India and the Asia-Pacific chessboard
By Medha Bisht
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to
have their say. Please
click here if you are interested in contributing.
The recent Asia-Pacific summit contains strategic seeds of United States
President Barack Obama's proactive policy for the region. S D Muni, an Indian
strategic analyst has even termed it as having potential ''elements to trigger
a subtle and sophisticated new Cold War in Asia between the US and China''.
While in American domestic discourse, Obama's Asia distraction is being
perceived as the trump card for winning the presidential elections in 2012,
strategic analysts have hailed it as a containment strategy directed towards
China. For instance, Walter Russell Mead has called it a ''diplomatic
blitzkrieg, aimed
at reversing a decade of chit-chat about America's decline, also nipping the
myth of China rise in the bud.'' Stephen Walt has argued that the Sino-American
competition in the years ahead will primarily be a competition for allies. The
Asian game, he points out, would be more about sustaining Asian allies, a
challenge, which the United States will have to manage well.
Some strategic thinkers have traced Obama's recent Asia-Pacific overture as a
continuation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which was initiated by the
United States and eight Pacific countries (Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam) in November 2009. TPP is a regional
agreement aimed at enhancing trade, innovation, economic growth and development
between the concerned parties. In fact, Sanjaya Baru termed it recently as
''the economics of containment'', aimed at blunting the edge of China's
non-transparent trade competitiveness. Noting the increasing political and
economic weight that China is often identified with, Fareed Zakaria in the
latest edition of the Time magazine, (November 28, 2011) urges for a new China
policy. He writes, ''Beijing needs to understand its new position in the world
and act in ways commensurate with its power.''
While these arguments suggest that the contours of the international structure
are being reordered, India's role and place within the changing political and
security equations perhaps need to be reckoned with. Common sense would dictate
that 'hedging' and 'balancing' is perhaps the safety net and best bet for India
in the changing political environment. While such an approach is more
prescriptive than instructive, it is important that India revisits the
fundamentals of its foreign policy before moving into the grand Asian chess
board.
The primary policy concern for India should be to distance itself from the
emerging discourse of 'containing' or 'balancing' China. Instead, engaging
China in a proactive way should be the primary driver dictating its foreign
policy choices. There are number of issue areas, where China and India need to
cooperate and perhaps Obama's Asia-Pacific policy has in it a spill over effect
in redefining the framework of Sino-India engagement. It could be argued that
with the presence of United States in Asia, China could be most susceptible
towards narrowing conflict issues and might look for spaces to leverage its
influence with its neighbors in East Asia and South Asia.
The most pressing issues confronting China and India are related to border
demarcation and institutionalizing water cooperation. While institutional
frameworks on border issues are in place, they need to be picked up on periodic
basis by both sides. Confidence building measures are most needed to allay
misperceptions in order to avoid risk and uncertainties.
On water issues, China's riparian dominance has been a cause of concern for
lower riparians in South Asia. Climate change and ecological concerns are two
urgent issues for the Asian giants and can be termed as the nodal points for
facilitating sustainable cooperation. The Brahmaputra River Basin could be the
fulcrum for getting Bangladesh, India and China on a common table where
linkages between energy, water and ecology could be factored in. Thus, while
talking border issues are important for regional stability in the long term,
water issues are urgent and need to be prioritized, given the impact they have
on the livelihood of the people downstream. Articulating a policy of
'balancing' and 'containing' China could prove deleterious to issues vital for
riparian South Asian countries.
An engagement strategy would also be helpful in providing substantial strategic
autonomy to India in its posture vis a vis Iran. The issue of a nuclear Iran
has been a policy priority for the United States for some time. This was
evident in the recent statement made by Mitt Romney who during the Republican
Party candidates' debate, argued in unequivocal terms that electing Mitt Romney
would mean that Iran would not have a nuclear weapon. Notwithstanding the
foreign policy priorities of the United States, Iran remains an important
partner in India's energy security. As Iran is an important player for Asian
political stability, India's support for Obama's Pacific policy could prove
costly for Indo-Iran relations in the long term.
It is also important that India revisits the basic tenet of its "Look East"
policy. India is in an enviable position in Southeast Asia as it can exercise
leverage through its soft-power, a missing strand in strengthening ties with
the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A soft
power approach however requires investments in institutions, through which
India and Southeast Asian countries can strengthen their diplomatic outreach
and understanding. As India paces up its economic diplomacy with countries in
the region in the coming years, it is important that the institutional
foundation of soft power also be strengthened, an issue intrinsically tied with
India's image as an attractive alternative which can prove beneficial to
Southeast Asia. This is an area where India has been lagging behind - and thus
needs to be picked up by the Ministry of External Affairs in India.
For India to exercise its diplomatic leverage, it is important that engagement
rather than balancing and containment becomes its policy brand. While the
changing contours do provide tempting opportunism for action, given that Asia
will be an important pole in the twenty-first century, with multiple power
centers, an engagement discourse should be flagged off in the public domain.
While India's historical commitment to Asia is often traced to an 'Asian
Federation', with Washington's Pacific diplomacy, Indian position should be
dictated by its own strengths and domestic interest.
Medha Bisht is an Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses (IDSA). The views expressed are that of the author and not of the
IDSA.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
