A French Presidential visit to India that began under a cloud of controversy over industrial and environment issues concluded with the signature of a number of major cooperation agreements and contracts aiming at enhancing relations on several fronts.

The overhanging debate over the planned takeover by Mittal Steel or European steel giant Arcelor, also was central to the February discussions. But the accompanying problem of the asbestos-laden French aircraft carrier Clemenceau called back from its sail into an Indian ship scrapping yard which had haunted the preparations for the trip was almost forgotten. The Mittal-Arcelor industrial debate was on the summit agenda and a major topic at the windup press conference, as Jacques Chirac sought to disentangle from his Governments hostility to the takeover bid by Indian-born Lakshmi Mittal. Although Indians pointed out they raised no objections to the takeover of an Indian firm by the French cement giant Lafarge and Chirac said the Government was merely trying to get details of the bid offer, the Paris daily Le Monde said French Ministers and others on the trip embarrassingly maintained their outright opposition.

In a sometimes confusing and contradictory juxtaposition of international policy, the meetings in India also revolved at least in three or more sometimes related discussions and accords on nuclear power, defence cooperation, and strategic and proliferation questions.

The visit and discussions must also be as part of a complicated diplomatic minuet of recent months that has also included visits by Manmohan Singh to the US, the UK and France, and the back-to-back reciprocal tours of India by the French and American Presidents. US President George W. Bush is expected in India in March.

The French President sought to emphasise that India needed nuclear power to develop its economic potential by overcoming shortages of energy supply without greenhouse gases. Chirac, who had previously made similar statements during the Singh visit to France, committed France to cooperating with and assisting India on the development of civilian nuclear power technology and signed a accord to that effect, under the same conditions as the US. These include provisions that India cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and work out a clear separation between its civilian and military technology facilities. Both France and the US are major suppliers of nuclear power facilities and technology and have been eager to develop a market in India, which has a number of nuclear power stations under development and plans extensive use of nuclear power.

For both the US and France, this is a clear reversal of long-practiced policies of restraint in supplying such technologies to India and other countries that were either not members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, like India, or who were believed to be a potential threat, such as Iran or North Korea. Such policies would also seem to run counter to the anti-proliferation provisions and intent of the Nuclear Technology Suppliers Group to which both the US and France belong. Such shifts and apparently contradictory policies have caused dismay in circles supporting the Treaty and precautions against proliferation, including in the US Congress where the US-India accord has met with extensive criticism or hesitation. Some in Congress and elsewhere have expressed concern about either not maintaining sanctions in general, especially in zones of tension or conflict such as the Indian Sub-Continent, or seeming to favour one side in regional rivalries. In other parts of the world, including in Europe, such policies are regarded as applying double standards between responsible friends and allies and others seen as threats. It comes at a crucial time in the effort to build a case in reaction to Iran and its possible development of a nuclear capability. Iran has pointed to such discrepancies and Pakistan during the French Presidents trip to India demanded equal treatment.

Chirac may have added to this confusion in recent statements and during the Indian trip. In one controversial recent declaration he defended the French possession of nuclear weapons and seemed to threaten first-use in the context of a potential Iranian or terrorist threat. In India he also seemed to venture into unusual territory when he assured Indians that, unlike the US where parliamentarians have expressed their concern about supplying India with nuclear power technology, there are no such obstacles in France.

It is uncertain whether Chirac consulted with EU or domestic partners in making such declarations and policies. There is widespread concern about nuclear arms and proliferation in many EU countries.

A new bilateral Franco-Indian defence cooperation agreement signed during the trip would also seem to solidify the position of France as a supplier of defence and military equipment to India, which in the past has had a reliance on Moscow and what it has increasingly been regarded as inferior equipment and technology. India has increasingly turned to the West, with the purchase of Hawk jets from the UK, submarines from France and others.

Whether intentional or not, such steps and the elevation the relationship by France also should be seen in the context of the parallel American effort to build up India into a second Asia regional superpower to counterbalance the rise of China. The role of France and other European powers involved in such defence and security cooperation with New Delhi could be significant, either in siding with or tempering the US strategy.

The French and American reversal of positions regarding concerns about nuclear proliferation has longer-term implications on the entire strategic balance of power in Asia, and by extension to the global balance. It would commit these countries to siding with India in a region trying slowly and painstakingly to overcome decades of rivalry, suspicion and even outright conflict. Such a position may either quickly or in longer term complicate the dynamics in dealings with China, Pakistan, Iran and perhaps others or lead to further regional arms races.