|
Change of guard in US : India’s hopes on Bush |
 |
Questions are being asked in diplomatic quarters in New Delhi as to how will the Bush Foreign Policy triad - of Secretary of State, Collin Powell, National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice, and possibly the next Defence Secretary Dan Coats - deal with the Indian Subcontinent famously described by outgoing President Clinton as the “world’s most dangerous flashpoint”? Will it adopt a more hands-on approach in Kashmir or would it be the more low key behind-the-scenes manoeuvres adopted by the Clinton-Berger-Albright troika? And on nuclear non-proliferation issues, will there by dissonance between Powell on one hand and Rice and the ‘Vulcan’ group of Bush foreign policy advisors on the other? Will the new bosses shed some of the unimaginative zero sum politics linking India and Pakistan when it came to subcontinental issues that characterised most of the two terms of the Clinton presidency.
President-elect George W Bush’s choices for the key posts of secretary of state and national security advisers have generated optimism in the Indian establishment. But South Block will wait a little longer for some of the other posts to be filled before forming an opinion on how the new dispensation in Washington will deal with Delhi.
In his only major foreign policy speech last year on a definitive “American Internationalism” at the Ronald Reagan presidential library at Simi Valley, California, George W Bush spoke on India’s potential to become a “force in the world” in this century as it opens its markets to the world and chooses its strategic path. Then Governor Bush told a rapt audience that the “US must pay attention” to an emerging India which had often been overlooked by America’s strategic calculations. Bush did mention that all this renewed focus on India should not be at the expense of undermining Pakistan which had been a “longtime ally”.
Both Colm Powell, the designated secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, chosen as the national security adviser, have in the recent past identified India as the “emerging superpower in the region” and stressed on a closer and deeper engagement between Washington and Delhi. One of the reasons why they chose India is an opinion that the country could work as a counter-balance against China. The new national security adviser has made no bones about her partiality towards India in her much-talked about article in the journal, Foreign Affairs, early this year. She had been following it up by regularly interacting with senior Indian officials who visited Washington over the past few months.
Powell, who replaces Madeleine Albright, has argued in favour of closer Indo-US ties for stability in the region. Soon after his new appointment, Powell has said American foreign policy would focus on the promotion of democracy as well as free enterprise and the fight against terrorism. He made it clear that Washington would have close links with countries which believe in and practise the virtues of democracy and free enterprise and were making a serious attempt to combat international terrorism. A section in South Block cannot but find a clear message in this for Pakistan. “On both democracy and terrorism. Pakistan fits the bill in the wrong way rather well,” a senior official of the Indian foreign ministry said. But thee are others in the ministry who feel that Islamabad may be able to “start with a clean slate” with the Bush administration. The nominees for assistant secretary, deputy secretary and under secretary in the state department have not yet been announced. The occupants of the posts will play a crucial role in formulating the US foreign policy. South Block officials pointed out that Robin Raphael, when she was the US assistant secretary of state, had played a significant role in America’s pro-Pakistani tilt. The relationship between Delhi and Washington blossomed after she left the South Asia desk.
Ties with Washington had started strengthening in the eighties under the Republican regime. It was in 1984 that the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding on transfer of technology. In the subsequent years, Delhi got the first supercomputer. Defence links also crystallised, paving the way for regular high-level visits. “All this took place in the height of the Cold War,” a senior official said. Pakistan first figured on the US watchlist when the Republicans were in power.
But, poltical analsts wonder, will India be a “strategic partner” of America”. This will depend on what policies the Bush Administration pursues. India cannot be a “natural ally” in these circumstances. Surely, it cannot endorse all of America’s policies. The Republicans have been in favour of “containment” of China while the Democrats want to “engage” it in a constructive relationship. India can have nothing to do with “containment”. Nor can India be a “strategic partner” of the USA in the pursuit of US national interests. The fact is even Bush cannot follow the policy of containment. There is a powerful US lobby in favour of existing US relations with China. China supplies vast quantities of high quality, low priced consumer products. No other country can replace China in this. Not even Japan. That is why Washington if unlikely to boost the military sinews of Japan. China will consider it inimical.
India will no doubt welcome a major US presence in Asia. This is to check Chinese ambitions. One can expect a modest military cooperation between India and the USA in the future. As for economic relations, the Republicans are less likely to make concessions to India. India will naturally watch with a measure of anxiety the unfolding of US policies in the Gulf, Central Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are areas of vital interest to both India and Russia. Bush is reported to have vast financial interests in oil and gas. The same is true of his Vice-President Cheney. Both must be part of the powerful US oil lobby. Now that they hold the highest jobs in the country, they are expected to pursue the interests of the oil cartels, especially in Central Asia. Needless to say, they will be opposed to fundamentalism and terrorism. A victory for the Taliban is the last thing they will countenance. If the oil lobby is in favour of making up with Iran (which is likely), then Washington will get tough with Pakistan and Kabul. If Washington tries to wean away Central Asia from the Russian sphere of influence and construct a pipeline via Afghanistan and Pakistan to take advantage of the huge demand for hydrocarbons in India, then the Bush Administration is likely to put pressure on Pakistan to tame the Taliban. Pakistan has everything to gain by adopting the economic route. It may be even willing to surrender Osama bin Laden. And China is expected to put pressure on Islamabad to opt for this course. As it is, Taliban does not see the economic advantages open to it. It is set on its course of fundamentalism and terrorism. It has not responded to UN efforts to restore peace and normalcy. This explains why the USA, Russia and India have come together and formed an alliance. In fact, Russia and India are already supplying arms to the Northern Alliance of Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmed Shah Masoud.
Bush and the Asian Balance of Power
While India is cautiously optimistic about its bilateral relations with Washington under President George W Bush, China is somewhat anxious and concerned while Japan is very hopeful. As remarked by a political analyst, C Raja Mohan, the most important declaration of the Bush campaign was that the US under the Republicans would move away from the “China first” policy of the Democrats to a “Japan first” approach. The Republicans argued that Mr Clinton had neglected the traditional alliance relationship with Japan in favour of a proclaimed “strategic partnership” with China. They insist that alliances which are so vital in times of war must be nurtured with care in peacetime and cannot be neglected. During the campaign, Mr Bush also proclaimed that China was not a “strategic partner” but “strategic competitor”. These themes have been highlighted since Mr Bush was declared President-elect. At the ceremony held last week to nominate him secretary state, Gen Powell reemphasized the importance of traditional alliances. He went on to say the US would engage China not as an “enemy or adversary” but insisted that the Asian giant could not yet be treated as a “strategic partner”. The brief remarks by Gen Powell do not necessarily indicate that a fundamental shift in policy is in the making. The Republican party is itself deeply divided over China. The strong commercial links with it imply that American corporates will not want to see a major disruption in Sino-US relations. Many moderates in the Republican partying engaging China to containing it. But there are many geopolitical realists in the party who see China as a long-term threat and argue that the US must begin to take steps to constrain its growing clout in Asia. There are others who are ideologically hostile to China and demand a tougher American line. The eventual Bush policy will depend on how the internal debate in the party and the Administration evolves in the coming months.
The Republican discourse on two other issues has a huge potential to complicate Sino-US relations -Taiwan and missile defences. There is a strong lobby of support for Taiwan among the Republicans, some of whom are determined to open up even the question of “one-China”. Beijing, on the other hand, has already cautioned the President-elect not to reopen settled issues, and hopes that the new Administration will abide by the restraint Mr Clinton has shown on Taiwan. The question of arms sales to Taiwan is one of the early decisions that Mr Bush will have to make next year and it could provoke a strong Chinese reaction. The US plans to deploy theatre missile defence systems in Asia and develop national missile defence systems are seen in China as constituting a dual threat. On the one hand, they could undermine the effectiveness of the Chinese nuclear arsenal and, on the other, bring Taiwan under the rubric of a missile defence and reduce Beijing’s security leverages against the island. China has mounted a strong international political campaign against missile defences, and responded with some concern to Gen Powell’s statement reiterating support for missile defences. During the final days of the US campaign, the Chinese went public with their anxiousness about the many disconcerting elements of the proposed Bush policy. But the leadership in Beijing is confident that it will be able to persuade the new crew in Washington to avoid confrontation and stay on a moderate course. China in the past successfully used different levers in US domestic politics and played its diplomatic cards in the international arena to prevent Washington from getting too high-handed. Chinese leaders have known the former President, Mr Bush Sr., quite well since the days he opened the first American mission in China in the 1970s. They are also confident that the free trade and commercial orientation of the Republicans will helps dampen some of the ideological enthusiasm for containment in Washington under the new dispensation. While Beijing will indeed face some challenges in the management of Sino-US relations in the coming months. Tokyo has every reason to be pleased with the change of guard. It bitterly complained about “Japan passing: when Mr Clinton declared a strategic partnership with China in June 1998 and skipped going to the long-standing American ally. Japan will now look forward to the Republican Administration fulfilling its promise to refurbish US-Japan alliance. Among the ideas floating around in Washington are expanded military cooperation and letting Japan play a much larger role in Asian security management.
India is removed from the central dynamic of the US-Japan-China triangle that dominates the politics of the region. India, however, is hopeful that in the coming years its own standing in the region will steadily improve and eventually make it an important component of the Asia balance of power. There is some excitement in New Delhi over the Republican promise to treat India as an emerging power in Asia. Same in the Bush team seem to acknowledge Indian security concerns vis-a-vis China and others have often talked about an enhanced Indian profile in the region. But it will be unwise for New Delhi to rush to the judgment that Washington is all set to treat India as a counterweight to China. Instead of looking for anew cold war in Asia between the US and China, India should focus on enhancing its own economic weight and deepening its political engagement with all the major powers in Asia. India’s relations with the US, China and Japan remain way below potential. India will also find it hard to play a larger security role in Asia unless it leads the subcontinent towards greater economic integration and brings a little more credibility to its “look east” policy. India must keep an eye on the unfolding balance of power politics in Asia; but its immediate priorities lie in trying to solve problems in its own neighbourhood, in particular with China and Pakistan.
|
