DSA December 2010

SAARC COUNTRIES : US$ 20 REST OF THE WORLD : US$ 25 DECEMBER 2010

INDIA : ` 120 VOLUME 2 ISSN

ISSUE 3

0976-206X

9 770976 206003

USA Special

> VOLUME 2 > ISSUE 3 > DECEMBER 2010

Majestic recognition to

India stands “shoulder to shoulder”

editor-in-chief

mission

The power of a King lies in his mighty arms…

Security of the citizens at peace time is very important because State is the only saviour of the men and women who get affected only because of the negligence of the State.

— Chanakya

E

ven as the country celebrates Navy Day it is worth placing the Indo-US relationship in the context of the opportunities offered by the service that keeps the seas safe. The Navy operates over the horizons, revelling in the vastness of the oceans. Vaster the better, is at the core of the Navy’s thinking. And in a very real way that is also the crux of the Indo-US relationship. The Navy is, curiously, the pointer to the potential of this nascent relationship.

Just as the Navy sees the vastness of the horizon as an opportunity, so is the potential of the Indo-US relationship. It is limitless in many ways, much like the horizon afforded by the oceans. The panorama of options is enormous for the largest democracies in the east and the west to work together. And they are all driven by the happenstance of a common worldview, as both countries strive for similar contours on the global map. On the larger image there is little to differentiate, philosophically, between the two. Both desire a world where the rule of law prevails, with democratic principles and practices.

Where regulations are to move forward rather than retard growth and where disputes are resolved through dialogue rather than through deaths. There is a commonality of purpose, more than seems apparent and obvious. Yet, there are problems and they are deep enough to merit greater attention and care.

More than anything else there is yet a great deal that both countries need to learn about the other. This is a new relationship, in many senses of the word. And as is with any courtship there are hiccups, there are doubts, just as there is a fundamental attraction. So in this learning phase a greater deal of patience is required, for both are not necessarily moving at the same pace.

In some situations and on some issues, one is ahead of the other. And if that suggests a dysfunctional situation, it needn’t be as serious as it is made out to be. For the learning period is underway and must be treated as such.

There is a tendency to assume that this is a natural relationship and it will all fall in place. That never happens, not between individuals, never between institutions and certainly not between two countries divided by many miles of water and waste, as well as history. For both come from very different perspectives and ethos. While one is largely insular, the other has been expansive for more than a century. There is vast gulf between the two as they have approached the world and its problems.

So a greater appreciation of the differences is in order, firstly. In the recent past it has been a case of imperial overreach by the United States and a serious case of under-reach by India. By all accounts India has been punching lower than its weight.

The process of correcting is yet to be seen to be underway. But more than anything it is in the makeup of the relationship where the hurdle is. It is still driven more by individuals rather than institutions and therein resides the catch. For it requires institutional attachment to add permanence to it. Nowhere better to begin than the Navy, with its vision that stretches the horizons.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

1

publisher’s view

Volume 2 Issue 3 December 2010 chairman shyam sunder publisher & ceo pawan agrawal editor-in-chief manvendra singh director shishir bhushan corporate consultant k j singh art consultant divya gupta central saint martins college of art & design, university of arts, london corporate communications monika kanchan ad-sales manish upadhyay vivek ojha amit kumar representative J&K salil sharma creative vivek anand pant correspondent (europe) dominika cosic production dilshad & dabeer webmaster sundar rawat photographer subhash circulation & distribution vijay bhatia ranjeet, amit kumar system administrator vikas e-mail: (first name)@dsalert.org info: info@dsalert.org articles: articles@dsalert.org subscri ption: subscription@dsalert.org online edition: online@dsalert.org advertisement: advt@dsalert.org editorial & business office 4/19 asaf ali road new delhi-110002(India) t: +91-011-23243999,23287999,9958382999 f: +91-11-23259666 e: info@dsalert.org www.dsalert.org

disclaimer all rights reserved. reproduction and translation in any language in whole or in part by any means without permission from Defence And Security Alert is prohibited. opinions expressed are those of the individual writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher and / or editors. all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of delhi courts. defence and security alert is printed, published and owned by pawan agrawal and printed at graphic world, 1686, kucha dakhini rai, darya ganj, new delhi-110002 and published at 4/19 asaf ali road, new delhi (india). editor: manvendra singh

2

O

ne more foreign dignitary visited us this month. There were many during the year from all parts of the globe and there will, undoubtedly, be more such visits before the sun sets on 2010. It has become an old ritual that our VIPs visit other countries and their dignitaries visit us in return and so on. But I do not understand what is the purpose of such visits. Have we ever given thought to what is the substantial outcome of such visits? Do we have any mechanism to assess the outcome of such visits on which our government spends millions of rupees every year?

Sometimes I think that these visits have no significance in the absence of a clear foreign policy of our country. Sometimes we want to be very friendly with Pakistan and sometimes we want to raise our objections in front of the dignitaries who visit us. But till date we are not able to frame a strong and effective policy to handle neighbours such as Pakistan and China. Even smaller neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka etc. are not favourably inclined towards India.

announcement

A N N O U N C E S January 2011 ISSUE AS Army Day Special: Today's challenges and Tomorrow's Opportunities

What stops our government from framing a strong and effective policy rather than looking at the other countries like US or erstwhile USSR and now Russia to solve our border disputes and other affairs? Now the time has come when we must be very clear in our thoughts about what measures are to be taken to handle the foreign affairs in the best interests of the nation. After all it is long term and permanent interests and not transient visitors that give a nation the weightage to achieve such ambitions as membership of the UN Security Council and commensurate status in the comity of nations.

The last visit of a US president was in the year 2006 almost four years back and what joint charter was announced by the then president and our prime minister? Did we really peruse and assess that document before inviting Mr. Obama in year 2010 about what will be the outcome of his visit for India’s wider interest. No one in the government has ever tried to assess the previous joint charters released by dignitaries from both sides at the end of such visits. I am sure no one has ever done that.

Our foreign policy is reactive rather than being proactive. We speak only when there is some intrusion or any mischief being created by one or the other neighbour, otherwise we are not at all active on this front. We blame our intelligence and security agencies for whatever happens and play the endless blame game. I think first of all we should frame a strong and effective foreign policy and make sure that our intelligence and security forces are working as per that policy to secure the nation.

India believes in Atithi Devo Bhava (Guest is God) and thus we welcome all our guests and try to fulfill all their desires but at the same time now we must assess that if we are welcoming any guest then are these guests genuinely supporting the interests of the host or not.

We welcomed Mr. Obama and will welcome all the dignitaries always but we have to see that whatever understandings they reach and agreements they sign are not only mutually beneficial but also in the long term national interest of the countries as well as promoting world peace and prosperity.

I am sure that this special edition on the US will sharpen the thought process of our policy makers and strategists to develope a strong and effective foreign policy and this will also enlighten our readers about the US India relations - past, present and future.

Jai Hind!

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Available at all leading bookstores LANDMARK LTD.

SPENCERS

ODYSSEY

OM BOOK SHOP CROSSWORD

contact for subscription: online@dsalert.org

subscription@dsalert.org

contents

USA SPECIAL ISSUE DECEMBER 2010

contents

Volume 2 Issue 3 December 2010

A R T I C L E S

US in Afghanistan: quo vadis?

Air Marshal (Retd.) B. K. Pandey

Indo-US partnership

K. Subrahmanyam

United States and global disarmament Prof. P. M. Kamath

India and US: strategic partners?

Cmde. (Retd.) Ranjit B. Rai

international system: rise and fall of great powers

6 11 16 19 24

Dr. Harsh V. Pant

US-India: potent alliance

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) G. D. Bakshi

28 32

non-proliferation: US impetus

38

US Presidents: visits to India Dr. Rajiv Nayan and Sanjeev Kr. Shrivastav

41

US-India: friends in-deed?

44

US-Pak umbilical cord!

