On a mission to India

Published : Mar 10, 2006 00:00 IST

President George W. Bush visits India at a time when his stock back home is crashing and his country is getting more and more isolated.

UNITED States President George W. Bush is visiting India at a time when he is buffeted by controversies. Many U.S. commentators have said that the "lame duck" phase of his presidency has already begun. The Republican Party is showing signs of restiveness. Many Republican members of Congress are up for re-election in November. They fear that the unpopular Iraq war and the scandals surrounding the Bush administration will adversely impact on their electoral prospects.

The Democrats in Congress are already calling for the President's impeachment on the wire-tapping issue. The controversy relates to Bush's authorisation, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, of a secret wire-tapping programme by the National Security Agency (NSA). Bypassing legal and constitutional stipulations, the NSA was allowed to monitor the calls and e-mails of a terrorist suspect in the U.S. According to observers, the issue will gain further momentum after the mid-term elections.

A United Nations report on the U.S.' treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, released in the second week of February, was critical of the Bush administration. The U.N.-appointed independent panel recommended that the U.S. should close down the prison. The report accused the U.S. of practices that "amount to torture". Meanwhile, more pictures of the inhuman treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq have surfaced, adding to the discomfiture of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration's disregard for international law has been documented well. Top U.S. officials have made public their scorn for the Geneva Conventions and other international covenants. The Bush administration has also shown little respect for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) faces a crisis and the U.S. government has gone back on a wide range of global security treaties.

Some European commentators say that under George Bush, the U.S. has become a "dispensable" nation. Analysts and policy-makers worldwide do not dispute the U.S.' capacity, as the only superpower, to project military power in the far corners of the world at short notice. However, they are encouraged by the rise of regional blocs in many parts of the world. Russia and China have been broaching the idea of a military grouping to oppose the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Latin America is saying a loud no to U.S. hegemony. Most of the important international trade and diplomatic agreements in recent years have been negotiated without the U.S. having a major role to play.

However, in India, the two major political parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, seem to believe that the Bush administration's policies are driven by altruism. The BJP, after some fence-sitting, has now come out in full support of the India-U.S. nuclear agreement and the vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in the first week of February. Congress President Sonia Gandhi has supported the pro- U.S. tilt of the government, saying that its recent decisions would be beneficial for the country.

Prime Minster Manmohan Singh said that the nuclear deal and the decision to vote against Iran had been taken on the basis of "enlightened self-interest". He told Parliament that Iran had clandestinely imported centrifuges and designs for use in its nuclear programme. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari, who was in New Delhi in the last week of February, said that Iran's nuclear scientists had never indulged in any underhand activities and reiterated that Iran was a committed member of the NPT.

According to reports, the Bush administration has offered close bilateral strategic ties in the short term. In the medium term, the two countries will be partners in the "war on terror", with the U.S. keeping Pakistan on a tight leash. In the long term, according to U.S. officials, India will be given the "privilege" of being a part of the proposed anti-China coalition.

A senior Foreign Ministry official said that the policy of the U.S. administration on the nuclear issue has remained consistent. The U.S. goal, he said, continued to be to "limit, cap and roll back India's nuclear programme". This policy was first enunciated during the presidency of Bill Clinton. "India demands recognition as a responsible nuclear state, without any preconditions," said the official. He pointed out that after the nuclear deal was announced, senior U.S. officials had started making additional demands on India.

Bush, speaking to the Asia Society on February 22, urged the Indian government "to produce a credible, transparent and defensible plan to separate its civilian and nuclear programmes" and to bring its civilian nuclear programme under "the same international safeguards that govern nuclear power programmes in other countries". The nuclear deal, which has yet to be approved by an increasingly sceptical U.S. Congress, is the key element in the close relationship envisaged by the leadership of the two countries. However, the Bush administration's plans could encounter a roadblock in Congress. Influential Congress members are demanding to know why India should be given the privilege of having half of its nuclear programme under safeguards and the other half under the military. Many Congress members and disarmament scholars in the U.S. have said that such special treatment would send wrong signals to NPT members and the IAEA. Key members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) have indicated that if the U.S. unilaterally lifts all sanctions against India, it could trigger the collapse of the NPT.

India and the U.S. have been having differences for most of the past 50 years. In the Cold War period, Washington always kept New Delhi at arm's length. It viewed non-alignment with suspicion. Indian officials point out that it was the ham-handed policies of successive U.S. administrations that converted Asia into an area of instability. The continued U.S. support for Israeli expansionist policies, the targeting of Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution, and now the invasion of Iraq, have all significantly contributed to make the neighbourhood a volatile place.

