Scholars of political science and international politics have had a lot on their plates recently. While some have closely followed attempts to revive the Middle East peace process, others have kept an eye on the talks on Northern Ireland's future. The most recent episode of interest, however, was the subject of a symposium held on campus last Thursday. Forty students and scholars gathered in the History Lounge in the 3401 Walnut Street complex for a conference entitled "South Asia Goes Nuclear: A Symposium On The Political-Economic Implications." On the agenda was the recent testing of nuclear weapons by India, which spurred similar testing by Pakistan. These rounds of testing have left many in South Asia -- and others around the world -- wondering just what comes next. Avery Goldstein, professor of political science and director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, moderated the symposium. He opened the talk by commenting that "reaction [to the situation] has been visceral rather than thoughtful," a reference to the fear of a possible nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan that has dominated the situation in its early days. Goldstein identified various concerns with relation to South Asia, noting the obvious fears of a nuclear war, as well as fears of a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. He also identified the potential worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons as a cause for concern, as well as American security interests with regards to South Asia. "The fear of a nuclear war is particularly intense because of the proximity of the nations," Goldstein said. First to speak was M.L. Sondhi, a professor of international studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in India and a former member of India's delegation to the United Nations. Sondhi opened his remarks by emphasizing the importance of gauging the situation as a "psychological and culture one" that should be understood and appreciated because of its great importance. "'The solution of the nuclear problem' remains the key words that we can all center on," Sondhi said. Sondhi turned heads by commenting that "India's [nuclear] program has very little to do with Pakistan, and everything to do with China." Sondhi claimed that India's testing was a response to China's own testing program, which began in 1964, as well as the transfer of nuclear weapons to Pakistan years ago by the Chinese. Despite this picture of balance-of-power politics, recent events represent an opportunity for an "historic turning point in relations in Asia," Sondhi said. "It is a chance to forge new types of relationships between the South Asia powers? a great potential for cooperation." Masood Ghaznavi, a history professor at nearby Rosemont College, sharply disagreed with Sondhi on the reasoning behind India's nuclear tests. "As a student of history, I approach things differently," he said. "The dispute between these nations is over Pakistan's occupation of the [Indian] city of Kashmir? this is India's motivation for testing." Ghaznavi's defense of the situation as an age-old territorial dispute between India and Pakistan also included commentary on the rationality of both nations. "The situation... is not as reasonable or rational as one might think," he said, alluding to the highly-charged emotions of the territorial claims made by both sides. Vijay Kumar, a member of the global management and accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand, chose to address an issue of a different sort -- the economic fallout of the situation in South Asia. Kumar, also a consultant for the Center for the Advanced Study of India, emphasized the effects of economic sanctions that have been placed on India. "Economic sanctions won't achieve their imperative purpose," Kumar said, noting that he has no idea what goal the United States hopes to achieve in placing sanctions on India. "United States aid to India is down to $145 million dollars -- this loss will not have much of an impact." Kumar was quick to stress that moderate losses in the form of lost foreign aid would not constitute India's major concern -- but non-direct impacts might pose a bigger threat. He pointed out that since India's rounds of testing, the value of currency has dropped 12 percent, while the stock market in New Delhi has declined 15 percent. "The direct impact of sanctions is not much, but the non-direct impact could be tremendous," Kumar said. Alan Heston, a professor of economics and South Asia regional studies at Penn, was quick to agree with Kumar. He referred to a "doubtful set of policies on the part of the U.S." by questioning "what purpose sanctions are supposed to serve? the horse is already out of the barn," referring to the idea that India is now a declared nuclear weapons state. Heston also emphasized the effects of recent foreign investment pull-outs from India and Pakistan, noting that a loss of $500 million to each nation has "a greater impact on the Pakistani economy than that of India." Reaction to the symposium was generally positive. Vikash Yadav, a graduate student in political science and Assistant to the Director of PennCIP, remarked that "the comments by the distinguished panel were thoughtful? given the sensitive nature of the nuclear issue." "It is important to encourage this kind of constructive and reasoned dialogue between policy makers and intellectuals from the sub-continent," Yadav said.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