49

global war on terror: Af-Pak strategy

51

Dr. (Ms.) Manpreet Sethi

Cecil Victor

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Sheru Thapliyal

Dr. (Ms.) Arpita Basu Roy

for online edition of Defence And Security Alert (DSA) log on to: www.dsalert.org

4

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

55

American dream vs Chinese hegemony

60

Obamamania dwindling?

64

the Obama visit: the united relationship

66

South Asia: security imbroglio Vice Adm. (Retd.) Barry Bharathan

69

India’s leadership failure?

75

Prof. Tej Pratap Singh Ms. Dominika Cosic Dr. Rajiv Nayan

Vice Adm. (Retd.) Arun Kumar Singh

United States-India: global alliance?

Dr. K. S. Sidhu

US and the challenge from China

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee

F E A T U R E S

the US-India partnership: the fact sheets

46

Follow DSA on :

DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Follow DSA on :

DSALERT December 2010 Defence AND security alert

5

US overreach?

Quagmire

President Barack Obama jolted military strategists by announcing a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan. July 2011 is just eight months away. A drawdown of forces may begin but Americans themselves are beginning to realise that an unceremonious egress from Afghanistan will mark a steep decline in the global suasion that the US enjoyed after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Afghanistan was the cause of that collapse. Will the “Yes We Can” man want to end up as the Mikhail Gorbachev of the US of A?

US in

A

ddressing the nation on August 31, 2010, Barack Obama, President of the United States, declared July 2011 as the date for the cessation of combat operations and the commencement of withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan.

If successful, this move could bring to an end nearly a decade of overt involvement of American forces in the Afghan quagmire. But the policy objectives first enunciated in March 2009 by the President which defined the US goal as, “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent their return to either country in future” are unlikely to be fulfilled, definitely not in totality and certainly not in the proclaimed time frame.

What then is likely to be the future of American involvement in Afghanistan?

To find an answer to this question, it would be necessary to examine the involvement of the US in the Afghan imbroglio in a historical perspective and analyse the imperatives that would shape US policy with regard to its continued presence in Afghanistan.

Early history Dating back to over half a century, US interaction in Afghanistan has been characterised by demeanour ranging from complete indifference to the present day near-suicidal entrenchment.

In 1955, King Zahir Shah’s request for military hardware and training for its Armed Forces was turned down rather

6

disdainfully by President Eisenhower.

Viewed as a distant land, Afghanistan obviously did not figure in the strategic and security calculus of the US. In hindsight, this can hardly be described as “visionary” especially in the context of the growing confrontation of the Cold War as somewhat warily, Afghanistan drifted into Soviet influence. However, the perception soon appeared to change as between 1956 and 1962, under the United States Agency for International Development programme, the US invested US$ 15 million to build the Kandahar Airport.

Located in southern Afghanistan, the facility served as a refuelling base for piston-engine aircraft of the US armed forces operating from the Middle East to South East Asia.

The airport could also be a convenient military airbase for the US in case of a conflict with the USSR.

Saur revolution The US also embarked on a programme in the sixties to construct highways of strategic relevance, one linking Kandahar with Kabul and the

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

other from Kabul to the Khyber Pass on the border with Pakistan. Apart from the social, political and economic benefits accruing to the host nation, the larger aim of the US was to counter the influence of the USSR in Afghanistan which continued to grow culminating in the Soviet-inspired coup against the Daud regime on April 28, 1978. The US Embassy remained a mere spectator to this event which undoubtedly was a major turning point in the history of Afghanistan.

Air Marshal (Retd.) B. K. Pandey

quo vadis?

The April 1978 coup, also known as the ‘Saur Revolution’, degenerated into a power struggle amongst the two major factions of the Peoples’ Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). On its part, the US Embassy remained unconcerned since such events were regarded as routine in the Afghan way of life. But very soon, the US received a diplomatic jolt when Adolph “Spike” Dubs, the newly appointed US Ambassador in Kabul was abducted and tragically killed in a shootout in August 1978, an episode the US felt was not an accident but assassination stage managed by the

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

7

US overreach?

Quagmire

newly installed communist regime in Kabul. But it was only with the invasion by the forces of the Soviet Union in the last week of December 1979, that the US was drawn into a full scale proxy war against the USSR conducted through the Mujahideen cadres of different ethnic hues dominated by Pashtuns. The American proxy war was managed by the frontline client State Pakistan duly supported by Saudi Arabia. Apart from the indigenous Afghan Mujahideen, the war against the Soviet forces attracted a number of hard-line Islamic fundamentalists mainly from the Middle East and North Africa. One such group was led by Osama bin Laden, a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia and a fugitive. He later founded the Al Qaeda, which is now operating in sixty

Afghanistan descended into chaos on account of the fierce power struggle that ensued between the Pashtuspeaking Pathan Mujahideen groups supported by Pakistan and the Persianspeaking non-Pathan Mujahideen groups favoured by Russia and Iran.

The Persian speaking Mujahideen groups formed a coalition called the Northern Alliance.

With both the Soviet forces and Najibullah out, the US saw no further proactive role for itself and practically left Pakistan in charge to steer the course of events in Afghanistan. In the struggle to control Kabul – the seat of power, the Pakistan-supported Pashtun Mujahideen were clearly outmanoeuvred by the Northern Alliance, who established control of

General and King Zahir Shah’s father.

Birth of Taliban In the continuing power struggle, the Pathan Mujahideen proved to be no match for the Northern Alliance and their inability to dislodge the latter from Kabul drove Pakistan to desperation. Without a pro-Pakistan establishment in Kabul, Pakistan would be denied strategic depth. This concern was shared by the US as well; she too would not like Afghanistan to be in the hands of those supported by Iran and Russia, both serious rivals on the international scene. Also, going beyond just a pro-Pakistan disposition, the US would prefer her client State to be able to exercise substantial influence and even a degree of control

But Taliban is Taliban - and any attempt at segregation into “Good” and “Bad” is barking up the wrong tree. The Taliban have their agenda and may not be a willing partner in any long-lasting settlement with the US especially now that they can smell victory. If they do acquiesce to a negotiated settlement, it will be highly fragile and intended only to get the US out of Afghanistan different countries.

Soviet invasion The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did not come as a surprise to the US as the Carter administration had been keeping an eye on the developments in Afghanistan. However, as the US was somewhat preoccupied with the crumbling Iranian Empire - a staunch ally of the US in the Cold War and the hostage crisis in Tehran, it neither had the time nor the resources in the region to respond swiftly to pre-empt the invasion. It is also likely that the US saw Afghanistan becoming a ‘Vietnam’ for the Soviet Union and a good opportunity to square accounts.

It is likely that the US would have secretly welcomed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, public denunciation of the event notwithstanding.

Kabul and formed their government.

Incidentally, this was the second time in the twentieth century that there was a non-Pashtun government in Kabul, the first time was in October 1929 when, a Tajik General captured power in Kabul for just three months before he was evicted by Nadir Khan, a Pathan

Although the American proxy war against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan was sustained until the latter’s withdrawal in February 1989, it continued against the Moscowsupported Najibullah regime till it collapsed in April 1992. With the ouster of Najibullah, the brittle structure of leadership in Kabul broke down and

8

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

over Kabul. In an effort to alter the status quo, Pakistan received endorsement, encouragement and material support from the US for her scheme to create a new force consisting of youth drawn from the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan indoctrinated in the madarsas in fundamentalist tenets.

The new force was created to sideline the redundant Pashtun Mujahideen and reinvigorate the campaign against the Northern Alliance. Hailed as the ‘Taliban’, the force was led by one-eyed spiritual leader Mullah Omar, a veteran of the decade-long proxy war. The force was logistically and operationally supported by the Pakistan Army Inter-Services Intelligence.

The Taliban were inducted initially into Kandahar and with the passage of time, its ranks swelled as erstwhile Mujahideen armed and in search of remunerative employment, jumped onto the Taliban bandwagon. With guidance from Pakistan, the Taliban were able to recapture power in Kabul and by 1998, had established highly oppressive control over most of Afghanistan. It suited the US immensely to have a strong Sunni fundamentalist force at the doorstep of Iran.

