyzed under a specific approach known as the political ambition theory. Also known as the rational political ambition theory, the political ambition theory attempts to explain why political leaders behave the way that they do.
This theoretical approach examines and evaluates foreign policy trends and decisions under the basic assumption that states make decisions based on them wanting power or security (Ray, 2014). Therefore, the leader of those particular states, in our case, the President of the United States, will primarily seek to stay in power. Indeed, many key foreign policy decisions in the history of the United States were in response to important international political considerations, and were principally influenced by the rational political ambition theory. In those cases, the president of the United States believed that making the wrong decision can result in the loss of his power (Ray, 2014). But, what is the right decision based on? Every foreign policy decision made by the President of the United States is made to protect America’s interests, interests that are often influenced by factors like interest groups.
How can we evaluate those interests through the rational political ambition theory? The nature of the United states foreign policy the contemporary case presented later in this paper will demonstrate whether or not the rational political ambition theory can be applied to explain the U.S’ actions and the policies taken.
Contemporary U.S foreign policy case: United States and India civil nuclear agreement
Nowadays, the production and availability of weapons of mass destruction is one of the principle threat to international peace and security. In 1970, a comprehensive agreement to the threat posed by the widespread of nuclear technologies and weapons was created between nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapons states. This is known as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). The objective of this treaty was to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by encouraging peaceful uses of nuclear energy and achieving nuclear disarmament. The treaty covers three commonly strengthening columns: demobilization, restraint, and eliminating any active and deadly nuclear weapon. Under the treaty, the nuclear-weapons states are not allowed to transfer nuclear materials to non-nuclear weapons states unless it is for peaceful purposes. The nuclear-weapons states are also prohibited from developing any nuclear technologies or weapons. Any transfer of nuclear materials is closely monitored by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to ensure that the states meet the safety and security protocols.
In May 11, 1995 the Treaty was expanded inconclusively. A total of 191 States have joined the Treaty, and agreed on the terms given. A larger number of nations have endorsed the NPT than some other arms impediment and demilitarization, a demonstration of the Treaty's essentialness. The United States should get both praised and backlash for its approaches on the limitation of the Treaty. Since the Cold War, the United States was spending more than some other nations through projects, for example, Cooperative Threat Reduction and the Proliferation Security Initiative. Plans to lessen and invert the spread of atomic weapons innovation took up just a little piece of the assets gave to atomic weapons and protection under the Bush organization. As indicated by an independent investigation, in 2008 U.S. financial plan for projects to anchor atomic material around the globe was just more than they bargained for. The amount has gotten to more than 250 million dollars (Pease, 2012). After the tragedy of September 11, Bush tried to take different measures to control the entrance and creations of those weapons. The dangers of the nuclear weapons can be life-changing. On September 11, the amount of lives that were taken was a sign and an eye opener about the dangers of big weapons, whether they are nuclear or not. President Bush’s mission had a 65 percent decrease in U.S. operationally conveyed vital atomic weapons.
The United States and Russia have marked and approved a deal to replace START; it was a respective settlement between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the decrease and restriction of vital hostile arms. The arrangement was decided in July 1991 and went official in December 1994. START limits the two nations to 1,550 operationally conveyed atomic weapons (Martin, 2018). It went into power in February 2011. President Barack Obama reaffirmed "America's promise to look for the harmony and security of a world without atomic weapons." In doing as such, he vowed that the United States would diminish the job of atomic weapons in the U.S. national security procedure, arrange another START meeting with Russia, seek after U.S. sanction of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, fortify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty with expanded assets and specialist for worldwide investigators, progress in the direction of building another system for common atomic participation and a universal fuel bank, and make another global exertion to anchor powerless material internationally inside four years. The April 2010, Nuclear Posture Review recognizes atomic fear mongering and atomic expansion as critical dangers, requiring a U.S. atomic strategy concentrated on modifying the atomic limitation routine through worldwide endeavors. The five perceived atomic weapon states have submitted under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to seek after in accordance with some basic honesty atomic demilitarization and a bargain on general and finish demobilization. The NPT does not indicate an end-date for accomplishing demilitarization.
