Howdy pardner

In our dealings with America, there is nothing like a free lunch.

If we were to go by the usual – “us versus them” -- yardstick, then because the Pakistanis are upset and concerned about India’s 10-year Defence Pact with USA, then we must have got a good thing going. The traditional approach in this zero sum game with Pakistan has been that if something is good for them, it is bad for us and vice versa. But if we have to move out of this Pakistan syndrome and be the regional if not global players, then we have abandon this rather simplistic enunciation of our security interests.

There has been considerable informed comment on the latest Defence Framework Agreement that India and USA signed on June 28. The main criticism and fear is that India’s security concerns have not been addressed. It also seems odd that we desperately want to become members of the UNSC but are willing to sign agreements which have international security implications and ignore the UN. The agreement could be interpreted later to work against Iran or China. The agreement speaks of building capacities to train and deploy peace-keeping forces. Since the US has this capacity and also to make war globally, it is obviously India that will have to create this capacity. The next step would be stationing of instructors and positioning of equipment and facilities in India. The resources and funds would naturally come from the US. When US troops are stationed abroad they are above the local laws. People of Okinawa, Saigon and Bangkok know this.

There are many who feel that Cold Warriors are as usual seeing fears where none exist and have refused to or are even incapable of thinking out of the box. The argument is that the Americans have done so much for India and we only snap at them in return. It is therefore argued that unless we do something for the US we will miss the bus, like buying outmoded F-16s perhaps or the costly and largely ineffective Ballistic Missile Defence System. This is presumably the meaning of the two-way defence trade referred to in the agreement.

It is true that in our hour of crisis, in the aftermath of 1962, the US did come to our help in a massive way to build our security systems. That was also because the conflict was with Communist China; meanwhile, Pakistan had been equipped with American Patton tanks and F-86 aircraft for use in 1965. We all know how President Nixon (expletives deleted) tilted famously in favour of his pet, Yahya Khan, in 1971. Sanctions imposed in 1974 and 1998, US attitude on the cryogenic engine and reprimand on deployment of missiles in the 1990’s are examples of the kind of restrictions the US was willing to impose on India.

The argument also is that the pessimists simply underestimate the Indian capacity to handle tricky situations and whenever it is not in India’s interests we will not participate. It would be useful to remember that powerful countries like members of the G-8, could not withstand US pressure on the climate issue and succumbed last week. The US today routinely makes its domestic laws applicable internationally, ignores international laws when they are found inconvenient, abrogates treaties, invades countries when it desires or bombs others, imposes sanctions on those who stray away from the straight and narrow. In such a situation, it is difficult to see how India will withstand a determined onslaught.

The Defence agreement is a follow up to the Next Step in Strategic Partnership. Actually ‘partnership’ is not quite the correct description; the word should have been ‘relationship’ for partnership is between near equals. We are nowhere near equality with the US economically or militarily. In such an unequal partnership, it is natural and inevitable that India’s strategic interests will always be subservient to those of the bigger partner.

This is not to say that bilateral US-India relations should never improve. There are tremendous advantages but everyone knows the effects of US policies in Latin America, SE Asia and West Asia. Added to this, the present dispensation in Washington consisting of the Christian right, the corporate right, largely of the petro-military variety, some buddies and neo-cons, believe it is their Manifest Destiny to rule the globe in US interests. If there are no free lunches, then what is the price we will pay?

We in India give a lot of importance to the fact that both countries are democracies – we are the largest and they are the strongest. Therefore we assume that we have a right to favourable treatment. Experience has shown that being a democracy is no guarantee against sanctions and being a dictatorship does not necessarily invite punishment from this great bastion of democracy and freedom. It all depends on circumstances – these principles, like those of human rights, states sponsoring terrorism or nuclear proliferators, are all need based and have been very flexible.

Wherever US economic and strategic interests were involved, it was far more convenient to deal with a single window of a friendly dictator here or a pliable monarch there, rather than have this nuisance of democracies forever saying that they would debate it in their parliament. This was cumbersome, irritatingly low and the outcome was uncertain. Being a democracy is therefore not our USP.

While European empire seekers occupied territory and strategic locations, US empire builders, essentially concentrated on acquiring access to markets and raw materials. So when they tell us they will help us become a superpower, they really mean a supermarket. Let a hundred Wal-Marts bloom. Maybe this is India’s USP number 1.

Some American thinkers believe that a serious Russia-China-India coalition is unlikely because of mutual suspicions and that ultimately India, helped to become economically and militarily strong, will balance and challenge China and not be an ally of China. This perhaps is India’s other USP – a possible counterbalance to China.

Sensing a chink in the US armour, China has thrown the gauntlet by bidding for UNOCAL. This was near blasphemy in a country that sees itself as the rightful owner of all energy resources in the world. It is like bidding for Mount Rushmore and the US Congress went into convulsions. Added to this, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation in its recently concluded session, and undoubtedly egged on by Russia and China, has asked the Americans to leave Central Asia. It is possible there will be a US-China confrontation on Taiwan soon and when the US invokes its 10-year pact with India, -- “collaborate in multilateral operations when it is in their common interests” -- how are we going to react?

In recent years, India sometimes appears unable to steer a logical course or sustain it, because of contradictory domestic compulsions. US, on the other hand, despite all its obvious strengths, has played a strong hand badly and now appears vulnerable – internationally, which is having repercussions at home. More and more Americans are questioning the wisdom of taking the war to Iraq. There are worries of an Imperial Overstretch and an economic downturn. Some American commentators have painted extremely gloomy scenarios about their country’s economic prospects in the next few years.

Maybe it would be useful to remember Professor Walden Bello’s advice (Berlin, 2003), when he said…. “We must have a healthy respect for US power, but neither must we overestimate it. The signs are that the US is seriously extended and what appear to be manifestations of strength might in fact signal weakness strategically.”

Source : Hindustan times 13th July 2005