A rare foreign policy success for Bush?

President George Bush's trip to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan last week was on the whole quite successful and was a welcome contrast to the very unstable situation in Iraq. All three countries are major allies of the United States and the West, their ties to the US are an important focus of Washington's foreign policy, and they have a very important role to play in promoting peace and stability in the region.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are key players in the fight against terrorism, and India, the world's largest democracy, is emerging as a regional economic and political powerhouse. During his visit to India Mr Bush signed a nuclear deal with New Delhi signalling a new chapter in Indo-US relations, which has been described by most observers as a "rare foreign policy success" for Mr Bush.

For obvious security reasons Mr Bush's trip to Afghanistan was not officially announced in advance but the President's decision to visit Kabul was a good one, as it shows America's commitment to continue helping the country politically, economically and militarily.

When Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviet Union the West spent millions of dollars arming the Afghan rebels, and defeating the Soviet forces became a top foreign policy priority. After the Soviet withdrawal and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union the West - shamefully - lost all interest in Afghanistan.

The result was that the Taliban were allowed to take over the country - unfortunately with the backing of Pakistan, which wanted stability at all costs - and return the country to the Middle Ages with their backward and reactionary policies.

Then came the September 11 terrorist attacks and a wake-up call for America and the rest of the world. The Taliban were allowing Al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a centre for terrorism and the international community's reluctance to show any interest in the country had proved fatal. Now perhaps, the West had learnt its lesson. American and other forces - with UN backing - overthrew the Taliban and dealt a heavy blow to Al-Qaeda there. Afghanistan, it was hoped, would never again be abandoned and nor will it be allowed to be used as a centre for international terrorism.

Despite the fact that Afghanistan today continues to face a number of serious problems - the Taliban and Al-Qaeda enjoy some support in certain areas of the country, especially near the Pakistani border, many regional warlords are reluctant to give up their power, and the opium poppy trade is thriving and is probably financing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda - the country is in far better shape than it was under the Taliban.

There are free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections, there seems to be no threat of civil war (unlike in Iraq) and the Afghans have more freedom and opportunities than they would ever have dreamed of under the Taliban.

Of course huge challenges remain, especially the security situation, but Afghanistan is on the whole a success story for the Bush administration. There is no doubt, however, that the US and the international community must remain committed to Afghanistan - from a political, military and economic point of view - in the long term, and I would like to think that President Bush's visit is proof of that.

Mr Bush's trip to India and Pakistan - who went to war three times over Kashmir and who nearly went to war in 2002 - has been described as generally successful by most analysts. Before going into the merits or otherwise of the landmark deal that brought India in from the cold after decades of nuclear isolation - which does raise some questions of double standards - one has to point out just how important India has become on the international stage.

It is a country of one billion people. Despite its Hindu majority it has one of the world's largest Muslim populations. It is a democracy, a nuclear power, English-speaking, strategically placed next to nuclear-armed China and an emerging economic and political power. So not having it closely allied to the West is simply unthinkable.

It is clear that this nuclear deal, which allows India to continue its nuclear weapons programme, to have unmonitored control of its eight nuclear reactors and to benefit from US civil nuclear technology and fuel, undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India is not a signature to and which was important for Washington to have in order to accommodate an emerging power. It is understandable that in such an unstable world, the US chose to consolidate its relations with India, a reliable, strong democracy in a somewhat turbulent region.

In practical terms there is nothing wrong with this agreement, nor is there anything wrong with the US and India strengthening their ties, which during the Cold War were somewhat lukewarm. It is important to realise that during that period Pakistan was a staunch ally of the West, especially during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, while India, although a democracy, had traditionally close relations with the Soviet Union. Times have now changed and India is simply too important to ignore.

Of course, there will be many who believe that this nuclear deal was too generous to India and will only increase suspicion throughout the world of American double standards when it comes to nuclear programmes.

Critics are no doubt asking why special arrangements should be made for India and not for Iran, North Korea or Pakistan? This is understandable and the only plausible reply is that India is not Iran or North Korea or Pakistan. Should India be treated in the same way as Iran, which has signed the Nuclear NPT, or Pakistan which has not, and which does not have a good record when it comes to nuclear proliferation or North Korea, which pulled out of the treaty? I think not.

The Indian nuclear deal naturally came up during Mr Bush's trip to Pakistan. Mr Bush, however, made it clear that he had no intention of coming up with a similar deal with Pakistan. "I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories," he said. President Bush also pressed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf - whom he called a great friend - to stick to elections scheduled for next year.

Pakistan was a close US ally during the Cold War but was not given much importance after that (again wrongly) - until the September 11 attacks. It then became a frontline state in the war on terror.

There is no doubt that Pakistan is today a very important state for the US and it is important that Washington continue to nurture its links with Islamabad while encouraging it to continue with its return to democracy - as usual the right balance needs to be found. It must also step up its public relations battle to win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis in the war on terror - not an easy task in a country where a large section of the population are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden.