Wary of US, India eyes China

[Guest guest]

Wary of US, India eyes China again

By Sultan Shahin

 

"Every time they analyze the WMD scenario," says Brigadier (retired)

Vijay Nair, one of India's foremost experts on nuclear

matters, "there is maximum attention on India. Even the rogue states

do not attract so much attention."

 

NEW DELHI: The man who justified India's nuclear tests only four

years ago because of a perceived threat from China and who described

that country as "potential enemy number one", ended a week in Beijing

on Sunday, taking forward the ongoing normalization of relations and

clarifying a boundary dispute that led to war in 1962.

 

Nothing could illustrate better the sea change in the India-China

relationship than the warm welcome accorded to Defense Minister

George Fernandes on his arrival in the capital. The two countries

reaffirmed their commitment to formulate additional confidence-

building measures with a military focus and expressed their

determination to enhance bilateral cooperation to combat terrorism.

They have decided to step up military-to-military exchanges and hold

a second counter-terrorism dialogue next month in Beijing.

 

The new Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao gushed about how "during

the past 2,200 years, or about 99.9 percent of the time" China and

India have shared cordial relations. The 0.1 percent obviously

included the 1962 war and tensions after Fernandes needlessly dragged

China into the Indian rationale for the Pokhran II nuclear tests in

1998.

 

Fernandes belongs to a generation that sang the slogan "Hindi-Chini

Bhai Bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers) in the heady days of

post-independence euphoria in the 1950s when India's first prime

minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, envisioned fighting colonial powers and

establishing a new world order based on peace and freedom for all

nations with the help of Russia and China.

 

The 1962 border war for which both India and China blame each other

put an end to those hopes. But now that colonialism appears to be

raising its head again, India is worried and many Indians would like

to revive the same old dream of close strategic ties with Moscow and

Beijing, though some others are calling for joining hands with

American imperialism, even if it means accepting a subordinate status

and losing part of the country's hard-won sovereignty.

 

Though the idea of a Moscow-New Delhi-Beijing axis was revived by

Russia a couple of years ago, it has caught the imagination of many

Indians and has received a fresh lease of life with the occupation of

Iraq by US-led forces.

 

Like other peoples, Indians, too, have become concerned over neo-

imperialist ideas that have gained hold in sections of the US and UK

administrations. In particular, the ambitions of the neoconservatives

who are influential in Washington since President George W Bush came

to power are noted. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreword in a

little-known pamphlet entitled "Reordering the World after September

11" by his top foreign policy advisor Robert Cooper was also noted.

 

Cooper wrote, "The opportunities, perhaps even the need for

colonization, is as great as it ever was in the 19th century," says

Cooper, "what is needed then is a new kind of imperialism." Under the

convenient garb of tackling global terrorist threats, he called for

re-colonizing the jungle of less civilized peoples: "Just like in the

old empire, Western countries would have to deal with 'old-fashioned

states outside the post-modern continent of Europe with the rougher

methods of an earlier era - force, preemptive attack, deception,

whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the 19th

century."

 

Fernandes is obviously in the anti-imperialist camp. He has been

criticized by some for visiting China at a time when the epidemic of

severe acute respiratory syndrome is raging there, even though they

know that the visit had been planned much earlier and cancellation

would have been interpreted in Beijing as another snub on the part of

the defense minister.

 

The pro-US lobby that wields great influence on Indian media

virtually blacked out news of his historic visit, the first by an

Indian defense minister, after the initial reports on the first day.

But as the implications of the American occupation of Iraq sink in,

more and more people are wondering which countries will be the next

US targets, and even if India could be a target.

 

As the US used weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as an excuse for the

war on Iraq, and India has known WMD, analysts in the government and

outside are studying American academic journals and reports prepared

by think tanks close to the administration looking for clues to what

lies ahead.

