| |
Wary of US, India eyes China
again
By Sultan Shahin
NEW
DELHI: The man who justified India's nuclear tests only
four years ago because of a perceived threat from China
and who described that country as "potential enemy
number one", ended a week in Beijing on Sunday, taking
forward the ongoing normalization of relations and
clarifying a boundary dispute that led to war in 1962.
Nothing could illustrate better the sea change
in the India-China relationship than the warm welcome
accorded to Defense Minister George Fernandes on his
arrival in the capital. The two countries reaffirmed
their commitment to formulate additional
confidence-building measures with a military focus and
expressed their determination to enhance bilateral
cooperation to combat terrorism. They have decided to
step up military-to-military exchanges and hold a second
counter-terrorism dialogue next month in Beijing.
The new Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao gushed
about how "during the past 2,200 years, or about 99.9
percent of the time" China and India have shared cordial
relations. The 0.1 percent obviously included the 1962
war and tensions after Fernandes needlessly dragged
China into the Indian rationale for the Pokhran II
nuclear tests in 1998.
Fernandes belongs to a
generation that sang the slogan "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai"
(Indians and Chinese are brothers) in the heady days of
post-independence euphoria in the 1950s when India's
first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, envisioned
fighting colonial powers and establishing a new world
order based on peace and freedom for all nations with
the help of Russia and China.
The 1962 border
war for which both India and China blame each other put
an end to those hopes. But now that colonialism appears
to be raising its head again, India is worried and many
Indians would like to revive the same old dream of close
strategic ties with Moscow and Beijing, though some
others are calling for joining hands with American
imperialism, even if it means accepting a subordinate
status and losing part of the country's hard-won
sovereignty.
Though the idea of a Moscow-New
Delhi-Beijing axis was revived by Russia a couple of
years ago, it has caught the imagination of many Indians
and has received a fresh lease of life with the
occupation of Iraq by US-led forces.
Like other
peoples, Indians, too, have become concerned over
neo-imperialist ideas that have gained hold in sections
of the US and UK administrations. In particular, the
ambitions of the neoconservatives who are influential in
Washington since President George W Bush came to power
are noted. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreword
in a little-known pamphlet entitled "Reordering the
World after September 11" by his top foreign policy
advisor Robert Cooper was also noted.
Cooper
wrote, "The opportunities, perhaps even the need for
colonization, is as great as it ever was in the 19th
century," says Cooper, "what is needed then is a new
kind of imperialism." Under the convenient garb of
tackling global terrorist threats, he called for
re-colonizing the jungle of less civilized peoples:
"Just like in the old empire, Western countries would
have to deal with 'old-fashioned states outside the
post-modern continent of Europe with the rougher methods
of an earlier era - force, preemptive attack, deception,
whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live
in the 19th century."
Fernandes is obviously in
the anti-imperialist camp. He has been criticized by
some for visiting China at a time when the epidemic of
severe acute respiratory syndrome is raging there, even
though they know that the visit had been planned much
earlier and cancellation would have been interpreted in
Beijing as another snub on the part of the defense
minister.
The pro-US lobby that wields great
influence on Indian media virtually blacked out news of
his historic visit, the first by an Indian defense
minister, after the initial reports on the first day.
But as the implications of the American occupation of
Iraq sink in, more and more people are wondering which
countries will be the next US targets, and even if India
could be a target.
As the US used weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) as an excuse for the war on Iraq,
and India has known WMD, analysts in the government and
outside are studying American academic journals and
reports prepared by think tanks close to the
administration looking for clues to what lies ahead.
Case-building in the US has always been done
through academic circles, says the mass-circulated
Indian weekly news magazine The Week, which published a
cover story on America's likely next targets and
considers India to be on the list. It quoted an
intelligence analyst in Delhi as saying, "When US think
tanks publish papers in prestigious academic journals,
that is a signal." Thus, soon after the installation of
the Hamad Karzai government in Kabul, there was a spate
of academic papers on Saddam Hussein's weapons and his
links with terrorists, long before the US administration
began talking about it.
Thus, many Indians have
reacted with dismay to a report saying that some
officials in Washington think that India has not been
punished enough for the 1998 Pokhran nuclear blasts,
followed by loud talk of a changed strategic balance
with Pakistan that virtually forced the latter to go
nuclear within a fortnight.
According to The
Week, there seems to be a school of thought in the US
military that India's nuclear weapons are a security
threat to US interests. What is worrisome, it says, is
the shift of US policy emphasis from non-proliferation
to counter-proliferation. If non-proliferation involved
only diplomatic tools, counter-proliferation involves
the use of American military force against proliferators
and potential proliferators. By this policy, heads of US
military commands (like the Central Command of General
Tommy Franks) have been asked to equip themselves to
deal with any state in their region that has or develops
mass destruction weapons.
So whether India likes
it or not, there is increased attention in the US on
India's nuclear assets. "Every time they analyze the WMD
scenario," says Brigadier (retired) Vijay Nair, one of
India's foremost experts on nuclear matters, "there is
maximum attention on India. Even the rogue states do not
attract so much attention."
The attention, of
late, has been not only on India's nuclear assets, but
on its alleged proliferation tendencies. A British
document on Saddam Hussein's weapon capabilities listed
an Indian company that allegedly exported chemical
weapon components to Iraq. The latest Central
Intelligence Agency report to Congress inluded Libya as
an Indian beneficiary: "Outside assistance -
particularly from Serbian, Indian, Iranian, North Korean
and Chinese entities - has been critical to its
[Libya's] ballistic missile development program."
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has made
several sections in the Indian establishment deeply
suspicious of US intentions. Some fear that America
wants military bases in India. A pro-government daily,
The Pioneer, considered close to Lal Krishan Advani,
Deputy Prime Minister and the moving spirit behind the
ruling party, carried on Thursday an article by analyst
Anuradha Dutt, entitled "America's South Asia Game
Plan". Dutt begins with a typical statement repeatedly
made by Advani, "India should fight its own battles,
which is the best guarantee for its sovereignty."
Such a course becomes all the more desirable,
she points out, in light of a classified report,
commissioned by the US Department of Defense, which
states that the US wants access to Indian bases and
military infrastructure. The American Air Force in
particular wishes to set up air bases in India and have
"access closer to areas of instability". Here is an
excerpt, "American military officers are candid in their
plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and
military infrastructure. India's strategic location in
the center of Asia, astride the frequently traveled sea
lanes of communication linking the Middle East and East
Asia, makes India particularly attractive to the US
military."
Dutt continued, "The classified
report, though not yet part of American foreign policy,
envisages reducing the emerging Asian giant to a
subordinate partner, a sidekick, to put it crudely,
which would entail providing military backup, training
and ports and bases for US operation. The report seems
to have an eye on cooperation by the Indian navy,
especially since a dominant presence in the Indian Ocean
is a primary objective of the American strategic
planning. The report states that US policy makers
'believe that the military relationship should result in
shared technology and capabilities, and ultimately they
would like to be able to respond jointly to regional
crises'."
What really worries Dutt is the
following, "The US's track record suggests that it is
unwilling to withdraw from any country where it manages
to get a foothold. It thereafter wants to grab a mile.
India's democratic institutions and certified nuclear
weapons capability may finally prove to be the biggest
deterrent to American ambitions in the subcontinent."
Also unhappy with the neoconservatives' hold
over Washington is a section that saw strategic
partnership with the US as a means to project India as a
counterpoise to "the growing menace" and "the
lengthening shadow" of China over Asia. This section of
the pro-US lobby was happy with former US president Bill
Clinton, who it says, looked at India in those terms.
Brahma Chellaney, strategist and frequent
contributor to the International Herald Tribune and
Hindustan Times, is furious with the neoconservatives,
"For neocons, the immediate priorities after Iraq are
Syria and Iran, countries of pressing concern to Israel.
Building a strategic partnership with India or
countervailing China's growing shadow over Asia appear
too distant for those myopically fixated on West Asia.
Meanwhile, like harlots preaching the virtues of
chastity, Powell and co have started giving sermons to
India on restraint, saying 'a resort to force would not
be the appropriate solution' and that any reprisal
against Pakistan 'simply is not wise'.
"The fact
is that the Christian Right, bolstering the neocon
agenda on Biblical lands, is significantly influencing
policy in Washington. The Christian Right and Jewish
Republicans (who dominate the neocon school of thought)
have become partners in shaping foreign policy. Bush's
own Christian fundamentalist beliefs have been alluded
to in Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War."
From his own standpoint, Chellaney reaches the
same conclusion as Advani. "In its hour of triumph,
Washington is even less inclined to appreciate India's
security concerns and interests. In any case, the Bush
administration is likely to spend the remainder of its
term in office pushing, and battling the consequences
of, its nearsighted West Asian agenda. Bush and the
neocon activists around him will discover to their
chagrin that in an era of globalization, there is little
tolerance for imperialism molded on conquest. Their
agenda of providing aggressive US leadership and
ensuring unfettered power is likely to only spur
proliferation and an open challenge to American
supremacy. If there is one lesson India can draw from
the recent events, it is the importance of a strongly
independent foreign and defense policy."
It is
not at all surprising that in this atmosphere of gloom
over any warmth developing in Indo-US relations, the
indefatigable US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill
has resigned his thankless job and decided to go back to
his teaching assignment at Harvard. One diplomat
commented, "There will be little forward momentum in
Indo-US relations in the near future. Lack of economic
reforms, Iraq, two general elections [in India and the
US] - together they will put relations in the freezer.
It makes sense to leave now."
It also makes
sense that Indian leaders try to revive old and
traditional relationships with neighboring countries
like China, which have themselves suffered colonial
domination in the past and are not happy with the
developing neo-imperialist scenario. These ties do not
have to be at the cost of their relations with other
countries. Both India and China would, for instance,
like to maintain their relations with the US. In a
globalized world, there is also a certain amount of
inevitability about this. But their ability to talk to
each other with the degree of frankness with which they
are understood to have raised even contentious issues
during the recent Fernandes visit is a tribute to the
high level of comfort that they are beginning to feel in
each others' company.
Fernandes conveyed to the
Chinese leadership India's concern over China supplying
"sensitive technology" to Pakistan. It appears that
China, too, has expressed its concern over Indian moves
in the Indian Ocean, its alarm at the Indian navy's
ambitious plans to acquire the capability to send
expeditionary forces by 2010 and the establishment of
the tri-service command by the Indian armed forces at
the Andaman and Nicobar islands that are virtually
sitting on the sea trade route to the South China Sea
and North Asia.
Indian government sources are,
however, convinced that China does not view India as a
rival. Instead, Beijing is signaling cooperation and is
willing to look at the idea of joint exercises with the
Indian navy under the bi-annual Milan exercise series
that India holds with some ASEAN countries. Beijing is
aware that countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and
Myanmar are concerned at Indo-US join patrolling of the
area. But it has signaled, in the understanding of
Indian officials, that rather than create trouble it
could use its influence with these countries to make
things easier for the Indian navy. It is indeed
interested in forging new ties with the Indian navy, and
thus trying to keep extraneous influences out of the
Indian Ocean.
Fernandes' visit has thus proved
quite fruitful in paving the way for Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee's visit later this year. The defense
minister has brought out in the open all the contentious
issues in his discussions with the new Chinese
leadership and tried to understand their sensitivities.
But it seems that during his visit Vajpayee will not
discuss these issues any further and instead concentrate
on improving bilateral trade ties and leave the tricky
issues to be tackled at lower levels in a series of
visits by officials of both countries.
(©2003
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
