Putin's push for a strategic
triangle By Sergei Blagov
MOSCOW - Russia is again calling for a
Moscow-New Delhi-Beijing axis, an alliance of three
nuclear-armed countries of some 2.5 billion people that
theoretically would be able to balance US power in
coming years.
Cooperation among Russia, India
and China "would make a great contribution to global
security", Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in
New Delhi. The Kremlin leader, on a visit to India over
the weekend, accused the West of pursuing a dictatorial
foreign policy and setting double standards on
terrorism. A unipolar world could entail dangerous
trends globally, Putin said, adding that unilateralism
increased risks that weapons of mass destruction might
fall into the hands of terrorists.
Putin refrained from naming the unilateral power in
question, but it is widely assumed he was referring to the
United States when he lashed out at "unipolar world"
policies. Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
issued a joint call for "multipolar world" and a greater
role for the United Nations. The Russian leader also
backed India's bid for a permanent United Nations
Security Council seat.
A "strategic triangle"
linking Russia, India and China was first suggested by
former Russian premier (and incidentally Saddam
Hussein's old friend) Yevgeny Primakov in 1998. Yet
the idea failed to serve its immediate purpose of
preventing the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization
air strikes against former Yugoslavia. The concept was
dismissed by Beijing, while New Delhi remained
noncommittal.
In November 2002, New Delhi
denied that India, Russia and China were forming a
separate axis, adding that talks among the three
countries in New York were informal and not directed
against the US or any other country.
However, in
December 2002 Putin traveled to China and India, and
high-level rhetoric about the need for greater
cooperation also included thinly veiled anti-Western
pronouncements and calls for a "multipolar world",
Moscow's mantra for counterbalancing America's global
dominance.
In late 2002, Russian hinted at a
possible Moscow-New Delhi-Beijing axis, a move arguably
made to highlight the Kremlin's strong disagreement with
US policies on Iraq. But this stratagem also failed to
prevent the US-led invasion to topple Saddam.
Nonetheless, speculation resurfaced about the three
countries ganging up together to form the "axis" due to
a perceived sense among all three that American power
must somehow be checked.
So far, the "strategic
triangle" concept is yet to be formally coined. However,
Russia, China and India are all understood to have a
number of converging interests that could add substance
to the axis talk. All three were opposed to the war on
Iraq and protested against what they viewed as a
rejection of the rules of the international game. They
continue to back the primacy of the UN Security Council
in solving crises, and support the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign
states.
Apart from shared concerns of US
dominance, the three have other common interests and
mutually reinforcing needs. All three are weary of
militant Islamic groups on their soil, and want
stability in Central Eurasia.
There is also a
growing arms sale relationship between Russia and the
two Asian countries. The trade provides Moscow with
billions of much-needed dollars and important
arms-export markets, while Beijing and New Delhi receive
sophisticated armaments ranging from combat aircraft to
submarines.
All three countries have opposed
missile defense systems, seen as detrimental to their
respective nuclear deterrence. Incidentally, Russian
generals have hinted they have cheaper ways to defeat an
anti-missile system by using some of the Soviet-era
blueprints of "asymmetric warfare". These include
schemes to confuse and overwhelm a missile-defense
system by the use of dummy warheads as well as multiple
maneuverable warheads. China and India are reportedly
interested in investigating how weaker powers can defeat
stronger ones by "asymmetric warfare". Therefore, all
three could be potentially interested in pursuing
anti-satellite, anti-radar and anti-computer techniques
designed to deny a technologically superior military
power the ability to operate.
On the other
hand, the idea that an Eastern axis may be the only answer
to Bush administration arrogance has been dismissed as
a mere byproduct of the Cold War-era mindset. It has been
also argued that the trilateral axis cannot be feasible
because the Indian nuclear and missile program is not so
much aimed at Pakistan, but is in fact deterrence
against Chinese nuclear warheads. There have been
warnings that a well-armed and strong China may one day
pose a threat to Russia's resource-rich Far East. The
would-be triangle is also seen as implausible because
India and China happen to have competing economies.
Russia and China have already solved their border
disputes, while China and India are still divided by a
chunk of barren terrain, the Dalai Lama and a few
thousand of his followers.
Meanwhile, the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) can provide a
convenient forum for the trilateral axis. The SCO
currently includes China, Russia, Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, yet India has
been touted as a potential candidate to join.
SCO was originally intended to band together
Russia, China and Central Asian nations to contest
America's growing influence in Central Eurasia. Its
secretariat is to be based in Beijing, reportedly at
China's insistence. The group drafted a Shanghai
anti-terror convention and has urged the UN to play a
major role in efforts to eradicate global terrorism.
Given the polarizing effect of Iraq, some sort
of strategic unity among Russia, China and India is not
beyond the realm of feasibility. Therefore, the triangle
- formal, informal or in the SCO disguise - may finally
get some substance. After all, mutual interests, the
greatest of all purposes, may become the cement of this
alliance.
There is, thus, a motivation in all
three capitals to cooperate on strategic, security and
economic issues. But aside from calls for a "multipolar
world", the idea of an axis seemingly has yet to evolve
into a clear-cut strategy. The would-be "strategic
triangle" is still short of an implementation system, a
prerequisite to ensure the future success of any
stratagem. In the meantime, none of the troika wants to
give the impression that they are banding together
against the sole superpower.
As the
international situation is undergoing a major shift,
Moscow may feel a necessity for some "asymmetric" moves
to offset its own weaknesses. If Russian policies in
Ukraine fail, the Kremlin's response could be the
acceleration of alliances with India and China, or at
least the acceleration of axis talk. However, "strategic
triangle" talk failed to impress the West in the past,
and axis rhetoric is even less likely to have an impact
now.
Based in Moscow, Sergei Blagov covers
Russia and post-Soviet states with special attention
to Asia-related issues. He has been contributing
to Asia Times Online since 1996. Between 1983
and 1997, he spent some seven years in Southeast Asia,
mainly in Vietnam. In 2001 and 2002, Nova Science Publishers,
New York, published his two books on Vietnamese
history.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for
information on sales, syndication and republishing.)