 

Case-building in the US has always been done through academic

circles, says the mass-circulated Indian weekly news magazine The

Week, which published a cover story on America's likely next targets

and considers India to be on the list. It quoted an intelligence

analyst in Delhi as saying, "When US think tanks publish papers in

prestigious academic journals, that is a signal." Thus, soon after

the installation of the Hamad Karzai government in Kabul, there was a

spate of academic papers on Saddam Hussein's weapons and his links

with terrorists, long before the US administration began talking

about it.

 

Thus, many Indians have reacted with dismay to a report saying that

some officials in Washington think that India has not been punished

enough for the 1998 Pokhran nuclear blasts, followed by loud talk of

a changed strategic balance with Pakistan that virtually forced the

latter to go nuclear within a fortnight.

 

According to The Week, there seems to be a school of thought in the

US military that India's nuclear weapons are a security threat to US

interests. What is worrisome, it says, is the shift of US policy

emphasis from non-proliferation to counter-proliferation. If non-

proliferation involved only diplomatic tools, counter-proliferation

involves the use of American military force against proliferators and

potential proliferators. By this policy, heads of US military

commands (like the Central Command of General Tommy Franks) have been

asked to equip themselves to deal with any state in their region that

has or develops mass destruction weapons.

 

So whether India likes it or not, there is increased attention in the

US on India's nuclear assets. "Every time they analyze the WMD

scenario," says Brigadier (retired) Vijay Nair, one of India's

foremost experts on nuclear matters, "there is maximum attention on

India. Even the rogue states do not attract so much attention."

 

The attention, of late, has been not only on India's nuclear assets,

but on its alleged proliferation tendencies. A British document on

Saddam Hussein's weapon capabilities listed an Indian company that

allegedly exported chemical weapon components to Iraq. The latest

Central Intelligence Agency report to Congress inluded Libya as an

Indian beneficiary: "Outside assistance - particularly from Serbian,

Indian, Iranian, North Korean and Chinese entities - has been

critical to its [Libya's] ballistic missile development program."

 

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has made several sections in the

Indian establishment deeply suspicious of US intentions. Some fear

that America wants military bases in India. A pro-government daily,

The Pioneer, considered close to Lal Krishan Advani, Deputy Prime

Minister and the moving spirit behind the ruling party, carried on

Thursday an article by analyst Anuradha Dutt, entitled "America's

South Asia Game Plan". Dutt begins with a typical statement

repeatedly made by Advani, "India should fight its own battles, which

is the best guarantee for its sovereignty."

 

Such a course becomes all the more desirable, she points out, in

light of a classified report, commissioned by the US Department of

Defense, which states that the US wants access to Indian bases and

military infrastructure. The American Air Force in particular wishes

to set up air bases in India and have "access closer to areas of

instability". Here is an excerpt, "American military officers are

candid in their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and

military infrastructure. India's strategic location in the center of

Asia, astride the frequently traveled sea lanes of communication

linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes India particularly

attractive to the US military."

 

Dutt continued, "The classified report, though not yet part of

American foreign policy, envisages reducing the emerging Asian giant

to a subordinate partner, a sidekick, to put it crudely, which would

entail providing military backup, training and ports and bases for US

operation. The report seems to have an eye on cooperation by the

Indian navy, especially since a dominant presence in the Indian Ocean

is a primary objective of the American strategic planning. The report

states that US policy makers 'believe that the military relationship

should result in shared technology and capabilities, and ultimately

they would like to be able to respond jointly to regional crises'."

 

What really worries Dutt is the following, "The US's track record

suggests that it is unwilling to withdraw from any country where it

manages to get a foothold. It thereafter wants to grab a mile.

India's democratic institutions and certified nuclear weapons

capability may finally prove to be the biggest deterrent to American

ambitions in the subcontinent."

 

Also unhappy with the neoconservatives' hold over Washington is a

section that saw strategic partnership with the US as a means to

project India as a counterpoise to "the growing menace" and "the

lengthening shadow" of China over Asia. This section of the pro-US

lobby was happy with former US president Bill Clinton, who it says,

looked at India in those terms.

