The failure of the Singh-Obama discussion to dissipate growing Indian disenchantment with the US, despite the spin put on the exchanges by both sides, is discussed separately; here I will concentrate on nuclear diplomacy at the World Conference, advertised as the largest gathering of heads of state and government in Washington since the end of the Second World War, and the two back-to-back summits in the Brazilian capital.
 
To put it bluntly, Obama's nuclear conference was much of a muchness, though it partly served his purpose of projecting himself as a leader determined to 'save the world' from nuclear danger and to move towards total nuclear disarmament, which he has already confessed cannot be achieved within his lifetime. There was a lot of rhetoric at the conference but hardly any substance. Mr Obama did orchestrate his nuclear theatrics somewhat adroitly but everyone could see through his act. For instance, the new ‘START’ agreement between the US and Russia so ostentatiously signed at Warsaw is nothing but the renewal of an old treaty. In any case, the much-trumpeted one-third reduction in warheads means little. It, of course, leaves out under-water nuclear missiles and much else. More importantly, both the US and Russia are still left with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. Above all, the two nuclear big boys jointly possess several times the number of nuclear weapons than the rest of the world put together.

Ironically, the Obama conference did precious little on the 'biggest nuclear threat' that Mr Obama and Dr Manmohan Singh both underscored: the danger of terrorists being able to lay their hands on nuclear weapons. There is one country where this danger is at its peak — al Qaeda and Taliban-infested Pakistan. The Obama administration, alas, finds it expedient to placate the Pakistani military and the ISI, both of which have patronized terrorist groups whenever it has suited them. AQ Khan, the most notorious smuggler of nuclear technology, weapon designs and nuclear material, is protected from international questioning.

The main purpose of the two-day nuclear drama really was to smooth America's way to get the NPT Review Conference in June to revalidate the NPT, something that couldn't be done at the previous conference five years ago. Mr Obama also hopes to garner support for his decision to impose hyper-strict sanctions on Iran. While the nuclear conference was on, the US vice-president, Joe Biden, gave a lunch for all non-aligned countries attending it. Yet he excluded India, one of the three founders of the Nonalignment Movement. Why? Because India hasn't signed the NPT. The underlying message is clear.

Compared with this, the two summits that the Prime Minister attended in Brasilia were more productive. These summits were of two important groupings that have to be taken seriously, and these are better known by their acronyms. The first summit was that of IBSA — India, Brazil and South Africa, the rising nations of three continents with fast growing economies. The second summit was held by BRIC — Brazil, Russia, India and China. There is obviously a difference of emphasis in the approaches of the two groupings, one of which includes two of the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. It is all the more significant therefore that the main message emanating from both the summits was the same.

Both are opposed to the world politico-economic system being dominated by the G-7 and NATO. Of late, the G-20, of which all the countries assembled in Brasilia are members, has been having some say. But India and like-minded countries feel that in its present form the G-20 is only a precursor of the reformed structure that should preside over the world economic order. The Bretton Woods institutions are outdated. It is in this context that the two summits have demanded that the promises made at the Pittsburgh summit of G-20 must be implemented before the end of this year.

Far more important is what the two summits — and let there be no doubt about the weight they command — had to say on Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Both questioned, if not exactly opposed, the American policy of piling up more and more sanctions against Iran in order to prevent Tehran at all costs from making the Bomb. Both IBSA and BRIC took the contrary view. As outlined by an Indian official, what they said was that sanctions would not solve the current problems with Iran. For this purpose dialogue and diplomacy were essential and the 'central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in settling the Iran nuclear docket must be re-established'.

The way things are going, however, it is almost certain that the US will try and push a sanctions resolution through the Security Council. For the present,   China has agreed to 'look at this resolution'. America will surely try to bargain with it and Russia. To get the resolution passed, however, the US will also need the support of non-permanent members of the council. Brazil is a member of the council till 2011. Ironically, Lebanon — whose government does not back the US on Iran — would assume the rotational chair of the Security Council in May.

Incidentally, at Brasilia several suggestions came up. One of these — not exactly popular with India — was that BRIC and IBSA should be merged, which gave rise to the joke that this would 'churn the alphabet soup'.

. top