|
Indo-US : Positive pointers of Bush’s India policy |
 |
The first indications from the new Bush Administration regarding its South Asia policy point to a broad continuation of the Clinton dispensation’s revitalized engagement in the region with increasing weightage for India and a backing for its peace initiative in Kashmir, including its fight against cross-border terrorism. Former President Clinton, in a letter to Prime Minister Vajpayee, days before he demitted office, described the “new relationship” with India as one of the achievements of which he was most proud of. And President Bush in reply to President K.R. Naraynan’s message of congratulations described America’s friendship with India as “one of the most exciting and promising relationships”. State Department officials who being civil servants, remain in the Administration say, they have detected no “vibrations of any unhappiness or calls for any review” of the Clinton Administration’s policy towards South Asia. That policy, initiated in the late 1990s, called for a delinking of Indo-US ties from a strictly arms control agenda and Washington’s long-standing but diminishing ties with Pakistan. If anything, initial pointers from the Bush Administration, contained in the Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s testimony before the Senate, signal an even stronger engagement with India. Mr. Powell, who hinted in his testimony that the remaining economic sanctions against India and other countries may be lifted, has already ordered a broad review of the curbs, with an eye towards possibly eliminating a substantial number of them except where Iraq is concerned. “We are looking at the multiple and long list of sanctions that exist in law and elsewhere”, State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher said on Jan. 25. The outgoing Indian ambassador to the US, Naresh Chandra, speaking at a function in Washington has also said, his impression was that lifting of sanctions was a matter of time. He claimed that Indo-US ties will remain buoyant under Bush.
Mr. Powell, who hinted in his Senate confirmation testimony that economic curbs against India would be reviewed and possibly lifted, said that India should “grow more and more focussed” in the lens of US policy. Describing India as “world’s largest democracy”, Mr. Powell said, “India has the potential to help keep peace in the vast India Ocean area and its periphery”.
Of course, in the same statement, Mr. Powell hastened to add that the US should not “neglect our friends in Pakistan”, but the picture emerging from Washington in recent days suggests that the US is willing to back the moderate elements in Pakistan only as long as they show some nerve against the tide of fundamentalism espoused by the Jehadi forces. Absent this resolve, Washington might bear down hard on Islamabad. In fact, political observers note, even amid the change-over of Administration, Washington has been putting pressure on Gen. Musharraf’s military regime to cool down its anti-India rhetoric and act against the jehadi forces that are openly espousing terrorism.
In recent days, the General has been talked to by two key US interlocutors, US ambassador to Pakistan, William Milam and US commander of Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks. They are both believed to have conveyed Washington’s concern over runaway activities of the jehadis that are going largely unchecked by the militant regime and are even being supported by sections of the Pakistani army and intelligence. Following such counsel, it appears to have cooled down the rhetoric.
Political observers say there are at least four reasons for optimism that the phase of Indo-US engagement that began during the second term of President Clinton will not be disturbed and rater improved upon. First, key members of the Bush Administration are deeply concerned about the future of China, and its possible emergence as a belligerent and revisionist superpower that will seek to challenge American influence and power, especially in the Asia-Pacific region in the next decade or so. They view China more as a rival and a strategic competitor than the strategic partner that the Clinton Administration had made it out to be. In his Senate testimony, Colin Powell said, China was neither a strategic partner nor an implacable foe of the US. “China is a competitor and a potential regional rival”, he said. Although India and China are not inversely proportional to each other in terms of American national interests, but they are the two major competitors within Asia even from an American standpoint. All the facts indicate that the Bush administration is likely to be less accommodative to China compared to their democratic predecessors. The Rumsfeld commission’s recommendations to develop a National Missile Defence is largely based on Washington’s assessment that China’s missile and nuclear proliferation will continue. Robert Rumsfeld, the new Defence Secretary in the Bush Administration, is unlikely to change his attitude towards the perceived Chinese threat, now that he has joined the Bush Administration. Speaking to newsmen on Jan. 26, President Bush confirmed that he intends to go forward with development and deployment of a national Missile Defence [NMD] system which, Russian President Putin criticized saying it could lead to a dangerous showdown with Russia.