As portrayed under Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the 123 agreement, cooperation is an essential for any atomic arrangements between the United States and some other country. In 2008, the mutual agreement that came upon by the United States and the Republic of India is known as the U.S. and India Civil Nuclear Agreement. The arrangement is considered of colossal worldwide political criticalness, as the terms of the agreement added another measurement to global non-expansion endeavors. The arrangement was first presented in a 2005 joint articulation formed by then U.S. President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the agreement, which took over three years to emerge, lifted a multi decade U.S. suspension on atomic exchange with India (Heinzehman, 2008). As a piece of this arrangement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was drawn closer by the United States by giving a waiver to India. By signing this waiver, India became the main known nation with atomic weapons who was not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but was still permitted to direct atomic business with different nations. The U.S. organization, under George W. Shrubbery in 2008, appealed for the U.S. Congress to enact a waiver to take into account a collaboration with India. This empowering enactment, known as the Hyde Act, was passed by Congress, in December 6, 2006. This enactment enabled the organization to explore certain necessities of the 123 law to allow common atomic collaboration among U.S. and India (Kennedy, 2017).
The major point to this agreement is that India’s nuclear reactors are under the International Energy Association’s (IAEA) safeguards and the IAEA’s protocol have to be followed. The U.S. and India agreement also marked a military collaboration bargain that is seen by the American authorities as a leap forward. However, India has certain issues regarding the several of the provisions which they had petitioned for but were denied. India's right to direct atomic tests was one thing the Indian arbitrators battled for. Despite the fact that India swore in July 2005 to proceed with an atomic testing ban, New Delhi contradicted any express arrangement in the 123 Agreement ending participation in the event that it directs an atomic test later on (Department of State, 2008). Such end arrangements are standard highlights of U.S. concurrences with non-atomic weapon states. The India-U.S. Nuclear Deal does not contain the word 'test' and it is proposed that nations will keep up participation in "agreement with its national laws."
Another point on which talks were held was the purpose of fuel re-processing. Re-processing describes a process of separating plutonium from atomic fuel after it has been utilized in a reactor. Plutonium can be utilized to make atomic weapons, and is thusly viewed as an expansion hazard. The Treaty agree that India for fuel reprocessing in spite of the fact that, as referenced previously, it must be under IAEA defends in another national reprocessing office.
Relating the two
The September 11 attacks spiked an urgency for controlling weapons of mass destruction, and also to reduce the likelihood that they will be used. The main motivation of the United States when entering into the deal with India was to control to spread of nuclear weapons. The interests of the United States relating to economy, defense and security were fulfilled. India was one of the main countries with known nuclear power that was not part of the Non-proliferation treaty. This agreement with India further established the United States’ monopoly over nuclear energy and weapons. Nuclear weapons can have a direct impact not only on the United States’ security, but global security as well. By securing this deal with India, a major military collaboration was prompted. On an economic standpoint, the agreement is also beneficial to the United States. India has one of the world’s most promising and emerging economy, and an expandable nuclear power technology. By collaborating with them, the U.S. gain access to this technology and is able to open a new system of export market.
But, could these actions be predicted by the rational political ambition theory. Looking at this case study, several remarks can be made. As previously stated, the September 11 attacks provoke an anti-terrorism sentiment that has been driving most of the recent American foreign policy related to security. The majority of the public opinion also shared the same sentiments, sentiments which were also shared by the special interest groups of the governments. Special interest groups are known to be organizations that are a main part of the political system and exert a great deal of influence on policy in general. They are highly involved in lobbying the government and elections activity to ensure that people who support their specific goals and interests are in power. This foreign policy decision taken by the Bush’s administration created more assurances that America is safe from a likelihood of a nuclear attack. This decision also aligned with several of the external factor’s interests, which definitely counted toward the approval rating of the administration. By signing into this deal, the U.S. remains the sole and dominating actor in the nuclear power industry, and having India as a friendly country meant that the United States could counteract China’s regional influence. A possibility that many of the supporters of Bush’s administration were content with. The new system of nuclear exports created by the agreement would also bring billions to the chief supporters of non-proliferation.
References
Department of State, (n.d). Department of State and USAID strategic plan. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/
Department of State, (2008). U.S.-India: Civil nuclear cooperation. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/sca/c17361.htm
Heinzehman, K. (2008). Towards common interests and responsibilities: The U.S-India Civil Nuclear Deal and the international nonproliferation regime. Yale Journal of International Law, 33 (2), 447-478. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol33/iss2/5
Kennedy, G. (2017). U.S. India nuclear deal. Standford University. Retrieved from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/kennedy-g1/
Martin, J. (2018). Nuclear. Nuclear Threat Initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.nti.org
Miller, N. (2014). U.S. nonproliferation policy is an invisible success story. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/16/u-s-nonproliferation-policy-is-an-invisible-success-story/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.07ed802ac99b
Pease, K-K. S. (2012). International organizations, 5th edition. Oxon, London. Pearson Education- Tayloor & Francis publishing
Ray, J. L. (2014). American foreign policy and political ambition, 2rd edition. Washington, DC. Congressional Quarterly Press: SAGE publications.