|
|
|
|
India makes a play for F-16
fighters
By Siddharth
Srivastava
NEW DELHI - It is now official:
India has indicated to the United States that it
is interested in purchasing advanced F-16 fighter
jets for its air force, a move that has sent
frissons throughout the establishments in India,
the US and inevitably Pakistan. Indian air force
chief S K Tyagi said at the Aero India industry
show at Bangalore this Monday that New Delhi is
seeking to buy 125 fighter jets and has approached
Lockheed Martin Corp, which makes F-16s, and is
also considering Swedish Gripens made by Saab,
French Mirages, and Russian MiG-29 fighters.
"Consideration of Lockheed Martin would
have been unthinkable just four years ago, when
the US maintained military sanctions against New
Delhi following India's May 1998 nuclear tests.
But sanctions were phased out starting in late
2001, and bilateral ties have since flourished,"
the forum F-16.net reported in response to Tyagi's
remarks.
Lockheed Martin executives have
already made an initial sales pitch in which India
must cobble together US$25 million apiece,
amounting to a healthy $3 billion over five years.
The jets will also need to be in synch with the
other cutting-edge Indian fighters: the Sukhois,
Mirages, Jaguars and MiGs, besides the nascent
Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. Indian air
force test pilots have had first-hand experience
with the F-16s during their visits to the United
States to check for LCA systems, as well as
exercises with the air forces of Singapore and
Israel, in the past couple of years.
Apart
from the strategic defense consequences of
relations between India and Pakistan, India's
intent to purchase the F-16s marks another closure
of a paradigm of defense relations that harked
back to the Cold War era. In the past India relied
heavily on French and Russian fighters but is now
seeking to spread its wings further. The MiG
fighters have also invited censure because of
their numerous crashes as of late.
Speaking in Banglaore about the Indian
request, US Ambassador David Mulford said his
country has yet to decide on the matter: "We have
been contacted with an RFI [request for
information]. We are considering that matter at
the moment. No decision has been made." Mulford
said the United States had also not decided on
whether to approve a longtime request by Pakistan
to buy F-16s, and added that any talk of linking
India's moves with the decision on Pakistan was
"irrelevant". Mulford said Washington wants to be
a very big supplier of military equipment to
India.
India-Pakistan and
F-16s
F-16s form part of Pakistan's key
military arsenal, and 40 of them were supplied to
Pakistan by the US from 1983 to 1987, when
Pakistan supported the US in its efforts to drive
the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But in 1990, the
US Congress passed legislation halting the
delivery of the jets for fear that Pakistan was on
the verge of building a nuclear bomb. Washington's
fears were not unfounded, as in May 1998 Pakistan
carried out nuclear-weapons tests in response to
India turning into a fully nuclear-armed state.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Pakistan
has re-emerged as a key US ally in the "war on
terrorism", but further supplies of about 70
fighter jets are still held up by US sanctions
because of congressional laws that Pakistan must
not be nuclear to avail of US aid.
Though
the US returned the advance money that Pakistan
had already paid, the military establishment in
Pakistan has remained very unhappy with the move
and makes regular pleas to the US for the F-16s,
the latest being a personal request by President
General Pervez Musharraf when he met with US
President George W Bush late last year, after the
latter's November re-election.
The jets
are clearly seen as the key to Pakistan balancing
its military strength vis-a-vis India, which does
not have any. The F-16 is also known as the Viper,
and is acknowledged by some as the finest fighter
jet in the world. It is believed that 32 of the
fighters supplied initially to Pakistan are still
in service. Although there is still a long way to
go before India can acquire the F-16s, the mere
proposal will raise the hackles of Pakistan, which
will now likely push much harder for the lifting
of the curbs.
In the past few months there
have been concerted efforts by India to ensure
that Pakistan does not procure the jets. Late last
year, Washington pledged a $1.2 billion arms
package to Islamabad, though there was no
categorical mention of the F-16 jets. The Bush
administration notified Congress of its intention
to sell sophisticated weapons to Pakistan,
including eight P-3C Orion planes to beef up
surveillance of its coasts and borders.
US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who visited New
Delhi around the same time, was strongly told that
any sale of fighter jets to Pakistan might affect
India-US relations. The US in turn tried to
placate an incensed India over Washington's
impending arms sale to Pakistan by offering to
sell more weapons to New Delhi. India also sacked
its high-profile US lobbying firm, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer and Field, in order to make a fresh
start and inroads into the US establishment.
Pakistan, at last count, has appointed no fewer
than eight law firms to plead its case in various
forums of the US legislature and executive.
In December, India claimed a partial
victory in thwarting Pakistan's F-16 shopping
spree by saying that Belgium had agreed to New
Delhi's request not to sell the fighter jets to
Islamabad. The issue of Pakistan's formal request
to Belgium to procure F-16 jets was taken up with
the Belgian authorities in September 2003, Indian
Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in
parliament. "Given the sensitivity of the
geopolitical situation in South Asia, the Belgian
government took a conscious decision not to sell
F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan," Mukherjee
announced amid desk-thumping by the lawmakers.
Islamabad in turn has accused Delhi of
being paranoid about Pakistan's defense
requirements. Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood
Khan said recently that India's weapons
acquisition and weaponization program is very
ambitious. "They have been buying weapons and
sophisticated technology from all over the world.
Pakistan's program is modest compared to that of
New Delhi, which it said spends billions of
dollars on weapons. We do not want to match India
gun-for-gun, missile-for-missile,
aircraft-for-aircraft," he said.
Indeed,
over the past couple of years the US has been at
its wits' end to keep in good humor both India and
Pakistan. The US needs Pakistan as a key ally in
its "war against terror" while India is seen as a
huge emerging market for weapons as well as other
exports ranging from retail goods to passenger
aircraft.
The Pentagon's argument that it
is necessary to supply weapons to Pakistan to
assist in operations against terrorists holed up
in difficult terrain in the northwest reaches does
not hold water with New Delhi, which feels that
the same weapons could very easily be trained
against India. In the 1980s Washington could
afford to ignore India when the Soviet Union
occupied Afghanistan, and offered the F-16s
exclusively to Pakistan, until the Pressler
amendment of October 1990. Post-2000, as the
Indian economy started to muster, Washington
warmed up to New Delhi by offering a
next-generation strategic partnership. But in the
wake of September 11, Pakistan bounced back into
the reckoning, with the US designating the country
as a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization
ally, taking India by surprise.
Last
month, former US ambassador to India Robert
Blackwill questioned any US sale of F-16 fighter
jets to Pakistan when it had not ceased
cross-border terrorism. "Why should Washington
transfer these fighters to Pakistan when the
country has not stopped sponsoring cross-border
terrorism?" asked Blackwill in New Delhi. "Such a
sale will compromise India's air-power
superiority. The F-16 models that Pakistan is
seeking are nuclear-capable models. Could these
not be used against India? US military sales to
Pakistan should be that of a strategic supplier
taking into full consideration India's security
concerns," he said.
Some experts have
argued that the US is playing a dangerous game by
agreeing to supply deadly weapons to both India
and Pakistan, which could have a deleterious
impact on the fragile peace process between the
two countries that began in January last year.
However, it should also be remembered that the US
is driven by its own self-interest in the region,
whether the business of arms supplies or its "war
against terror". It is for India and Pakistan to
set their own house in order by engagement as well
as forward movement in the peace process. It is
always a bit foolish to expect any third party to
be driven by the principles of a higher good when
the fault lies within two warring neighbors who
refuse to budge from their intransigent positions.
Siddharth Srivastava is a New
Delhi-based journalist.
(Copyright
2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette South Asian Sex News
|
|
|
