| |
Delhi-Beijing-Moscow axis: Old romance
rekindled
By Sultan Shahin
NEW DELHI - India is once again toying with the
foreign policy notion of its first prime minister,
Jawahar Lal Nehru, of a Delhi-Beijing-Moscow axis to
counter the policies of the West.
In the vastly
changed circumstances of the contemporary world and with
half a century of experience behind it, New Delhi would
make sure that the axis, if it is at all formed, did not
have an overt anti-US content, at least in the initial
stages.
It is noteworthy that despite its
cautious approach and its need not to antagonize the
West, India agreed with Russia on Wednesday to include
the world "multi-polar" in a joint declaration following
a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The two countries
resolved to work towards building "a just, fair,
democratic and multi-polar world".
It is as much
a measure of India's frustration with the US as of
Putin's diplomatic acumen that a cautious Vajpayee
agreed to use the phrase "multi-polar world" in the
formal declaration, clearly expressing discontent with
the current American global dominance and its perceived
long-term perilous consequences. The visiting Russian
delegation had been keen to get India to include this
phrase in the joint declaration following a similar one
with the Chinese leaders a day earlier.
In a
wide-ranging declaration after their summit talks, Putin
and Vajpayee "confirmed their determination to
contribute to the establishment of a just, multi-polar
world based on the principles of respect for the UN
charter and international law in the interest of
removing threats to international peace and security".
The two countries advocated "further reforming the
United Nations with a view to strengthening it as the
central mechanism for ensuring international peace and
security as well as democratizing international
relations".
Touching on the immediate cause of
their disquiet - the possibility of war with Iraq - they
urged continued efforts to encourage Iraq to cooperate
with international inspectors searching for weapons of
mass destruction. They said, "Both sides strongly oppose
unilateral use or threat of use of force in violation of
the UN charter as well as interference in the internal
affairs of other states."
They "stressed that a
comprehensive settlement of the situation around Iraq is
possible only through political and diplomatic efforts
in strict conformity with the rules of international law
and only under the aegis of the United Nations. Both
sides noted the importance of continuing intensive work
with the Iraqi leadership in order to encourage it to
cooperate in good faith with the UN."
For over a
fortnight now, Indian strategists, including former
prime ministers and former foreign secretaries, have
debated the idea of a triangular axis with Russia and
China, its feasibility and implications. One of their
objectives definitely has been to counter what one
described as the "unprecedented arrogance" of the
world's lone superpower, the US.
Aware that the
US is not happy with the idea of such an axis, External
Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha denied that India,
Russia and China were forming a separate axis. He told
the Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament) that talks
on this subject among the three countries in New York in
September were informal and not directed against the US
or any other country.
Eager to dispel the
impression of the three countries were ganging up
against the US, Sinha pointed out, "This kind of a
meeting took 14 years to take place and no country was
mentioned by name during the informal meeting, though
the issue of terrorism in general figured in the
discussions. Otherwise, it would have given the
impression that we [India, Russia and China] are forming
a group. The foreign ministers of India, Russia and
China agreed to meet informally in the same format."
Speaking to Interfax news agency on the
possibility of trilateral cooperation in the run-up to
the Russian president's visit to India, Vajpayee said
that India, Russia and China would explore "new avenues"
for trilateral cooperation. He recalled that the foreign
ministers of the three countries held a trilateral
meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in
September. "They exchanged views on topical
international issues. They have agreed to continue
contacts in this format, so that new avenues of
cooperation can be explored."
His statement
echoed Putin's reference to the "triangle" in his
interview to the Indian newspaper The Hindu two days
before he embarked on his journey. "I think that all
parties within this triangle are interested in this
development [of positive relations between the three
nations]. We should move step-by-step trying to develop
harmonious relations," the Russian president said.
Analysts attach significance to the fact that Putin's
current tour of Asia has taken him to China and India.
Putin's talks in Beijing and Delhi could speed
up India's entry into the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), established to promote trilateral
cooperation against terrorism, a Russian government news
agency said. Putin may help "launch the process" by
taking a "corresponding oral message from Beijing to
Delhi", the RIA Novosti said. Both Russia and China are
founding members of the SCO, which also includes four
Central Asian states. Trilateral cooperation between
Russia, China and India is seen in Moscow as the core of
a future security system for Asia.