A senior Foreign Ministry official said that some people had forgotten that the upsurge of Islamic militancy in India in the mid-1980s was fuelled by "jehadis" waging war in Afghanistan from Pakistani territory. The U.S. provided most of the money and training for them. Even after the end of the Cold War, Washington continued with its support to Islamic militants. The official pointed out that until 1996, the U.S. administration was putting pressure on New Delhi to recognise the Taliban government in Kabul. "The U.S. constantly shifts alliances and positions. Its long-term strategic view rarely lasts beyond two years," he said.

There are many in the Indian foreign policy establishment who feel that the country would be better off without taking U.S. help to deal with its neighbours. They point out that India shares a long border with both Pakistan and China. "Kashmir is a bilateral issue. There is no need for an external player. Similarly, with China, there is no inevitable conflict," said an official.

The view among many political parties and in key sections of the foreign policy establishment is that Indian and American worldviews rarely coincide. "They are telling us on how to deal with Iran, Syria and Israel. Washington is incapable of tolerating criticism, nor does it believe in constructive engagement," said a senior Indian official.

Bush, in his Asia Society speech, lauded the partnership the U.S. and India had forged to spread democracy around the world. He has been a great supporter of the "World Movement for Democracy". It has its headquarters in the neo-conservative-led National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The recent "colour revolutions" that overthrew governments in the former socialist bloc were funded by U.S. agencies. The NED had played a key role in destabilising progressive governments all over the world during the Cold War period.

In 1999, the NED, with U.S. government funding, organised its first international conference in New Delhi. India is a member of the "Community of Democracies", another creature of the U.S. government. Its aim, according to analysts, is to limit the role of the U.N. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in April 2005 that this forum with its commitment to "principled multilateralism was creating a balance of power that favoured freedom". In actual fact, these U.S. government initiatives are aimed at countering progressive anti-globalisation movements and destabilise popular governments. The Bush administration recently earmarked millions of dollars to spread democracy in Venezuela and Iran, two countries that have been uncompromising in their stance against U.S. hegemonism.

During Bush's visit, there will be a bid to clinch major arms deals with India. Washington is willing to let India buy a state - of-the-art radar system - the Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) - if U.S. companies are given the $5 billion contract for the supply of the 126 multi-role fighters. If India goes in for either the F-16s or the F-18s, bilateral relations would take a qualitative jump. Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency, was quoted as saying in December 2005 that India's ultimate choice of its next fighter aircraft "will be a fairly significant political statement".

After the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government assumed office, there were expectations that foreign policy would undergo some major shifts. The BJP-led government's pro-U.S. stand had made it a favourite among the neo-conservatives in Washington. Brajesh Mishra, then National Security Adviser, had gone to Washington to plead for a Tel Aviv-New Delhi axis. The NDA's External Affairs Minister at the time, Jaswant Singh, was quick to welcome the Bush administration's "national defence policy" when it was first announced in 2002. Many of Washington's close allies had distanced themselves from the project, which if implemented would have led to the militarisation of outer space. Jaswant Singh in an article published in a leading U.S. newspaper welcomed the establishment of U.S. military bases in Central Asia. Bush administration officials are still grateful for the offer of basing facilities in India for U.S. troops in the immediate aftermath of September 11. India's relations with Israel, America's closest ally, had blossomed to such an extent that within a short span, Tel Aviv emerged as the second biggest supplier of defence equipment to India.

The UPA government is also keen on further strengthening the "special relations" with the U.S. The late J.N. Dixit, while holding the office of National Security Adviser in the UPA government, said that the NDA government had actually implemented the policies that the Congress under P.V. Narasimha Rao had initiated after the end of the Cold War. He had emphasised that that the priority of the UPA government would be to consolidate the ties with Washington. It has been obvious to observers that ever since the UPA government assumed office, many important issues have been put on the backburner, with ties with the U.S. being given top priority. "Non-alignment is for losers" is a quote being commonly bandied about by officials in the External Affairs Ministry.

The Indian vote at the IAEA Board of Governors meet is an illustration. Faced with sanctions, Iran was depending on active support from the Non-aligned bloc. India, which considers Iran a "strategic" partner, voted with the U.S. and the European Union. The majority of Non-aligned nations represented in the IAEA Board either abstained or voted against the resolution to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council. It was left to Egypt to bring Israel into the picture at Vienna by demanding that the whole of West Asia should be declared a "nuclear weapons free zone". Indian officials, on the other hand, have echoed American concerns about Iran, stating that they do not want "another nuclear power in the neighbourhood".

The Prime Minster insists that it is "enlightened self-interest" that prompted the recent foreign policy U-turns. Many others are of the opinion that the present government is sacrificing hallowed foreign policy principles for short-term benefits. New Delhi's cosying up to Washington has diminished the country's stature in the international community. The failure of India's bid to become a U.N. Security Council member is an example. Lack of support from the African Union was one of the factors responsible for the diplomatic debacle.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment