| |
US-India ties: An adept
adaptation
By Ramtanu Maitra
South Asia watchers grabbed their divining rods
at the end of September when Indian Finance Minister
Jaswant Singh, in Washington for the World
Bank-International Monetary Fund jamboree, declared that
every country had the right to preemption and that this
doctrine was not the prerogative of any one nation.
"Preemption or prevention is inherent in deterrence.
Where there is deterrence there is preemption. The same
thing is there in Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter," which gives all states the right to
self-defense, Singh said.
The former external
affairs minister and a close confidante of Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wasn't shooting off his
mouth: the public embrace of preemption seemed a
carefully honed double-edged sword, at once threatening
Pakistan and challenging the US. Was this a signal that
an Indian preemptive strike to shut down terrorist
training camps in Pakistan was imminent?
Two
days later, on October 2, in reply to a question if war
was an option in settling serious disputes with
Pakistan, Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha was
quoted by the Press Trust of India saying: "War is
always the last option, but India has been successful in
cornering Pakistan through diplomatic channels. We are
still pursuing diplomatic options."
The same day
another news item caught observers' attention. The
Indian English news daily The Pioneer, which often sides
with the views of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the
leading party in the coalition government in India,
reported that the Indian government had asked its armed
forces to be prepared for all exigencies by the third
week of October 2002. "The services have ordered the
formations to finish leave by the first week of October
2002," the report said.
Commenting on the
instructions, the leading Pakistani news daily Dawn said
the next day that the possibility of an Indian
misadventure in Kashmir could not be ruled out in case
the Indian leadership found itself inextricably stuck in
the quagmire of a "freedom movement" even after holding
"sham" elections in the Indian-held part of Jammu and
Kashmir (J&K).
The context
At
first sight, Jaswant Singh's statement indicates support
for the White House's argument that the United States is
entitled to make a preemptive strike on Iraq. The
subject is much discussed in Washington, on Capitol Hill
and at the United Nations these days, where critics
argue that such a preemptive attack by one nation
against another would come under the category of
unilateralism.
It is an historical fact that
India has always promoted multilateralism and opposed
any move by any country to undermine the United Nations,
where a committee of nations is entrusted to decide on
such serious matters as war. Is, then, Jaswant Singh's
statement a shift in India's longstanding
internationalist policy, or a veiled threat to
Washington that if the United States chooses to take
recourse to Article 51 and attack Iraq without adequate
deliberation with other nations, India also reserves the
right to use the same clause of the UN Charter to launch
a preemptive attack against Pakistan? Or is it both?
Indeed, Jaswant Singh emphasized the
universality of the right of preemption: "Every nation
has that right. It is not the prerogative of any one
country. Preemption is the right of any nation to
prevent injury to itself."
Indian commentators
jumped on the statement. "Jaswant Singh is treading
dangerous ground in endorsing the doctrine of preemption
that is being articulated by US President George W Bush
and his senior officials," the leading Indian news daily
The Hindu said in its editorial on October 2. "He is
quite mistaken in claiming a right for India to act in
preemptive mode and in trying to minimize the
ill-effects of a doctrine that has ominous portents
irrespective of the circumstances and context in which
it is to be applied."
Whistling in the
wind?
Even if Jaswant Singh intended a warning to
Washington, it is unlikely that it will have much effect
on the "get Saddam Hussein" crowd now converging for the
final battle. The growing closeness of US-India
relations in military affairs draws regular headlines.
India has also allowed US intervention in its
neighborhood to resolve internal problems in Nepal and
Sri Lanka. India depends on the United States today more
than ever in keeping its foothold in Afghanistan. In
fact, beside the economic tie-up, India has, in effect,
lost quite a bit of its independence on matters such as
waging war against its neighbors.
Moreover, in
recent days Washington has made clear to India that
Pakistan is not only an American ally, but also that
Pakistan needs stability. A senior US defense official,
Doug Feith, who was in Islamabad recently, said on
September 27 that the Bush administration will soon
restore military aid to Pakistan to bolster the
country's military capabilities - a deal Islamabad hopes
will include new F-16 fighter jets. "The United States
has an interest in having Pakistan's capabilities
enhanced," US Undersecretary of Defense Feith said. "We
have an interest in working together with the Pakistani
armed forces on common security issues."
Feith
spoke at the end of four days of talks between US and
Pakistani defense officials in Pakistan's capital, the
first high-level meetings held since the United States
imposed sanctions following Pakistan's nuclear tests in
1998. The talks focused on the release of weapons and
equipment already earmarked for Pakistan but withheld
after the nuclear tests. The meeting - known as the
Defense Consultative Group - also discussed the purchase
of new weapons and the possibility of restarting joint
military exercises. Feith said Pakistan's participation
in the US-led war on terrorism had led US authorities to
reconsider the four-year ban on military assistance.
On September 30 in Washington, US Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, inaugurating the US-Pakistan
Business Council in Washington, made it clear that the
Bush administration greatly valued the help provided by
Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf to fight
terrorism, and that Washington is mindful of Pakistan’s
help. "Without this support, we could not have won this
war."
Wolfowitz went on to point out that the
United States had already provided Islamabad US$2
billion and that President Bush had told the Pakistani
Ambassador recently that the White House had urged the
US Congress to sanction another $1 billion in aid.
Beside the fact that the Bush administration deputed two
of Washington's top anti-Iraq officials to convey its
plan to strengthen relations with the Musharraf
administration, it is evident from the recent
give-and-take between Islamabad and Washington that both
need each other, whether others like it or not.
US-India security ties
It is also
clear that many things are going on at many levels
between India and the United States. While such close
cooperation is a sign of maturity, it is also evident
that India’s inability to speak out clearly against
inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Israel or the US
and Britain-led war on Iraq is a direct fallout of
Indian foreign policy’s growing dependence on the United
States.
The most significant part of this
US-India relationship is the growing military ties. In
October, joint naval maneuvers will take place in the
Arabian Sea for the first time involving a
cruiser-destroyer group of three or four warships and
maritime reconnaissance aircraft. Indian solders will
train with American Special Forces from the US Pacific
Command in Alaska. The site of the exercise is worth
noting - the cold, mountainous terrain in Alaska being
similar to that of India's borders with its two regional
rivals Pakistan and China.
US-Indian military
collaboration is not confined to the Indian subcontinent
but extends to naval cooperation in a swathe of ocean
from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. In February
2001, the US Navy participated for the first time in an
international fleet review organized by the Indian Navy
in Bombay. Last December the two countries reached an
agreement on naval cooperation to secure the maritime
routes between the Suez Canal and the Malacca Strait. In
March, the two navies conducted a combined training
exercise in the Malacca Strait.
While the joint
patrols are taking place under the banner of "the war
against terrorism", the real aims are to ensure US
control over key naval routes such as the Malacca
Strait, through which a substantial portion of world
trade, including oil and gas, pass. Known as
"chokepoints", these sea-lanes provide Washington with a
means of exerting pressure, direct and indirect, on its
rivals in the region.
Yossef Bodansky, director
of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and
Unconventional Warfare and a close friend of Israel,
recently pointed to the strategic significance of the
Malacca Strait, saying: "The global strategic growth and
expansion of aspiring powers can be contained and
regulated through the mere control over the movement of
their naval forces through the Strait of Malacca."
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