"Russia is
trying to build in Asia a new system of international
relations - a triangle of strategic stability, security
and the fight against international terrorism, the three
poles of which will be Moscow, Beijing and Delhi," said
the head of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian
parliament, the state duma. The problem of terrorism,
faced by Russia, China and India is drawing the three
nations closer together. "The Talib Afghanistan, the
terrorist Xinjiang and the Pashtun-populated north of
Pakistan could become a powerful conglomerate of
subversive formations aimed at the Central Asia along
with India and China," RIA Novosti said on the
"triangle".
"The looming shapes of
Indo-Sino-Russian cooperation for fighting terror in the
Central Asia can turn out to be much more important
[than bilateral differences between the three nations]"
RIA Novosti added, saying that the triangle would be
devoid of any "anti-American implications", that were
tangible in the Russia-China-India axis idea put forward
by the former Russian prime minister, Yevgeny Primakov,
in Delhi four years ago.
There can be no doubt,
however, that there is another unstated, indeed
vehemently denied, factor. The proposed trilateral
strategic cooperation is a veiled reaction to the US
military presence in Central Asia, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, though all concerned deny this fervently. As
former Indian prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral put it.
"The US has arrived as a third neighbor in the region
after September 11 and no one is sure by any degree what
impact it will have on their energy security."
It must be remembered, however, that the move
toward trilateral strategic cooperation started even
before terrorist attacks in the US in September last
year. In fact, just before September 11, academics from
Russia, China and India had met in Moscow to flesh out
proposed trilateral cooperation. The first high-level
meeting was organized by the Russian Academy and the
Institute of Eastern Studies. China was represented by a
think tank closely associated with its Foreign Ministry,
while India was represented by a four-member delegation
from the Institute of Chinese studies. The trilateral
conference of scholars and policy analysts from China,
Russia and India advised their respective governments to
set up a trilateral study group on globalization and
issues pertaining to multilateral trade negotiations.
Speaking at the Second China-India-Russia
Trilateral Conference at Beijing's China Institute of
International Studies, just before Putin's tour of China
and India, participants from all three countries
endorsed a Chinese proposal calling for a study group on
issues pertaining to the World Trade Organization.
Stating that the three "Eurasian powers" had common
concerns with respect to globalization, terrorism and
energy security, the participants unanimously agreed to
increase the level of interaction between the three
countries on each of these issues.
An Indian
participant suggested the creation of a similar
trilateral study group on cooperation in the energy
sector and the joint development of Central
Asia-Russia-China-India overland oil and gas pipeline
projects. Russian and Chinese delegates also emphasized
the need for a trilateral dialogue on terrorism. All
three proposals were endorsed by participants at the
conference. Faced with a similar terrorist threat from
militant and separatist groups, China, India and Russia
could share information and coordinate their actions and
cooperate with the United States and other nations
fighting terrorism, the participants agreed.
At
a special meeting with the Indian and Russian delegates
to the trilateral conference, China's vice minister of
foreign affairs Wang Yi underscored the potential for
trilateral cooperation in an increasingly "multi-polar"
world. Wang Yi noted the fact that often "even though
China and India do not have prior consultations we do
voice similar concerns on the international situation".
Stating that the purpose of this trilateral
dialogue was to "facilitate cooperation in the economic
area ... to examine ways to maintain peace and promote
development" in this part of the world, Wang Yi opined
that this meeting "will attract worldwide attention.
Even the fact that our scholars are sitting together,
even if they are not talking about anything, will
attract world attention."
Wang Yi echoed the
views of delegates from all three countries when he said
that the trilateral dialogue was "not aimed against
anyone". "The Cold War is over, there is no longer any
zero-sum game in international relations. We want both
Russia and India to play a more positive and important
role in international affairs," he said.
Participants from all the three countries
emphasized the fact that each of them valued their
important and vital economic and political relations
with the US and European Union, and that this trilateral
dialogue was not aimed against any other country or
group but was meant to improve the relations between
three major Eurasian powers facing similar developmental
and political challenges. The third trilateral
conference will be hosted by India in 2003.
Not
surprisingly, one of the main decisions of even the
first conference was that the proposed cooperation would
be non-confrontational and not directed against any
third parties. Apparently, none of the participants
wanted to give the impression that they were "ganging
up" against the sole superpower, although the US
military presence in the region was even then becoming a
cause for concern for all three countries.
Clearly, there has been sufficient enthusiasm in
the three countries since before September 11 to
cooperate on strategic, economic and energy-security
issues, though none wants to create the impression that
they are entering into a formal bloc or axis, especially
one perceived as anti-US or anti-West. It is a different
matter, though, that this is precisely how Western
analysts look at these developments. Washington and
other Western capitals, too, are keeping a close eye for
some time now.