 

Brahma Chellaney, strategist and frequent contributor to the

International Herald Tribune and Hindustan Times, is furious with the

neoconservatives, "For neocons, the immediate priorities after Iraq

are Syria and Iran, countries of pressing concern to Israel. Building

a strategic partnership with India or countervailing China's growing

shadow over Asia appear too distant for those myopically fixated on

West Asia. Meanwhile, like harlots preaching the virtues of chastity,

Powell and co have started giving sermons to India on restraint,

saying 'a resort to force would not be the appropriate solution' and

that any reprisal against Pakistan 'simply is not wise'.

 

"The fact is that the Christian Right, bolstering the neocon agenda

on Biblical lands, is significantly influencing policy in Washington.

The Christian Right and Jewish Republicans (who dominate the neocon

school of thought) have become partners in shaping foreign policy.

Bush's own Christian fundamentalist beliefs have been alluded to in

Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War."

 

>From his own standpoint, Chellaney reaches the same conclusion as

Advani. "In its hour of triumph, Washington is even less inclined to

appreciate India's security concerns and interests. In any case, the

Bush administration is likely to spend the remainder of its term in

office pushing, and battling the consequences of, its nearsighted

West Asian agenda. Bush and the neocon activists around him will

discover to their chagrin that in an era of globalization, there is

little tolerance for imperialism molded on conquest. Their agenda of

providing aggressive US leadership and ensuring unfettered power is

likely to only spur proliferation and an open challenge to American

supremacy. If there is one lesson India can draw from the recent

events, it is the importance of a strongly independent foreign and

defense policy."

 

It is not at all surprising that in this atmosphere of gloom over any

warmth developing in Indo-US relations, the indefatigable US

ambassador to India Robert Blackwill has resigned his thankless job

and decided to go back to his teaching assignment at Harvard. One

diplomat commented, "There will be little forward momentum in Indo-US

relations in the near future. Lack of economic reforms, Iraq, two

general elections [in India and the US] - together they will put

relations in the freezer. It makes sense to leave now."

 

It also makes sense that Indian leaders try to revive old and

traditional relationships with neighboring countries like China,

which have themselves suffered colonial domination in the past and

are not happy with the developing neo-imperialist scenario. These

ties do not have to be at the cost of their relations with other

countries. Both India and China would, for instance, like to maintain

their relations with the US. In a globalized world, there is also a

certain amount of inevitability about this. But their ability to talk

to each other with the degree of frankness with which they are

understood to have raised even contentious issues during the recent

Fernandes visit is a tribute to the high level of comfort that they

are beginning to feel in each others' company.

 

Fernandes conveyed to the Chinese leadership India's concern over

China supplying "sensitive technology" to Pakistan. It appears that

China, too, has expressed its concern over Indian moves in the Indian

Ocean, its alarm at the Indian navy's ambitious plans to acquire the

capability to send expeditionary forces by 2010 and the establishment

of the tri-service command by the Indian armed forces at the Andaman

and Nicobar islands that are virtually sitting on the sea trade route

to the South China Sea and North Asia.

 

Indian government sources are, however, convinced that China does not

view India as a rival. Instead, Beijing is signaling cooperation and

is willing to look at the idea of joint exercises with the Indian

navy under the bi-annual Milan exercise series that India holds with

some ASEAN countries. Beijing is aware that countries like Malaysia,

Indonesia and Myanmar are concerned at Indo-US join patrolling of the

area. But it has signaled, in the understanding of Indian officials,

that rather than create trouble it could use its influence with these

countries to make things easier for the Indian navy. It is indeed

interested in forging new ties with the Indian navy, and thus trying

to keep extraneous influences out of the Indian Ocean.

 

Fernandes' visit has thus proved quite fruitful in paving the way for

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's visit later this year. The

defense minister has brought out in the open all the contentious

issues in his discussions with the new Chinese leadership and tried

to understand their sensitivities. But it seems that during his visit

Vajpayee will not discuss these issues any further and instead

concentrate on improving bilateral trade ties and leave the tricky

issues to be tackled at lower levels in a series of visits by

officials of both countries.

 

(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact

content for information on our sales and syndication

policies.)