UNITED STATES REVERSES GEARS IN SOUTH ASIA
by Dr. Subhash Kapila
The paper expresses the personal views of the author. May be read with (1)
Indo-US Strategic Partnership: The Advent of the Inevitable www.saag.org/papers2/paper120.html
(2)United States Policies in South Asia Under Bush: Continuity is
expected www.saag.org/papers2/paper181.html
(3) United States and the Agra Summit www.saag.org/papers3/paper291.html
The turn of the millennium heralded a significant change in the tenor
of United States - India relations. From estranged democracies, the path
seemed to lead towards engagement without misgivings. This was signaled
during the historic visit by President Clinton to India in March 2000. The
joint declaration i.e. "India-US Relations :A Vision for the 21st
Century" incorporated two important statements ‘Natural partnership
of shared endeavours’ and significantly that ‘In many ways the
character of the 21st century will depend on the success of our
cooperation for peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom’.
India reciprocated the above spirit when during his visit to the United
States in September 2000, Prime Minister Vajpayee termed India and United
States as being "natural allies" which drew bi-partisan support
both in India and the United States.
American think-tanks and noted American foreign policy analysts
stressed: (1) Bi-partisan consensus existed in USA for better relations
with India (2) Better US-India relationship was emerging not from
individual preferences, but from increasing convergence of interests and
more significantly (3) Fundamental changes had taken place in US
perceptions of India. India was no longer seen as confined to South Asia
but central to Asian balance of power.
With the advent of the Republican Bush Administration in January 2001,
with no adverse developments having taken place to sour US-India
relations, India hoped and so analysed by analysts like this author that
the Bush Administration would : (1) Continue to reflect the bi-partisan
support in USA for a better and broader US-India relationship (2) In
keeping with the past Republican Administrations of President Reagan and
President Bush Sr build upon the pre-eminent status of India in South Asia
and (3) Contemporaneous review of Asia-Pacific security environment by
Bush Administration would lead to adding value to US-India strategic
convergence of interests.(paper181 refers)
Notwithstanding visits of Bush Administration luminaries to India
during this year, recent statements emanating out of Washington
officialdom and leaders, somehow seem to negate the promising trend in
US-India relation outlined above. More meaningfully are the changing
nuances of the Bush Administration on United States policies towards China
and Pakistan as discernible to analysts like us. At the outset it needs to
be emphasised that while the United States can afford the luxury of
viewing its relationships with China and Pakistan, independently of India,
the latter cannot do so. China and Pakistan, independently and in
collusion have weighed heavily in India’s strategic calculus for over
half a century. India cannot be oblivious to their conflictual record so
far. US policies on China and Pakistan therefore impact on India’s
security.
From India’s viewpoint, American statements, moves and developments
emerging from the Bush Administration which cause disquiet and indicate a
trend-in-the-making (hopefully not) pertain to Kashmir, state sponsored
terrorism, Pakistan, China and the overall vision of the US-India
relationship.
United States Changes Tack on Kashmir: President Bush Sr
(Republican) before laying down office, reiterated in 1991 that Kashmir
was a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and needs to be resolved
within the purview of the Simla Agreement (1972). President Clinton
(Democrat) despite his earlier indifference, realised realistically
towards the end of his tenure that not only Kashmir was a bi-lateral issue
but also that for peace in South Asia, the sanctity of the LOC had to be
respected by Pakistan. It was this realisation which made President
Clinton to call on Pakistan to call off its aggressive misadventure in
Kargil in 1999 and withdraw Pak forces to its own side of the LOC.
Therefore, in the last decade under both the Republican and Democratic
Administrations, the policy of endorsement of the Simla Agreement(1972)
and respecting the sanctity of LOC in J&K stood unchanged. (Paper No
291 refers)
Any third party mediation or interference on Kashmir is ruled out by US
bi-partisan policy stances. Further, it is repugnant to India. If that be
so what was the necessity of US Secretary of State, General Colin Powell’s
offer to "lend the good offices" of USA on this issue.
Change of tack, like the above are not conducive to promote trust and
faith in India in United States motives and intentions. No wonder Indian
analysts termed it as "not only outrageous and unwarranted, but out
of context".
It would have been advisable to adhere to the US endorsements on the
Kashmir issue by former President Bush Sr and President Clinton. They
effectively discarded the Cold War dictated tenets of America’s stands
on Kashmir.
Irrespective of Indian Government stances, the Indian masses have an
intense sensitivity and strong opinions on Kashmir. Any change of tack in
American policies in terms of endorsement of the Simla Agreement (1972)
and respect for the sanctity of LAC by Pakistan, is likely to arouse
strong anti-American sentiments in India.