Senior US officials in the
administration of former president Bill Clinton were
quoted as saying that they were carefully watching the
developing ties between the three nuclear powers. In the
wake of Kosovo, they acknowledged that several
countries, including Russia and China, were becoming
increasingly uneasy about America's global dominance.
"Policymakers never admit to being worried, but we do
see trends, some of which are cause for concern," said
one senior Clinton administration official.
Washington felt that even if the three continued
to intensify their links, each had a stake in
maintaining working relations with the US, which offered
access to a huge pool of technology, a lucrative export
market and international lending institutions. But area
specialists warned that if Washington played its cards
badly and introduced new tensions into these key
relationships, America could end up with formidable
adversaries.
This is precisely what the Bush
administration would appear to have done with virtually
abandoning the war against terrorism, having let Osama
bin Laden disappear and refusing to pursue him and his
al-Qaeda with any vigor, practically abandoning a ruined
Afghanistan to its fate and perhaps again in the hands
of Pakistan, and picking on what is seen as an
unnecessary fight with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq
with motives that are not very clear. This is giving
India, Russia and China additional reasons to
collaborate, worried as they are about the ill-effects
of American policies on the region as a whole as well as
the consequences for their own economies in the event of
an unwanted, completely avoidable war.
A
generally negative all-round view of the US in India was
confirmed by a global survey of world opinion by the Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press in a report
published on Friday, though it is still favorable
compared to the hostility with which the US is viewed in
large parts of the Muslim world.
This
transformation has come about largely due to the US
treating Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror. India
believes that Pakistan is a part of the problem and
cannot possibly be part of a solution. Frustration with
the US grows directly in proportion to the US praise
showered on President General Pervez Musharraf of
Pakistan off and on as "a stalwart ally". India is not
impressed with the Pakistani experiment in democracy
either and continues to regard it as a military
dictatorship.
It was hoped that at least with
the exposure of Pakistan as a nuclear proliferator in
recent reports about its missile for nuclear technology
deals with North Korea, the US will try to rein in the
Pakistanis. But that, too, doesn't seem to be happening.
In fact, the US has increased pressure on India to start
a dialogue with Pakistan, letting it known once again
that it considers Kashmir a disputed territory.
It is in this bleak scenario that Putin entered
and shrewdly won Indian hearts, even before he set foot
here. Several days before his arrival, he spoke about
his fears that Pakistani nukes were a danger to the
civilized world. In the joint statement, too, Moscow has
backed New Delhi's position on cross-border terrorism to
the hilt.
The declaration says, "Both sides
discussed in detail the current situation in South Asia.
They stressed the importance of Islamabad implementing
in full its obligations and promises to prevent the
infiltration of terrorists across the Line of Control
into the state of Jammu and Kashmir and at other points
across the border, as well as to eliminate the terrorist
infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled
territory as a prerequisite for the renewal of peaceful
dialogue between the two countries to resolve all
outstanding issues in a bilateral framework as envisaged
in the Shimla Agreement of 1972 and the Lahore
Declaration of 1999."
Also, the two sides
stressed that the "roots of terrorism" lay in their
common neighborhood and posed a threat to their security
interests. "Both sides would take preventive and
deterrent measures to prevent and suppress terrorism.
Both sides declared their determination to enhance
collective and bilateral efforts to prevent and suppress
terrorism."
Vajpayee referred to the Moscow
hostage-taking, the Bali attack, the Mombasa killings
and the continuing terrorist incidents in India as
manifestations of the common threat from international
terrorism. In response to a question, he said that
bilateral relations between India and Russia were
"excellent" and suggested that they were worthy of
emulation.
Trade between the two countries was
not satisfactory, the Indian premier said, and hoped
that the joint declaration would redress the issue. The
joint declaration on economic cooperation recognized
that energy security had become an increasingly
important component of bilateral ties. "The two sides
indicated their common desire to intensify long-term
cooperation in this sector, which could be extended to
other areas, including the Caspian Sea, and to other
aspects of the energy sector."
However, while
Putin was able to handle the Indian obsession with
Pakistan and excite the imagination of so many in India,
earning the applause of the political class in the
process, this does not augur well for the triangular
relationship. Pakistan has in China an all-weather
friend and China has shown no inclination for forgoing
this friendship in order to develop strategic ties with
India.
