|
|
|
|
Factoring in
Pakistan
By Siddharth
Srivastava
NEW DELHI - Apart from other
aspects, notably in the nuclear arena, one
definitive conclusion can be drawn from the visit
of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US:
in its foreign policy dealings with South Asia,
the US has finally and decisively moved away from
bracketing India and Pakistan. Rather, the
clubbing is now China and India.
For a
long time India has insisted that the US should
deal with New Delhi independently of Pakistan.
However, Washington, weighed by the exigencies of
the Cold War earlier and the "war on terror"
post-September 11, has viewed India through the
Pakistan prism. A few months back, the US opened
its arms supplies to India, with the balancing act
of similar equipment, including F-16 fighter
planes, being made available to Pakistan.
Matters have changed now. One telling
reminder is the refusal by the US to offer
Pakistan any kind of nuclear space, after a
nuclear deal on energy cooperation was signed
between Manmohan and US President George W Bush
last week. "There is no reason for us to have a
hyphenated strategic framework for South Asia ...
And certainly in the case of civil nuclear
cooperation, we are going to have individual
relationships," Under Secretary of State Nicholas
Burns said.
"And, the fact is that India
has a record of non-proliferation, which is
exceptional; very strong commitment to protection
of fissile material, other nuclear materials and
nuclear technology; and there is a transparency
about India's program, which has been welcomed,"
he said. Pakistan is predictably miffed with the
US stance and has issued a statement saying so.
Another episode is the US's rejection of
granting Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz the
kind of "welcome" that was laid out for Manmohan
in the US, including a dinner hosted at the White
House and an address to Congress. Aziz has
subsequently cancelled his US trip, after
Washington informed Islamabad that Aziz was an
"elected" prime minister only in a technical
sense, and not a real one. The US recognizes
President General Pervez Musharraf as the only
leader of Pakistan and treats him so when he
visits the US. However, the reason ascribed for
the US's denial to Aziz is a direct snub to
Musharraf, as well as the legislative functioning
formulated by the general under which he
essentially wields power.
Many observers
believe that the US turnabout has got to do more
with China than Pakistan. According to noted
columnist Indian Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar,
"A country that is feared is also respected.
Pakistan poses no threat to American jobs, but
China does. Americans worry that manufacturing
jobs will migrate to China and services jobs to
India. So China and India are constantly bracketed
together in media and political debates as rising
economic powers. This has rubbed off on foreign
policy."
Clearly, there has been a change
in mindset. The Abdul Qadeer Khan episode rings,
including the pardon issued by Musharraf. Khan,
the father of Pakistan's nuclear arms program, has
admitted to proliferation, notably with North
Korea and the US's bugbear, Iran. More recently,
Musharraf has been under the close scrutiny of
both Britain and the US in the wake of the bomb
attacks in London, in which three of the four
bombers were of Pakistani origin and had visited
Pakistan in the year prior to the attacks. While
Musharraf's record of cracking down on extremists
involved in sectarian violence in Pakistan has
been good, the infrastructure that churns out
diehard militants remains more or less intact.
The Times of India comments: "While the US
continues to bet on Islamabad to help it ferret
out jihadis targeting the West, the Pakistan
connection of the London bombers may make the Bush
administration realize that it may have
overestimated General Musharraf's powers, if not
intentions, in rooting out jihadi terror. After
all, no one wants to worry about Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal landing up in the wrong hands."
Perhaps emboldened by his US visit,
Manmohan has also been singing a slightly
different tune vis-a-vis Pakistan during and after
his US visit. It may be noted that India has
experienced a number of attacks in the past few
months, especially in the Indian portion of
Kashmir. Terrorists also made a bold attempt to
storm the makeshift Ram temple at Ayodhya, which
could have caused a communal backlash across the
country had security forces not thwarted the
attempt. The Manmohan government has also been
criticized by the opposition as well as its
coalition partners of turning India into a soft
state.
Manmohan has uttered the strongest
words against the ongoing peace process with
Pakistan, which he termed "irreversible" this
April, even in the face of terrorist attacks.
Conscious of world opinion against Pakistan post
the London blasts, Singh said in Washington, "I,
as prime minister of a democracy, would not be
able to go against public opinion if acts of
terrorism can't be controlled. It affects my
capacity to push forward the process of dialogue
with Pakistan."
In an interview with CNN,
Manmohan said that he had no doubt that Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda had a significant base in
Pakistan. In perhaps his most direct attack on
Musharraf, Manmohan said in Washington: "I do
trust [Musharraf]. But I think there is an old
saying of president [Ronald] Reagan. Trust and
verify."
Of particular interest has been
Manmohan's statement on the Iran-Pakistan-India
gas pipeline, which is opposed by the US, but
which has witnessed both New Delhi and Islamabad
hold their ground despite the pressure.
Reports in Washington quoted Manmohan, "I
am realistic enough to realize that there are many
risks considering all the uncertainties of the
situation in Iran. I don't know if any
international consortium of bankers would
underwrite this [the pipeline project]." Manmohan
is known for a subtle enunciation of views, but
several commentators have read the statement to
indicate more delays in the project as India
becomes more attuned to US concerns.
The
left parties, who lend their support to the
government, have criticized Manmohan for his
"changed" stand on the pipeline, while Petroleum
Minister Mani Shankar Aiyer, who is leading the
talks with Iran and Pakistan, has said that the
project is on course.
Indeed, all the
weekend newspapers in India have discussed in
detail the implications of the Manmohan visit,
which has been hailed as well as criticized.
Some have accused Manmohan of a sell-out
on India's nuclear status, while others have
concluded a permanent shift in US foreign policy
towards India, which will continue to be reflected
in future US administrations.
The broad
conclusion is that India will need to separate its
dire need for nuclear fuel for civilian purposes
from an independent weapons program, which cannot
be open to international scrutiny. Apart from a
few comments to the contrary, nobody doubts that
India will have to increase its nuclear power
capacity in the face of depleting fossil fuels and
rising international prices of crude oil if it is
to emerge as an economic powerhouse.
This
can only be possible if India invites nuclear
technology and support from abroad. There is also
the possibility that countries such as France will
remove their nuclear blockages on India in
response to the US move, which will only make
things better for India.
The peace process
with Pakistan, too, cannot be compromised. Despite
all that is being said, Musharraf remains the best
bet yet. As with the US, India, for the time
being, will have to deal with the general.
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
|
|
|
|
