Stephen P. Cohen , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in South Asian security issues, was online Thursday, March 2, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss President Bush ’s trip to South Asia and his visits with leaders in Afghanistan and India. Bush made a surprise stop in Kabul Wednesday and held a joint press conference with Afghan leader Hamid Karzai . Today the President and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached a major deal under which the U.S. would provide nuclear power assistance to India while conducting routine inspections of its nuclear facilities. The visit coincides with increasing concern over Iran’s development of nuclear capabilitiesStephen P. Cohen: I hope it does not die , but that it is reincarnated in some more effective fashion. I was disappointed in Bush’s lack of reference to the broader proliferation problem, the administration may say more now that the India deal is done. I’d like to see a new or modified NPT regime include more than the “Proliferation security Initiative.” States that really feel insecure will seek the bomb, the answer is not a treaty, but addressing their (in)security needs in some cases, it may be direct action in others, and it may be a half-way house, such as that provided to India, in still others. The basic NPT agreement has been unraveling, this is going to have to be an issue that the Bush administration deals with, especially because the India agreement modifies the NPT in some ways.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why do U.S. presidents combine visits to India with Pakistan all the time, whereas whenever they visit China, or Japan, the President goes to China or Japan only, like any other major country in like Russia. Don’t you think it makes India feel bad?

Stephen P. Cohen: I believe that originally he wanted to go to India early in his first term, but 9/11 changed priorities around. I agree, that it might have been better if he had made two separate trips, linking the Pakistan visit (which was very important, however) to perhaps a trip to Turkey or Central Asia, and doing India in connection with a visit to (perhaps) another Asian democracy (Sri Lanka?).

_______________________

Gujranwala, Pakistan: The current basis of U.S.-Pakistan relationship is negative: antiterrorism and anti-proliferation. What could be in your view, positive long-term basis for this relationship?

Stephen P. Cohen: You’ve identified the problem correctly–Pakistan is important for negative reasons. A re-democratized Pakistan, that had a normal relationship with India, would be a great asset. I’ve discussed this at length in my just-published book, “The Idea of Pakistan.” Right now, Pakistan could turn out to be America’s biggest foreign policy problem of the next five years, although I do believe that there are more than enough Pakistanis to run a modern, free, and economically viable state. This is also in India’s interest.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Why are non-proliferation experts in the U.S. so angry over allowing civilian nuclear technology access to democratic India while allowing it readily to China which has a dictatorship at the helm and has been a terrible proliferator?

Stephen P. Cohen: Many of them dealt with India over the last several decades, and the Indians simply lied about their military program (which was embedded in a supposedly civilian program), while lecturing the US about its nuclear weapons and the need for eliminating all nukes. So, they have a history of distrust and anger, which is exactly matched by those in the Indian nuclear program. With luck and political skill, these passions can be put aside, and a workable deal, that will separate the Indian military and civilian program to Congress’ satisfaction (and that of the Nuclear Suppliers group), can be consummated, but I foresee a lot of debate and many hearings in Congress. However, even if the deal does not go through this time, the idea is a good one, and both sides may try it again before the end of Bush’s term as president. India should realize that another president may not be as interested in South Asia, and that Bush’s political influence in the US itself is in decline.