The second reason for Republicans seeing India in a better light is that although no less concerned about proliferation of nuclear weapons, the new Bush Administration may have a less absolutist view of India’s nuclear policy. Given their own skepticism about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT], the pressure for India to sign the treaty is bound to ease considerably. If non-proliferation stops being an irritant in Indo-US relations, the bilateral relations will inevitably become stronger. Unlike the Democratic administration, the Republicans do not carry a huge ideological baggage on human rights or environmental issues. Concern about human rights problems in, say, Kashmir, or linkages between trade and environment are unlikely to manifest themselves in the manner that they did during the first Clinton Administration. Finally, while Bush may not have a nuanced understanding of foreign policy, and could not even recall the name of the Indian Prime Minister during the electoral campaign, his foreign policy team is probably the most gifted since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. This team seems to have a healthy respect for India and recognizes the importance of forging a close strategic partnership with new Deli. Prominent among these include the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, the Vice President Dick Cheney, the National Security Advisor, Ms Condoleeza Rice and the probable head of policy planning, Mr. Richard Hass. In a recent interview, Richard Armitage, a former Reagan and Bush era policy heavy-weight, who is widely tipped to be Powell’s deputy, said the key elements of Republican foreign policy would be the management of the rise of two great powers - China and India - and the decline of Russia. About India, he said, “a benign, stable and economically healthy addition to the world stage will be most welcome.” While Armitage is tipped to become the Deputy Secretary of State, Edward Djerijian, an Armenian-American foreign policy expert, whose sympathy does not lie with Islamist forces, is tipped to succeed Tom Pickering as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Powell also plans to appoint Matt Daley as head of the State Department’s South Asia Bureau. Daley as been a key part of the Indo-US dialogue over the past couple of years and his elevation would be welcome in New Delhi. India did not view with favour when reports first emerged that the Hyderabad-born Ms Tahir-Keli was being tipped for the post because she was known for her anti-India views on the Kashmir issue. Ms Tahir-Kheli, who was US ambassador to the United Nations for political affairs and is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, is currently in New Delhi to attend a seminar on Asian security organised by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Shortly after Prime Minister Vajpayee’s bus visit to Lahore in 1999, she wrote an opinion column for Indian newspapers where she said that India needed to address the Kashmir issue seriously and substantively. She insisted that there were “many imaginative ways” of dealing with the Kashmir issue and among the so-called imaginative ways she suggested was conversion of the Siachen glacier into a research centre to be jointly managed by India and Pakistan; open economic borders incorporating all of Kashmir, creation of a Himalayan park covering all of Kashmir or some portions on both sides of the LoC; district-wise referendum determining the future of the Valley in kashmir. She described these as “potential areas of agreement that will change history.”
Anti-Pak tilt
As far as Pakistan is concerned, Pakistani mandarins seem to have realized quickly that the change of administration is not about to bring a change of policy vis-a-vis Islamabad. If anything, the going could get tougher. In fact, senior officials of the Bush Administration, including National security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, have been more forthright than any Clinton regime mandarins in advocating increased importance to India, virtually delinking Pakistan from the equation. If anything, Powell’s remarks indicated an even greater marginalisation of Pakistan from Indo-US ties.
The optimism of Gen. Musharraf’s Government of a turnaround in Pak-US ties is based on the assumption that traditionally Republicans have been more favourable to Pakistan than the Democrats. Pakistan has had the best of relations with the US with a Republican at the helm of affairs. The desire on the part of Pakistan to turn a new chapter in its relations with the US was evident in the traditional congratulatory message sent by the Chief Executive, Gen. Musharraf, to Mr. Bush on his assumption of office. In his message, Gen. Musharraf expressed the hope that Pak-US relations will enter a new phase of closer interest and shared cooperation during Bus’s presidency. The Musharraf regime believes that unlike the Democrats, as was evident during the Clinton era, the Republicans would not be “obsessed” with issues such as human rights and the CTBT.
However, those outside the Pakistani establishment are not prepared to share the optimism. They are of the view that the US foreign policy is a continuous process and it made little difference as to who was in charge at the White House. Dr. Khalid Mahmud, a scholar with the Pakistan Institute of Regional studies, said the attitude of the Bush Administration would China would be a crucial factor in defining relations with Pakistan. “We have to wait and watch to see as to what would be the China policy of the Bush Administration”, he said.
|