United States Disappointing Responses to State Sponsored Terrorism:
Indians stand aghast at the verbal camouflage that United States resorts
to and takes refuge in while over-looking Pakistan’s active role in
unleashing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in J&K and ISI sabotage
all over India. While United States is ready to launch Cruise missiles
against Osama-bin-Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, it shies away from
condemning Pakistan, the cess-pool of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism not
only against India, but the United States too.
Indians are appalled at statements emanating from Washington
officialdom on this crucial issue when daily scores of innocent lives are
being lost because of Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism. Here is a
sampling of the latest statements from Washington officialdom carried in
the issue of India Abroad of August 17, 2001.
Harry Thomas, Director South Asia, in the present US National Security
Council, (served in New Delhi under US Ambassador Frank Wisner, for 3
years) while briefing a group of Indian-Americans at the White House
stated that naming Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism would make it a failed
state and lead to its Talibanisation. Further, he noted: "I am very
sympathetic to the victims of terrorism. It’s a stretch to say the
Government of Pakistan is a state sponsor of international
terrorism."
Another US official is quoted as stating: "Just because a
terrorist organisation is based or operating from Pakistan does not
necessarily mean Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism".
Obviously, it is statements like the above which stretch United States
credibility to breaking point and stoke anti-American sentiments in India.
It also makes that much more difficult the task of any Indian Government
wishing to promote better US-India relations. Further, the United States
should not expect India to co-operate and assist in global
counter-terrorism efforts, if they are intended to serve areas of concerns
of the United States only. Any joint counter-terrorism efforts should
address India’s concerns too, more specifically Islamic Jehadi Terrorism
in J&K.
Bush Administration Softens On Pakistan: United States
perceptions on Pakistan may currently be centred on: (1) Pakistan should
not be allowed to disintegrate into a failed state (2) Pakistan is crucial
to furthering US interests in Central Asia (3) Pakistan Should be
prevented from being Talibanised and (4) Pakistan should be kept engaged
to keep its nuclear waywardness under restraint (Paper No 181)
Laudable objectives for United States policy interests, but the
question that begs an answer is as to how India is responsible for or
contributing to Pakistan’s disintegration, Talibanisation or nuclear
waywardness? It is Pakistan’s misgovernance, its Islamic fundamentalist
policies, its China fuelled nuclear weapons and missiles build-up and its
self-acquired and self-professed role as crusader of pan-Islamic causes
which have contributed to its present state - held together by military
rule of Islamic fundamentalist Generals.
Pakistan has strong supporters in the Cold War oriented civilian
bureaucracy of the United States Department of Defence (Pentagon) and also
in a sizeable number of US Senators and Congressmen funded by Pakistan
Govt and Pakistan expatriates in USA. No wonder it led to a Washington
despatch covering Condoleeza Rice’s views (Sadiq Ahmed, Washington, The
Bush Effect, Outlook, Dec 25, 2000, p39) stating that Pak lobby in USA
could undermine efforts by Bush Administration to achieve a higher degree
of compatibility with New Delhi. Bush Administration’s softening towards
Pakistan can be gauged from: (1) According legitimacy to the military
dictator of Pakistan, General Musharraf, via Indian proxy i.e. the Agra
Summit (Paper No 291 refers) (2) Permissive attitude towards Pakistan’s
policies of state-sponsored terrorism against India (3) Reversing of
President Clinton’s hard line US policies towards Pakistan (4)
Facilitating monetary tranches from the IMF and World Bank to Pakistan on
the plea that General Musharraf is attempting to restore democracy.
That the United states is attempting at a resurrection of its
relationship with Pakistan is well exemplified by the statements of Peter
Rodman, US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Affairs (Times
of India, August23, 2001, p10 quotes) "Our relationship with Pakistan
is valuable to us. And I don’t think this Administration is going to
lose sight of that..... but Pakistan has been an ally over many decades. I
don’t think , we as a great power, should be dispensing with allies,
when you know that we think conditions have changed. Its an Islamic
country in a very complicated region of the world. I think it is useful to
have a friend in that part of the world".
The above stands in a significant contrast to a RAND Report authored by
Zalmay Khalilzad (former Assistant Secretary, Defence in President Bush Sr
Administration) which sought from President Bush Jr Administration: (1)
President Bush Jr to urge Pakistan to exercise restraint on Kashmir (2)
Pakistan "is in serious crisis and is pursuing policies counter to US
interests" and (3) De-couple India and Pakistan.
The sudden softening of US policy stance towards Pakistan is currently
being attributed to oil politics of the Caspian Region, the proposed
oil-pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan’s leverage over the
Taliban in Afghanistan. What is being implied in these formulations is
uncharitable towards the Bush Administration, but then it is the Bush
Administration that has to disabuse the minds of analysts that its
intentions are otherwise.
By any stretch of imagination, today, Pakistan is neither placed nor
equipped to further United States strategic interests in the Middle East
or Central Asia. To maintain that Pakistan as an Islamic country is better
placed to serve American interests in these regions is a facile argument.
The Gulf War dispelled the myths of Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic unity.
Bush Administration Gets Permissive on China: Like the Clinton
Administration, President Bush during the run-up to elections was hard on
China. Yet within eight months, his Administration has become as
permissive towards China as were his predecessors. The change is
significantly notable in terms of nuclear missiles proliferation in South
Asia. CIA reports recently indicated that China had shipped a sizeable
number of Shaheen I and Shaheen II missiles to Pakistan by the land route
i.e. via the Karakoram Highway. The CIA had also authentically indicated
that China had passed along solid propulsion missile technology in recent
months. The US responses to this serious violation of MTCR by China have
been as permissive as the previous Administration.
These permissive reactions i.e. absence of any sanctions against China,
as per US laws, are in marked contrast to what the current US national
Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice stated in December 2000 that China is a
security concern for USA because Beijing transfers technology for weapons
of mass destruction to Iran and Pakistan.
The United States has a historical narcisstic obsession for China,
which India can do nothing about . But where China does impinge on India’s
national security interests and to which sensitivity the United States
should be alive to is China’s nuclear weapons and missiles build up of
Pakistan with Chinese off-the-self sales, supplies of components in knocked-down kits and transfer of blue prints and technology.
United States official permissiveness on this aspect cannot but be
perforce construed as complicity in harming India’s national security .
Indians have strong feelings on such complicity and permissiveness of
China’s attempts to strategically de-stabilise India by proxy through
Pakistan.
United States Distorts Over-all Vision of United States -India
Relationship: India through its Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee
indicated it vision of United States -India relationship in September 2000
at the Asia Society dinner on September7. When it was declared "we
feel as do our policy makers that India and the United States are natural
allies." There could not be a more visionary statement concerning the
US-India relationship nor a more convincing commitment.
President Bush Jr. himself echoed similar sentiments during the
presentation of credentials by India’s Ambassador, Lalit Mansingh in June
2000. President Bush stated that "After years of estrangement, India
and United States together surrendered to reality. They recognised an
unavoidable fact-they are destined to have a qualitatively different and
better relationship than in the past."
In marked contrast to the promising vision espoused by the Indian and
American leaders, the statements emanating from Washington’s officialdom
were disappointing. Peter Rodman, US Assistant Secretary of Defence for
International Affairs recently stated (Times of India, August 23,2001):
"Our relationship with India is different, but Pakistan has been an
ally over many decades....India is not going to become an ally of the
United States. I think India values its independence. It values its
non-alignment. So I don’t think that anybody should expect that India is
going to collude with us." It would be wrong for any US
Administration official or political leader to distort the overall vision
of the US-India relationship as given out in the New Delhi Joint
Declaration of March 2000 which spoke of "cooperation for peace,
prosperity, democracy and freedom." The said declaration did not
enshrine "collusion" or "alliance" as prevalent in the
mind-sets of the leftover "Cold War Warriors" of Washington.
Conclusion: India is neither in a position nor inclined to pass
judgements or dictate what US foreign policies should be towards any
region or country of the world. However, India perceiving itself as
a partner in a cooperative endeavour as enshrined in the New Delhi Joint
Declaration of March 2000, would expect that the vision so envisaged by
both nations moves along the endorsed lines and policies followed so far.
United States policies towards building a more broader framework of
relations, enjoying bi-partisan political support, should not be put in
reverse gear because of political or individual predelictions.
The United States, in my view has very difficult options in South Asia.
It cannot have "balanced and strong relations with both countries
(India and Pakistan)" as US Secretary of State, General Powell said
after the failed Agra Summit. United States should recognise the reality
(and China should follow suit) that external balancing of India’s
natural pre-eminence and power i.e. by aiding Pakistan has been
historically fruitless.
In the years to come neither the United States nor China can hope to
restrict India within South Asian boundaries or be held a captive in the
region by the Sino-Pak collusion. One cannot help but borrow what Sunanda
K Datta Ray states in a recent issue of the ASIAWEEK (August 24, 2000 P
18) : "But don’t expect India to become America’s tame kitten.
The country will resist its efforts to limit its freedom of action in the
sub-continent or in pursuit of what it sees as a legitimate global
status." India like China in the 1980s despite any perceived
weakness, is today in a position to play the "India Card".
For
those like this author who have hoped for a " Indo-Us Strategic
Partnership "as an Advent of the Inevitable" fervently hope that
the United States , does not reverse the gear.
(Dr. Subhash Kapila is an International Relations and
Strategic Affairs analyst. He can be reached on e-mail for
discussion at esdecom@vsnl.com)