Indeed, India views the Chinese
friendship with Pakistan with a great deal of mistrust.
At the very first meeting between the foreign ministers
of these three nations in New York in September, Chinese
Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan raised the issue of the
"tension between India and Pakistan" with External
Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, and suggested that New
Delhi start a dialogue with Islamabad. Highly placed
Indian sources told a major newspaper, the Indian
Express, that Sinha was forced to point out to his
Chinese counterpart that not only was this meeting "not
the occasion" to raise such issues, but that Islamabad
was the real source of cross-border terrorism.
In the case of Russia, too, the hype is somewhat
hypocritical. As analyst Pravin Sawhney pointed out in
the pro-government newspaper, the Pioneer, "The Indian
leadership went to town about what Putin said on nukes
and ignored his comments on terrorism. India refuses to
acknowledge that our best friend has his own, and not
our national interest in mind, and he would not rock the
US apple cart for us. The truth is that one year after
September 11, Russia and China, two US skeptics, have
both come around to share the US view point on terrorism
and proliferation, the two issues which comprise
President [George W] Bush's war on terror.
"Facing own terrorist insurgencies, these powers
initially cut a deal with Washington that it would not
interfere in their internal matters in return for
support for the United States' war - Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan. Russia has been fighting
militancy in its break-away Chechnya republic while
China has been battling with Muslim Uighurs in its
Xinjiang province. Both powers mutually support
anti-terrorism actions launched by each other in their
own countries. After their national agenda were accepted
by the US, both countries have acknowledged that the
scourge of terrorism and proliferation needs to be
addressed seriously."
Another discrepancy has
been noted by several observers in the continuing debate
on India rekindling its romance with the Nehruvian idea
of a triangular strategic partnership. While Putin was
fulminating over the dangers of Pakistani nuclear
proliferation, a Russia-Pakistan joint working group on
terrorism was under way in Moscow, co-chaired by Russian
deputy foreign minister Anatoly Safonov and Pakistan's
additional secretary Aneesuddin Ahmed, apparently to
keep Pakistan "engaged" on the issue of international
terrorism. Another meeting on "strategic stability"
between Moscow and Islamabad is scheduled for next year.
Indian officials pointed out that despite the
"strategic partnership" between India and Russia, such a
sustained dialogue on counter-terrorism still did not
exist between the two countries. Indeed a Russia-India
joint working group on terrorism has just been formed
while the one with Pakistan has been functioning for
some time.
Indian analysts also point to the
manner in which both Russia and China had decided to cut
their own, private deals with the US on Iraq.
Pointing to problems in developing an
India-China strategic relationship, analyst Kalyani
Sahnkar bemoans, "Chinese have a sharp memory, would
they forget the letter written by the Indian prime
minister to the then US president Bill Clinton [soon
after the Pokhran II nuclear tests in 1998] that China,
rather than Pakistan, was the important factor for
India's nuclear program? As for India, it, too, sees
itself as a growing economic power and the natural
leader in Asia. Its traditional rivalry with China and
the fact it lost the 1962 war [with China] makes it
hesitant to enter any power-sharing agreement with
Beijing. In short, there are still many hawks in India
who have not forgotten the 1962 war and look at Beijing
with suspicion."
Comments The Times of India,
"Mr Putin's overtures are being seen as an invitation
for an axis between India, Russia and China. And though
no one is quite saying so, the inevitable conclusion is
that the axis will be countervailing force against the
US. There are problems with both suppositions. For a
start, it is not clear how far even Russia will go in
pursuing Pakistan. Mr Putin's silence on the issue of
Pakistan's assistance to North Korea's nuclear program
is hardly cause for comfort.
"Whether it is
President Bush's refusal to acknowledge Pakistan's role
in fostering terrorism or his determined pursuit of
Saddam Hussein, America does as it pleases. China has
equally proved to be a law unto itself. Indeed, it seems
absurd even to assume that China, given its aspiration
to emerge as a world power equal to the US, will bother
with getting into an axis with India."
Thus,
anti-American enthusiasts may be hallucinating about the
strategic triangle, while the governments in New Delhi,
Moscow and Beijing are more realistic. Certainly, all
three are determined to avoid giving any impression that
they are ganging up against Washington. Yet there is a
certain inevitability about the triangular strategic
partnership that refuses to entertain any of the
realistic doubts and suspicions. Stuff that old romance
is made of, perhaps.
(©2002 Asia Times Online
Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