US in a quagmire The Taliban experiment fulfilled Pakistan’s aspirations to dislodge the Northern Alliance from power but proved to be a nemesis for the US; somewhat akin to a nuclear reaction gone out of control. This was manifest in the attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, believed to be the handiwork of the Al Qaeda–Taliban combine, compelling the US to employ the overwhelming air power at its command to bomb the Taliban out of

power. The concurrent objective was to deprive Al Qaeda of an ally and base facilities for its global operations. Nine years thenceforth trillions of dollars have been expended and thousands of American lives squandered. But neither has the Al Qaeda been neutralised nor the Taliban, tamed. The US seems to have lost its way in Afghanistan!

Exit rationale America is a declining power and with its economy in turmoil, she might find it increasingly difficult to continue to bleed overseas for long. However, there are a number of other reasons why the US forces must leave Afghanistan.

The global war against terror launched by the US, of which Afghanistan is a part, has antagonised the Islamic world.

This has accentuated the hatred against not only the citizens of the US but also of their allies in Europe. The US effort in Afghanistan to rein in terror has in fact led to its escalation. The American policy of dealing with Afghanistan in collaboration with Pakistan is afflicted by contradictions as the latter, its most faithful ally, seems to be ‘running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.’ US effort to control Afghanistan is unlikely to succeed unless they deal effectively with Pakistan first, a course of action that has inherent limitations. Besides, history is witness to the fact that no nation has ever won a war in Afghanistan and history is likely to repeat itself with the US. The inhospitable, inaccessible

and hostile terrain blunts, to a large extent, the advantage of overwhelming technological superiority of the US forces engaged in guerrilla warfare unique to Afghanistan.

Psychological factors The Taliban are fighting for their homeland against what they see as an “occupation force” and have infinite staying power which the US may find difficult to match. The mounting casualties in the war of attrition may turn domestic opinion against US involvement in Afghanistan.

Historically, a puppet regime has never been acceptable to Afghans and hence President Hamid Karzai’s future should not be in doubt. So long as Hamid Karzai is in power, he will continue to be a liability for the US. Afghans by their very nature are fiercely independent and need to be left to themselves to enable the most powerful amongst them to emerge and take independent control of the nation. They are unlikely to accept subservience to the US or her ally in the neighbourhood. In any case, the trust deficit between the two ethnic entities that are likely to wield power on either side i.e. the Pathan in Afghanistan and the Punjabi Muslim of Pakistan is so deep that while there may not be open hostility, prospects of long term permanent bonds of friendship and bonhomie between Afghanistan and Pakistan are unlikely. American presence in Afghanistan therefore will turn out to be a recipe for perpetual turmoil.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

9

US overreach?

10

US overreach?

Quagmire

The dilemma

Sunni-Shia card

While reasons why the US must pull out of Afghanistan are many, there are perhaps more compelling reasons why the US may not be able to do so. Trapped in a situation of infinite complexity, it no longer seems feasible for the US forces in Afghanistan to just walk away without loss of influence in the region and leaving the nation or perhaps the region to face

Strategically, Afghanistan was the soft underbelly of the erstwhile USSR and today, it continues to be of interest to Russia. Given the inevitability of rivalry with Russia as well as China, it may serve US strategic interest to maintain its presence in and control Afghanistan. Besides, Iran is on the road to acquiring indigenous nuclear weapon capability and in the US

the interminable chaos. Withdrawal without victory would be at a heavy political price besides devastating the image and morale of the US combat forces. Also, apart from preventing Afghanistan being used as a launch pad for terrorist attacks against the US and its allies, the energy resources of the future lie in the Central Asian Republics (CAR) and can be tapped with relative ease with pipelines running through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. Afghanistan has generally been regarded as a largely barren land devoid of natural resources. However, it is now believed that buried in the arid mountains of Afghanistan could be vast mineral wealth so far untapped.

Also, its contiguity with oil-rich Iran and the CAR suggests the possibility that this nation could also be endowed with substantial reserves of fossil fuels.

So far no comprehensive exploration has been possible.

perception, is emerging as a significant threat to her security interests in the region. The US may see this as a major compulsion to strengthen her position in Afghanistan and field a countervailing force of Sunni Afghans to checkmate Iran on the ground.

The Taliban may be just the force to meet with this objective and hence the move for rapprochement with the ‘Good Taliban’ to broker an end to the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and give the withdrawal a semblance of a negotiated settlement.

Taliban victory?

But Taliban is Taliban – and any attempt at segregation into “Good” and “Bad” is barking up the wrong tree. The Taliban have their agenda and may not be a willing partner in any long-lasting settlement with the US especially now that they can

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

smell victory. If they do acquiesce to a negotiated settlement, it will be highly fragile and intended only to get the US out of Afghanistan.

However, whether or not there is a negotiated settlement, the scale on which permanent infrastructure by way of the 30 odd military bases has been built and the new massive consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif in the North as also the expansion of the US Embassy in Kabul, are not indicative

NEW WORLD ORDER

Does the stated India-US strategic partnership mean junior membership for India? Is India to be a proxy of the US just as Pakistan is to China?

Trying to “contain” China could have the opposite effect with Han nationalism already belligerently asserting itself within China and all along its periphery. President Barack Obama appears to have learned that over-aggression on outsourcing could boomerang. So also will an K. Subrahmanyam implacable insistence on the imposition of the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for geo-spatial cooperation (BECA) in defence deals. Depriving India of the right to improve upon original US equipment may bring it short-term gains but a half-baked strategic partnership given the ultimate truth that India’s progress in space, nuclear and missile technologies have occurred in spite of US opposition and embargoes.

of any serious intention to abandon Kabul.

And finally, with the Democrats substantially weakened after the midterm elections, promises made by President Obama may not altogether be easy to keep. In the final analysis, the Americans are unlikely to pull out of Afghanistan, at least not in the foreseeable future.

The writer is former AOC-in-C HQ Training Command, IAF, Bengaluru and served for three years in a Diplomatic Assignment at the Indian Embassy during the years of turmoil (1989-1992) in war-torn Afghanistan. He was responsible for setting up the only English Medium School in Kabul at that point in time. He has also been Operations Manager at ARC, an intelligence organisation.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

11

US overreach?

NEW WORLD ORDER

O

ld beliefs die hard. Though the Cold War ended nearly two decades ago and the security challenges of 21st century are different from those of 20th century and call for new appropriate responses, quite a few commentators and analysts could not free themselves from the Cold War mindset and perceptions in assessing the significance of the Indo-US strategic partnership. China and US are in a symbiotic economic relationship.

China holds the highest amount of US treasury bonds in the world.

China is the largest exporter to US. It is the massive US investments that

intertwined with the global economy does not make sense at all.

Jihadi Frankenstein There is no disputing that the gravest security problem international community and especially India faces is the jihadi terrorism for which the epicentre is Pakistan. Apart from India US, UK, Russia, Indonesia, Spain, Iraq and Pakistan itself have been subjected to terroristic attacks. Pakistan has been using terrorism as State policy since it acquired nuclear weapons with Chinese help and with US acquiescence

Chinese game plan While the US motives to create jihadis were anti-Soviet the Chinese motives to proliferate to Pakistan were anti-India, to use Pakistan as a countervailing power to contain India within the subcontinent. China supplied materials, equipment and technology to Pakistan to assemble nuclear weapons by 1987. US acquiesced in this as a price for Pakistani support for Mujahideen campaign in Afghanistan and broke off with Islamabad, using Pressler Amendment when the Chinese conducted a nuclear test for

India will have three options: First to join hands with US as a partner… That will also ensure that the World Order will be pluralistic, democratic and secular. In the process India will try to narrow the gap between itself and China. Second option is for India to join hands with China to pull US down in the competition among nations. China will become number one and it is doubtful whether the World Order of pluralism, democracy and secularism can be sustained in that world. That will mean a betrayal of the Indian Constitution and values of the Indian freedom struggle. The third option is to be non-aligned not only between US and China… and allow China to use Pakistan as a surrogate to wreck Indian unity and destroy Indian secularism made China a leading industrialised country and enabled it to become the second largest economy of the world in a period of less than three decades. In 2005, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote, “For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming ever more unthinkable. Major States are increasingly competing in peace, not preparing for war. To advance this remarkable trend, the United States is transforming our partnerships with nations such as Japan and Russia, with the European Union and especially with China and India. Together we are building a more lasting and durable form of global stability: A balance of power that favours freedom.” President Obama in the Nuclear Security Summit of 12 April, 2010, said that in the two decades after the end of the Cold War the risk of nuclear confrontation between States has come down while the risks of nuclear attacks by non-State actors have gone up. Therefore the talk of containing China in this globalised age when China as the second largest economy of the world is inextricably

12

in the eighties. That was also the period when with Saudi monetary support and US CIA’s technical support thousands of jihadis were trained to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

They were also conditioned by Wahabi jihadi cult. Pakistani Army shielded by nuclear deterrence decided to use this force of trained jihadis first against India in Kashmir and wrest control over Afghanistan by imposing the Taliban. The jihadis having persuaded themselves to believe they defeated the super power, Soviet Union, concluded it was their manifest destiny to defeat the other super power, US and expel them from Muslim lands. For the first time the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has accepted responsibility for jihadism when she admitted to ABC TV channel on 12th November, 2010, “Part of what we are fighting against right now, the United States created. We created the Mujahideen force against the Soviet Union (in Afghanistan). We trained them, we equipped them, we funded them, including somebody named Osama bin Laden… And it didn’t work out so well for us.”

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

model of one party system combined with market economy would allow them to rise fastest in the world. Like all oligarchies the Chinese Communist Party wants to perpetuate itself without accountability to the people. With 92 per cent of its people being Han Chinese they are not willing to extend minority rights to Tibetans, Uighurs, Manchus, Mongols and other minorities. Since India, US, European Union, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Canada, Australia and South Korea, both major powers and emerging ones, comprising half of world’s population are democratic, secular and pluralistic. China is worried about the pressures democracy will exercise on its population especially as it is well-integrated with the World of information technology.

China considers India as a rival since it has approximately an equal population and is proving that a developing country can grow economically fast without sacrificing democracy or pluralism.

Pakistan and China are two countries in which opinions have been publicly expressed against India’s unity and integrity.

Asian hegemone China’s immediate objective is to become the hegemonic power of Asia.

Towards that end it has to eliminate US influence and power from Asia and slow down India’s growth. For both these purposes Pakistan serves as a convenient springboard. North Korea is its second springboard to countervail South Korea and Japan.

China is increasing its involvement in Pakistan, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. It supports Iran with missile technology and is acquiring assets in oil in Iran and Iraq. It has laid a pipeline from Turkmenistan to China by-passing Russian territory. It is supplying solid-fuelled nuclear-capable missiles to Saudi Arabia which in all likelihood will depend upon Pakistan for nuclear warheads. Sunni nuclear capability on both sides causes concern to Shia Iran and consequently tends to rely more on China. That is a classic case of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. An assertive China has today maritime and territorial disputes with India, Vietnam, ASEAN nations, Japan and South Korea. Russians too are uneasy about China’s rise

with their vast resource-rich Siberian territory, sparsely populated, being vulnerable to China. The Russian concern is demonstrated through its willingness to supply India with sophisticated defence technology which it will not share with China.

Benign India China’s assertive behaviour causing concern to the rest of international community is a repetitive story of the rise of a non-democratic power raising tension and leading to wars in the earlier centuries. This is what happened when Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Japan rose to power before they became democratic. In India’s case the international community views benignly at India’s growth because it is already a democracy and empirical evidence shows that a democracy does not go to war with democracies. In any case the age of wars of the type of first and second world wars are over thanks to nuclear weapons and missiles. The concern is not about China launching a war but trying to dominate as an untethered hegemon. Its capacity for mischief by nuclear proliferation

Pakistan in their test site on 26th May, 1990. Though this has been disclosed by two US nuclear scientists Thomas Reed and Danny Stilman in their book ‘Nuclear Express’ and at that time led to Robert Gates mission to Pakistan, the US is still to come out officially with these facts. Since then, China has supplied ring magnets vital to run the centrifuges to Pakistan in 1995 in clear breach of its obligations under the NonProliferation Treaty, two plutonium production reactors and two power reactors in the last two decades. It has also armed Pakistan with nuclear capable ballistic missiles. It is now talking about supplying two more power reactors in defiance of guidelines of Nuclear Suppliers’ Group of which it was made a member in 2002.

What are China’s motivations in doing this against India? China is now the second largest economy in the world and its ambition is to become the first in the world overtaking US. China is the only major power which has not accepted democratic values though it practices market economy.

The Chinese are persuaded that their

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

13

US overreach?

NEW WORLD ORDER

to States with regimes of doubtful legitimacy to resist externally induced regime change with nuclear deterrence has been amply demonstrated. Pakistan and North Korea are classical examples of such States and there are reports that Myanmar military junta may try to acquire nuclear weapons from North Korea.

Future world order The real issue is about the future of the world order. Whether it is to be democratic, pluralistic and secular or one of rule by one party oligarchy which gives precedence to societal harmony over individual human rights.

Obviously India’s commitment is to a

world order of pluralism, secularism and democracy. It is expected that in the next two decades the US will be still the most predominant power, China the second power trying to close its gap with US and India will be the third power – the swing power. While China will be ageing with its growth rate slowing down India will have the youth bulge and US will also be relatively young as a country permitting immigration.

India will be the most populous State in the world. In that world, knowledge will be the currency of power, not nuclear warheads and missiles.

Relaid chessboard How will the game of nations among these three be played? US will try as hard as it can to retain its position as the leading technological and economic power. China will do its best to catch

14

up with US and become the Middle Kingdom of the world. India will try its best to become as large a knowledge pool as possible. India will have three options. First to join hands with US as a partner and ensure that China does not become the foremost knowledge power of the world. That will also ensure that the World Order will be pluralistic, democratic and secular. In the process India will try to narrow the gap between itself and China.

Second option is for India to join hands with China to pull US down in the competition among nations. China will become number one and it is doubtful whether the World Order of pluralism, democracy and secularism can be sustained in that world. That will mean

a betrayal of the Indian Constitution and values of the Indian freedom struggle. The third option is to be non-aligned not only between US and China as many advocate but between Indian pluralism, secularism and democracy and Chinese oligarchical one-party dictatorship and preference of societal harmony over individual human rights and allow China to use Pakistan as a surrogate to wreck Indian unity and destroy Indian secularism.

Some non-alignment indeed against one’s own values and national security interests! India’s partnership will be not only with US but with all pluralistic, secular and democratic countries.

Partnership = equality Is it an unequal partnership as many Cold Warriors project it? People entertain such inferiority complex

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

mainly because they do not realise the full potential of India as a knowledge power. The Americans appreciate it and therefore highlight the people to people relationship. While US technology and organisational skills are far superior to those of China today, China has four times US population and therefore will outproduce US in numbers of scientists, technicians, medical personnel and managers. If US does not want to be overtaken by China it needs a reservoir of skilled manpower pool which has proved itself already and which does not pose major problems in integration in US. India is englishspeaking and democratic. Indian American community has proved its worth to US. An Indian can live in US today in ‘skype age‘ and keep his cultural identity and contacts with his family in India intact. He cannot do it in China.

He can build a Meenakshi or a Balaji temple in US and have Diwali celebrated in the White House. Can you imagine that happening in Beijing? In return US investments and high technology can make India grow faster, especially when the world goes through the green industrial revolution and India its second agricultural revolution. After all China’s fast industrial growth was mostly due to US support. Why should India not take a lesson from China?

Indo-US partnership is not about containment of China nor is it about armaments though they continue to play a role so long as the politico-strategic establishments are still thinking about the last war fought.

And it would appear that the Central Military Commission of China and the Pentagon are very conservative in their thinking. The Indo-US partnership is about defending Indian pluralism, secularism and democracy from the challenges of one party oligarchical system allied to jihadism; is about future world order and making India the biggest knowledge pool of the world alleviating poverty and illiteracy and, as the Tamil Poet Subrahmanya Bharati called it, creating an unrivalled polity, a novelty to the world.

The writer is former Director, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). He served as Secretary, Defence Production; worked as Convenor, National Security Advisory Board; Chairman, Kargil Review Panel and Consulting Editor, Times of India. He made the recommandations to the government for the Indian National Defence University (INDU) in June 2002.

US overreach?

NUCLEAR TERRORISM

United States and disarmament

One can cavil that 1550 nuclear warheads and 800 launchers are still too deep into the overkill mindset but that the President of the US has set a timeframe of four years to effectively ensure that nuclear materials and technology does not fall into terrorist hands shows that America has learned what a twisted mind can do with such facilities. The flying kerosene bombs that struck the World Trade Twin-Towers on 9/11 was something no American strategist could think would happen. Obama is earnestly trying to ensure that no terrorist would ever be able to use nukes in such an innovative fashion. Indians, so close to the fountainhead of global terrorism (where the attack on America was planned), can only fervently wish Obama godspeed in his stated endeavour.

D

uring the Cold War period, the United States efforts at global disarmament have been largely bilateral with the then Soviet Union. But these efforts were not because the US believed - to that matter, even the Soviet Union - that nuclear disarmament was per se, a desirable goal. But the US defence establishment and political leadership were just not able to cope up with ever growing new nuclear technology making existing technology obsolete. There was also escalating cost of developing new nuclear technology in the face of obsolescence of existing technology.

The nuclear disarmament was thus an

16

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

issue between the two Super Powers, largely as a matter of mutual economic and political convenience.

Supremacy diluted Nuclear disarmament as a bilateral issue continues to be so even after the end of the Cold War with the US and the successor State of the Soviet Union - Russian Federation. That is rightly so since two of them control nearly world’s ninety five per cent of nuclear weapons.

However, in the post-Cold War period, since the beginning of the 21st century conservatives within the Republican Party considered negotiated nuclear

Prof. P. M. Kamath

arms treaties like ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missiles), START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) I and START II or the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) as obstacles to US security and supremacy in world politics.

Usable nukes George W. Bush (2001-2009) was least interested in nuclear disarmament but was driven mainly by the concerns to secure the US and its allies, particularly after the horrible experience of 9/11. Hence he was more interested in invention of sophisticated nuclear warheads like “mini-nukes” usable weapons rather than developing 200 kiloton nuclear weapons, which would never be of any use. Reflecting right-wing opinion, Wall Street Journal editorially then commenting on “Iranian Bomb Scare” argued in favour of developing “bunker buster bomb, a low-yield nuclear weapon capable of destroying deeply buried targets.”

Towards the end of his administration, American public was in favour of nuclear disarmament rather than development of bunkerbuster nuclear warheads. This was evident at a community meeting President Bush held in Maryland on 26 March 2006, when a questioner who described himself as “one of the three… left standing Americans who helped [in] the negotiation of the non-proliferation treaty.” In that “the basic bargain… was that other countries would give up their nuclear weapons, if we the nuclear powers would engage in a program of nuclear disarmament” contrary to the then “US position that it might initiate nuclear war if necessary.” He was referring to the failure of the US to adhere to the spirit of Article VI of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

17

US overreach?

Dual track

For the ruling Democratic Party in the US today as it was during the Clinton presidency (1993-2001), nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are dear issues.

Hence, president Barack Obama appears to be more inclined to work towards reduction in vertical growth of nuclear weapons while fervently pressing nuclear pigmies to reduce their weapons of mass destruction and ultimately eliminate them. Soon after his assumption of power, he had spoken about his dream of nuclear disarmament and creation of a nuclear weapons free world in Prague in April 2009. This was followed by the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia in which both sides have agreed to reduce their nuclear weapons to 1500 each. There is much more substance in this treaty if it is fully implemented as per its words and spirit. New START also promises to limit deployed strategic delivery vehicles to 700 and 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers. What is more important is the fact that all US ICBMs will be “de-MIRVed”. This means in place of current multiple independently reentry vehicles, they will be operated with “single warhead each to increase stability.”

Disarmament Another important milestone of Obama administration on the way of nuclear disarmament, was the joint statement issued in November 2009 after Manmohan Singh’s state visit to Washington, DC, billed as the first state visit of the Obama presidency, which reflected his commitment to nuclear disarmament. Two leaders, in a joint statement issued on 24 November 2009 said that they “reaffirmed their shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

They also pledged to work together for “global non-proliferation” and “universal, non-discriminatory and complete nuclear disarmament.” It also reiterated their unilateral and voluntary testing moratorium on nuclear explosions and committed them “to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty…” There was a reiteration of their resolve to start negotiations on “multilateral and internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off

18

US overreach?

NUCLEAR TERRORISM Treaty (FMCT) at the Conference on Disarmament.”

With so much of commitment on Nuclear Disarmament on the part of Obama, why wasn’t there a commitment to push for a No First Use (NFU) of Nuclear Weapons, by him and on the part of India? India has made it the heart of its nuclear doctrine. After all, concept of NFU was born in the US. Obama was also by then awarded Nobel Peace Prize! Many pundits on nuclear disarmament globally were hoping that the legislatively mandated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that was scheduled to be released during the first week of April 2010 could provide an answer to the question. The NPR was published on 6 April 2010. It indicates existence of strong opposition within the defence establishment to the NFU. But it takes one element of the NFU, when it says that the US will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons States. While it is a part of Indian NFU too, India has made it conditional. Indian guarantee is not valid if a non-nuclear weapons State uses chemical or biological weapons.

Then India reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear terrorism However, the US, as a super power with greater self-confidence makes it very clear that even if such a non-nuclear weapons State uses chemical or biological weapons, it would not respond with nuclear weapons, but tackle the crisis with conventional weapons. NPR also elevates nuclear terrorism to the position of topmost threat to human society, giving more attention to it than the threat perceptions from Russia or China. It commits the US “to hold fully accountable any State, terrorist group or other non-State actor that supports or enables terrorist efforts to obtain or use of weapons of mass destruction, whether by facilitating, financing or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts.” The fear of weapons of mass destruction falling in the hands of such elements also has made NPR to focus attention on “securing of nuclear materials worldwide” within next four years.

The Joint Statement issued after

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Obama’s just concluded visit to India, speaks “shared commitment to a world without nuclear weapons,” which make US and India to push towards “global efforts for non-proliferation and universal and non-discriminatory global nuclear disarmament in the 21st century.” In his address to the joint session of the Indian Parliament he also spoke of “our responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Since I took office, the United States has reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy…” He referred to US agreement with “Russia to reduce our own arsenals. We have put preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism at the top of our nuclear agenda and we have strengthened the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, which is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He further added: “the United States and India can pursue our goal of securing the world’s vulnerable nuclear materials.” He alluded in his speech to the joint session of the Parliament to Indian - [Rajiv Gandhi’s] “vision that Indian leaders have espoused since independence - a world without nuclear weapons.”

In conclusion, it could be said without any hesitation that Obama having won Nobel Peace Prize in advance of great achievements as President, genuinely is in search for opportunities to achieve a worthy breakthrough in the arena of nuclear disarmament. But with his Congressional support diluted because of loss of the House of Representatives to Republicans and majority in the Senate reduced to only two, will he be able to achieve much in reality in the field of nuclear disarmament? Even if he can get one concrete step adopted by the Senate like ratification of the CTBT, we may say he has demonstrated effectively his commitment to nuclear disarmament. But as of now, one can say nothing much can be expected now, except if he wins a second term—two years later!

The writer is former Professor of Politics, University of Mumbai and currently, Hon. Director, VPM’s Centre for International Studies, Mumbai. He is the author of 15 books; latest being India’s Policy of No First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Relevance to Peace and Security in South Asia.

MUTUALITY

Cmde. (Retd.) Ranjit B. Rai

India and US:

strategic partners?

It appears that the Americans have laid their cards on the table, face up and India is scanning them for intent and purpose. Of course we have emerged as a nation and we have done it in spite of American hostility, embargoes and banned entity lists. Where we are today could have happened when President George Bush (senior) allowed Pakistan to go nuclear in spite of the Pressler and Symington laws in 1987. His son made amends and India was able to meet Obama half-way with deals that will bring over 50,000 jobs for Americans. Being a proxy is not India’s destiny and that is why Obama spoke of a UN Security Council seat.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

19

US overreach?

MUTUALITY

“For in Asia and around the world, India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged. And it is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India—bound by our shared interests and values—will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I have come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realise together”. President Barack Obama speaking in India’s Parliament on 8th November, 2010.

“His (President Obama’s) speech to our Parliament, his idea of India that he talked about in his speeches, is a reflection of the uniqueness of India as a functioning democracy, committed to the rule of law, committed to respect for fundamental human freedoms and yet managing to grow at a respectable rate. It is really a tribute to India that attracted George Bush and the same thing I find in President Obama”.

Dr. Manmohan Singh on President Barack Obama’s visit to India in November 2010.

T

he joint statement during President Obama’s November visit to India and the above two statements indicate the candor with which Obama spoke in India about his vision for India and USA, while, the carefully crafted statement by India’s Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, is guarded. This article discusses and analyses the drivers and geo-strategic compulsions that have drawn United States of America and India closer to become strategic partners and has to begin with a quote from a recent White House fact sheet in which USA recognises India as a “great power in Asia”.

Deserved accolades Indians need not feel shy of accepting the accolade. India’s economy which is touted as one of the fastest growing in the world, has galloped to a GNP of US$ 1.2 trillion and its military power has considerably increased in the last decade and India is an accepted responsible nuclear power.

This acceptance of India’s rise on the world stage, was recently reconfirmed

by Obama in India’s Parliament when he said, “India has already emerged”.

India has signed a strategic partnership with USA and has a responsibility to further its national interests through

20

it, but Indian leaders have been very circumspect to state how India proposes to further this partnership beyond words, few defence imports and sporadic deeds. The unwritten fear of the rise of an assertive China is less spoken of. The need for safety of the sea lanes in the Indian Ocean by the Indian Navy is accepted.

Chequered history The seeds of closer Indo-US ties are recent. They were sown between President Bill Clinton and India’s Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2000. Both leaders agreed to form a “natural partnership and qualitatively new relationship”.

President Bush nominated Strobe Talbott to discuss with Jaswant Singh India’s Foreign Minister, a former Indian Army Major, steps to move forward and made attempts to rein in India’s nuclear weapon programmes. This was the basis for the bilateral exchange on security issues, science and technology, commercial and trade ties, though sanctions had been placed on India in 1998 due to India’s aptly named ‘Shakti’(power), nuclear tests.

US proxy?

The terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York brought both countries closer, some sanctions were lifted with Jaswant Singh being quoted that India will assist US in all possible ways to fight terrorism. India’s Navy came into action, despite reservations by Malaysia, but supported by Singapore and the IN escorted US merchant ships in the Malacca straits in OP Sagittarius. India also offered unconditional support to America after 9/11 including basing rights for carrying out an air campaign over Afghanistan, against Al Qaeda.

However, the latter was not capitalised due to Pakistan’s closer proximity to Afghanistan and logistical transit and base support provided by Pakistan.

India had lost its contiguous borders with Afghanistan, when Pakistan took over a part of Kashmir in 1948 and then ceded a strategic part to China.

The Indian Navy undertook path breaking Malabar series of exercises and many senior naval officers, six of whom went on to become naval chiefs did long courses at the Naval War College (NWC) at New Port USA and came

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

back to script strategy and doctrines for the Indian Ocean, when the nation had put none in writing. The curriculum at NWC is totally strategy driven. Many believe USA’s interest was initially driven by looking at India’s Navy as a small proxy in the Indian Ocean and it became a link for other cooperation.

Despite setbacks in its economy and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States continues to determine world’s global power balance. Russia and China singly or jointly, with their existing power differentials are not in a position to challenge America’s dominance for the present, though China is rising fast. This is a truism which is likely to prevail into the better part of the 21st century. It is also a repeat of what the Yale strategist Nicholas J. Spykman wrote in 1942, “America has no rivals in the Western Hemisphere, it has the power to spare (military) for activities outside the New World, like determining the balance of power in the Eastern Hemisphere”. Hence USA’s look towards a rising India as a strategic partner.

Obama during his visit has stated he will enable India to enter the exclusive nuclear regimes namely the Nuclear Suppliers Group which will enable free import of uranium that India needs, the Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group and Wassenaar Arrangement in a phased manner. Obama confirmed restrictions will be lifted on DRDO, BDL and VSSC from the US ‘Entities List’ to treat India at par with allies for evaluating technology transfers

Landmark agreement On 28th June, 2005 Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee was invited to Washington DC with the three Vice Chiefs of Staff and he signed a far reaching ‘New Framework for the US-India Defence Relationship’ with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon. When Pranab Mukherjee was asked on arrival in India about the ramifications, he said, “We have signed it. Now we will study it”. The agreement superseded the earlier ‘Agreed Minute on Defense Relations Between the United States and India’ and it permits both nations to develop close military ties and in its preamble states, the “United States and India have entered a new era. We are transforming our relationship to reflect our common principles and shared national interests. As the world’s two largest democracies, the United States and India agree on the vital importance of political and economic freedom, democratic institutions, the rule of law, security and opportunity around the world. The leaders of our two countries are building a US-India strategic partnership in pursuit of these principles and interests”. Defence relations have strengthened since, with institutional frameworks for

meetings like the one in form of the Defense Policy Group. The building blocks for close strategic security links between India and USA with regular advanced military exercises have been put in place, though many claim India was obliged to sign the defence framework to progress the nuclear deal.

With the signing of the defence framework the cold war years perception when India and USA were on opposite sides in the UN’s voting pattern which led to many misunderstandings and misgivings of India being in the Soviet camp, was over. The ban on military supplies and technology, got lifted and only few clauses remain for India to negotiate and sign titled BECA, LSA and CISMOA.

The change has provided India several advantages and the highlight was that India was able to sign a nuclear deal with USA and get NSG clearance, all facilitated by President Bush. This inter alia has allowed India to be accepted as a responsible nuclear weapon State alongside the five NPT powers.

Perceptions of IOR India lies in a geostrategic position astride major sea lanes of communication with Persian Gulf to the West and Malacca Straits to its East. The Indian Ocean Region and the littoral States face the grave challenges of the 21st century such as transnational terrorism, maritime piracy, the ever

existing risk of WMD proliferation and presence of ungoverned areas.

China is making inroads into the Indian Ocean which is dubbed as the ‘String of Pearls’. These challenges are common to both India and USA. In such a security scenario, strong and stable partnership between India and US would mutually benefit both countries and have a stabilising effect in the Indian Ocean Region. As articulated by Robert Blake, the American Assistant Secretary of State, “As we look at the web of challenges we face from North Korea to the Middle East and beyond, we see India as model of a tolerant, pluralistic society with a democratic system of government. We see country where increasingly convergent values and interests have allowed us to

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

21

US overreach?

MUTUALITY

forge a strategic friendship that benefits both India and America”.

harbingers which can further shared values and interests in economics, security and promote cultural ties which can promote mutual understandings without stepping on each other’s toes, which closed societies are prone to.

China’s rise and nontransparency worries both India and USA. In recent years, US business activities and investments in India have increased and India’s economy has been the beneficiary.

The two and half million Indian non-resident diaspora in USA are a force multiplier and almost every upward mobile Indian family has relations in USA and much kith study there.

India’s investments in USA are also on the rise.

Irritants persist

Singapore example

There are many impediments in this emerging partnership. India’s traditional non-aligned thinking and UN-centric polices have a sedating effect on the relationship. India's relations with Iran for energy supply and Myanmar that Obama raised in India are other factors and America’s supply of military aid partnership with Pakistan in securing Afghanistan is viewed with concern in India. All these factors coupled with cultural difference provide an argument against a reliable Indo-US relationship. However, it is essential that both nations look beyond these irritants and focus on synergising their effects to achieve a secure and a stable environment. India may have to don that mantle and chalk a strategy for it.

As an aside, retrospectively Lee Kuan Yew and Admiral Teo Chee Hean, the current deputy prime minister of Singapore, which is a close ally of USA with berthing facilities, used to explain to all visiting Indian dignitaries, “A benign strategic partnership between two nations with shared interests is essential for investments and security cooperation”.

Singapore followed up with India in 1992, when India’s foreign exchange reserves had crashed and India’s economy was rebuilt with liberalisation under Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister. Fourteen years of uninterrupted advanced SIMBEX naval exercises as far as the South China Seas, umpteen defence exchanges, with Indian instructors in academies and sharing of intelligence data in a fusion center with Indian naval officers in Singapore and positioning of Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) assets at Babina and Kalaikunda on Indian soil for exercises and expanding trade is testimony. USA wished to emulate this post 9/11 on a larger scale and open Indian markets for trade and ensure cooperation in the sea lanes of Indian Ocean.

Strategic motivators On first look, India and the United States easily come off as natural strategic partners because of their shared values of liberty, equality, democracy, a judicial system of law, freedom of expression and permissive practice of religion in a multicultural society.

These are values which can bond both peoples and governments and are

22

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Pre-eminent power USA as the world’s pre-eminent economic and technological power has come out to support India’s pursuit of its economic and social development objectives with transfers of technology and US-aided programmes in energy, agriculture and health. India has imported a warship and weapon locating radars from USA and placed multi billion dollars worth of orders.

Both militaries have gained much confidence and shared expertise in the thirteen Malabar naval exercises, Cope India exercises with the Air Force and Yudh Abhyas with the Army in India and USA and as far as Alaska.

Indo-US defence deals ■■ 2002: 12 AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder weapon-locating radars for US$ 190 million.

■■ 2006: For amphibious INS Jalashwa (USS Trenton) and 6 UH-3H helicopters US$ 92.5 million.

■■ 2007: 6 Lockheed Martin C-130J `Super Hercules’ aircraft for US$ 962 million.

■■ 2009: 8 P-8I maritime patrol aircraft modified for AWACS operations for US$ 2.1 billion.

■■ 2010: 24 Harpoon Block-II anti-ship missiles for US$ 170 million.

■■ 2010: 99 GE F-414 engines for Tejas Light Combat Aircraft for US$ 822 million.

Under consideration ■■ Four more P-8I for almost US$ 1 billion.

■■ 10 C-17 Globemaster-III giant strategic airlift aircraft for US$ 4.1 billion.

■■ 145 M-777 ultra-light howitzers for US$ 647 million.

■■ Multi-million dollar deals for CBU-105 sensor-fuzed weapons and Javelin anti-tank guided missiles.

Integrating militaries Large doses exercises and

of inter-operability joint preparedness

have been practiced and Indian Navy and US Navy cooperated in the 2004 Tsunami and have written up standard operating procedures since. The US Navy provides the Indian Navy ships a CENTRIXS (Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System) internet protocol and computer equipment during Malabar exercises for the joint Combatant Commanders to have a common digital operating picture and responsive information exchange between combined forces.

The US establishment has imparted instructions to senior Indian military officers to think on larger scale and get organised by setting up a net assessment wing in the Integrated Defence HQ and the National Security Council Secretariat.

Mutuality India’s diplomatic space and acceptance as a nation whose voice is heard more in the international arena has also expanded and the Obama administration benefits from the strong underlying momentum behind recently improved bilateral relations.

While important long-standing differences exist between India and USA’s policies on Iran, Pakistan and nuclear proliferation, these factors should not be allowed to destabilise the relationship if the important stated

and unstated strategic interests in these cases and the rise of a non-transparent and aggressive China, are discussed.

There are strong incentives on both sides to advance and cooperate in the global commons in space, to provide security of the oceans and sea lines (SLOC) for trade, climate change and cooperation in technology.

High table Obama during his visit has stated he will enable India to enter the exclusive nuclear regimes namely the Nuclear Suppliers Group which will enable free import of uranium that India needs, the Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group and Wassenaar Arrangement in a phased manner. Obama confirmed restrictions will be lifted on DRDO, BDL and VSSC from the US ‘Entities List’ to treat India at par with allies for evaluating technology transfers.

In the joint statement Obama and PM Dr. Manmohan Singh spelt out specific assurances of cooperation in many fields including energy, space, defence, education and coordination in the maritime sphere for safety of shipping specifically mentioning the Indian Ocean Region. Most importantly, he confirmed USA’s support for a seat in the reformed UN Security Council for a veto type

membership. Many small steps have been taken, but full bloom for the strategic partnership will only come about when the national interests and threats, challenges and opportunities are listed and evaluated by both countries’ leaders to ensure there is more congruence.

Reservations remain The Obama administration, however, has not yet been able to sustain the relationship with India at the level achieved under the previous Bush administration. Whereas the Bush administration concentrated on India’s role as a balancing power in Asia, USA under Obama shaken by the severe downturn in the 2008 economic meltdown makes Obama more keen to pry open India’s economy and defence imports from USA for economic benefits, but there are reservations on the Indian side.

The challenge for the Obama and Manmohan Singh administrations is to come up with a list of common goals that can prompt both sides to move in unison.

The writer is a defence analyst and author of “A Nation and Its Navy At War”. He is former Director, Naval Intelligence and Operations in NHQ and worked for eight years with Waterman Shipping Corporation, USA.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

23

US overreach?

global realities

T

he US President, Barack Obama, is finding that his rock star status is now in decline. He was sure of that in the domestic arena as was exemplified by the rout that his Democratic Party suffered in the mid-term elections. But there was a hope that maybe the world would still be in awe of his charm. After all it was just two years back that vast crowds were swooning over his every word and foreign leaders were buying copies of his memoir to global conferences seeking his autograph.

Everyone wanted to get photographed with Obama whose meteoric rise mesmerised the world.

Euphoria gone It has unravelled as quickly as it had begun. The Democrats had nowhere to hide on November 2 as the mid-term results came pouring in. It was not a defeat but a Republican wave that turned into a tsunami of anger, hitting the Democratic Party with a force it had rarely experienced before. These results were also a stunning turnaround from four years ago, when voter anger at Republican control of the White House and Congress brought the Democrats to power. Independents who preferred Democratic candidates by 42 per cent to 35 per cent in 2006, now favour GOP candidates by a wider margin, at 45 per cent to 32 per cent. Moreover, some 38 per cent of Americans now identify as independents, an all-time high. But ultimately, these mid-term elections were about Obama’s Presidency so far, a referendum on his performance.

The economy has been hurting for the majority of Americans with the unemployment rate still hovering at 9.4 or higher for 17 months even as the Obama Administration was talking of a “Recovery Summer.” Voters were angry and they wanted to punish someone.

Just after the Republican Scott Brown captured the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy, costing Democrats their filibusterproof control of the US Senate, Obama had suggested that he would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term one. He is now realising that being a really good one-term president is not all that easy either. By failing to stay connected with the desires and aspirations of those who voted for him in large numbers,

24

Obama seems to have achieved the rare feat of simultaneously disappointing those who considered him the very embodiment of a new progressive movement and those who expected him to govern from the middle ushering in a post-partisan age.

UN seat for India?

But Obama could still rely on foreign affairs. After all, even lame duck US Presidents wield enormous power in global politics and can shape international realities in more ways than one. So Obama’s trip to Asia was being viewed with anticipation whose achievements were to restore the glory of a diminishing Presidency.

And it started off well. Wooing India was easy. Obama just had to wave the idea of India’s permanent membership in the Security Council and Indian elites started gushing about Obama’s love fest with India. It mattered little that his declaration is largely devoid of any substance. Soon after Obama’s declaration in Delhi, his State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley poured cold water on any expectation of New Delhi’s elevation anytime soon.

“It is inconceivable that you could contemplate UN Security Council reform without considering a country like India,” Crowley suggested. “But we have to recognise... this is a process that has been going on for some time and it is a process through which we must consult with others within the UN and within the Security Council.”

On Pakistan, though its support for terrorism was condemned, Obama’s Af-Pak policy at its core remains opposed to Indian regional strategic aspirations. But still Obama’s India trip can be deemed a modest success given the anti-India posturing with which Obama Administration had started off in January 2009.

Slippery ground It’s what has happened since Obama left Indian shores that demonstrates the structural shift taking place in global politics and the increasing difficulty Washington is having in pursuing its international agenda. Obama was on the diplomatic defensive throughout the G-20 conference in Seoul. He failed to seal a deal with the South Korean President on a long-awaited free-trade agreement, a serious setback for a President who has made doubling

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

exports a centrepiece of his economic agenda. And his plan to even out global trade imbalances ran into resistance from China and Germany, among others.

Though everyone was convinced that the free trade pact with South Korea, an upgradation of the pact signed by George W. Bush in 2007, was a done deal, it was not to be. The accord would represent one of the biggest such pacts since the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s and it is an important underpinning for other deals the administration is seeking, including a regional agreement with Asia-Pacific nations. But it is Obama’s own party members who remain opposed to the pact and so tough US negotiating strategy resulted in the failure of talks with South Korea. Meanwhile, other States like Australia and Canada have already signed similar pacts. Though many Democrats back home welcomed the failure, for the world at large it was a serious blow to Obama’s authority.

Meanwhile, the agreement signed at the G-20 that agreed to curb “persistently large imbalances” in saving and spending but deferred until next year tough decisions on how to identify and fix them reflected the growing clout of China, which successfully resisted pressure for its currency to appreciate quickly and Germany, which insisted that an examination of imbalances include fiscal, monetary and other policies, not just trade.

New global realities Such are the vagaries of power that a person who could do no wrong just a year back now seems to be getting nothing right. What is more troubling for the world is that in the absence of the strong US leadership there is no one else to fill the vacuum. The problem is not, however, with Obama but with the structural realities that now confront the US and the world. The international system is on the cusp of a major change and that is shaping the new global realities.

The debate on the emerging structure of the international system that commenced soon after the demise of the former Soviet Union continues unabated often reflecting a diversity of assumptions about the way the world works. Though scholars by and large

Dr. Harsh V. Pant

Testing times Mr. President?

international system: rise and fall of great powers I n a l l t h e j o u s t s t h a t h a v e o c c u r r e d i n t h e A s i a-Pacific region i n r e c e n t t i m e s t h e U S h a s c o m e u p s e c o n d - b e s t. It was unable t o p i n t h e b l a m e f o r t h e s i n k i n g o f a S o u t h Korean naval v e s s e l o n N o r t h K o r e a ; i t s c l o s e s t a l l y J a p a n h a d to back down o v e r t h e S e n k a k u I s l a n d i s s u e . A m e r i c a n a r ms dealers have h a d t o s u f f e r t h e i g n o m i n y o f b e i n g b l a c k l i sted for doing b u s i n e s s w i t h T a i w a n ; C h i n e s e a s s e r t i o n o f s uzereignty over m a r i n e r e s o u r c e - r i c h P a r a c e l a n d S p r a t l y I s l ands have gone u n c h a l l e n g e d t o t h e t o t a l d i s c o m f o r t o f f r i e n ds in the south Pacific. Signs of decline?

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

25

US overreach?

global realities

accept that the US is the dominant power in the world today, there are differences with regard to how far ahead the US is relative to the other States and how long this dominance will last. Also, some question whether the US is clearly ahead in all dimensions of power.

No real challenge Some scholars argue that the victory of the US in the Cold War gave the world a “unipolar moment” and even though the US might try to maintain its hegemony through benevolence rather than coercion, States will eventually balance against it. Taking issue with this proposition, others claim that not only the international system is unambiguously unipolar but also that it is more peaceful and durable.

This is because no State exists today which can seriously challenge the US in any domain of power - military, economic, technological and cultural and because of its special geographical position other States will find it difficult to counterbalance the US. Underlying this argument, is the claim of the US being the only “comprehensive global super power.”

A slightly different position is taken by those who argue that it is the transformation in the nature of power, from hard power to soft power, that gives the US unique advantages in the present international system. With political leadership and strategic vision, they claim, the US can maintain its hegemony in world politics. For others, it is a “uni-multipolar” system, where a single super power, the US, exists with several major powers and this system will lead to a clearly multipolar system in the coming years.

Despite these differing perspectives, it is clear that as of today the US still remains the dominant power in the system. The current war on terror and the surprisingly swift defeat of the Iraqi army has also driven home the fact that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any nation to challenge the military might of the US in the near future. As has been argued by historian Paul Kennedy, “the larger lesson,” of this war “and one stupefying to the Russian and Chinese military, worrying to the Indians and disturbing to proponents of a common European Defense Policy, is that in military terms

26

there is only one player on the field that counts.” But the Iraq war and its aftermath have also made clear the limits of US power and its unilateral approach in international affairs.

Counter-weights emerging?

The US penchant for unilateral actions has also been clear for quite some time now to the other States, especially after the US air strikes in Iraq in 1998 and the US-led NATO air strikes on former Yugoslavia in 1999.

And for many nations this tendency has got aggravated under the current US Administration with its emphasis on pre-emptive strategies and a distinct lack of respect for even its closest allies.

The recent dispute over Iraq has also demonstrated that most of the major global powers do not share American perspectives on major problems in the international system and the appropriate means for resolving them.

Many countries, therefore, see a need to balance the US might in the global system but there is little that they are capable of doing given the enormous differentials in capabilities. This desire to balance the US and an opposition to so complete a US dominance of the international system is shared by major global powers such as France, Russia, China and India, though perhaps to different degrees. But what is interesting about the present international environment is that we do not see these major powers making any serious effort in trying to counterbalance the US dominance. While it is possible that balancing tendencies may already be taking place and that, as some have suggested, it may only be a matter of time before other major powers found a serious balancing coalition, so far major powers have refrained from posing any serious challenge to the US. There is, as of now, no theoretical consensus among scholars as to whether balancing is taking place at all vis-à-vis US preponderance and if it is occurring what form is it taking.

Even as another decade comes to a close in the so-called post-Cold War period, the most remarkable and to some the most troublesome characteristic of the present international system remains the overwhelming power of the United States. The US accounts for about 30 per cent of the world’s GDP, its defence budget is almost half of global defence expenditures, it is on the

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

verge of achieving nuclear superiority over its nearest nuclear rival, Russia all giving it almost unheard of freedom to project its power globally.

It is the primacy of the US in the international system, as the one singular structural reality, that the world has been trying to come to grips with ever since the end of the Cold War. Despite the recent setbacks that the US foreign policy seems to be facing across the globe, the fact remains that all major powers continue to shape their foreign policies as a response to American preponderance. The Chinese and the Russians may talk of the desirability of a “multipolar” world and the Europeans may be irritated by the American “hyperpuissance” but there is no escaping the reality of American pre-eminence in global politics at the present juncture.

reacting to these developments as compared to the past. Not only was the US Ambassador to China called in by the Chinese government to protest against the arms sales and warned of serious repercussions if the deal went through, China also cancelled some of its military exchange programmes with the US and announced sanctions against American companies that are supplying weapons systems to Taiwan.

Beijing also started asserting its military profile in the region. A two-week standoff between Japan and China over a boat collision last month underlines the growing propensity of

Counterpoise The choice of the four States Obama visited earlier in November – India, South Korea, Indonesia and Japan – is aimed at reminding China that US still retains its role as the principal balancing force in the region. All four States are worried about China’s rise and its attempts in recent past to assert its interests more forcefully in the region. There is a clamour for American leadership in the region as none of the regional States want China to emerge as the dominant actor in the region.

All want a stronger US presence in the region so as to give the region greater stability.

watered down a UN Security Council presidential statement that, while condemning the incident, failed to hold North Korea responsible. As a result, no punishment has been meted out to North Korea for its brinkmanship.

Indonesia’s role as the world’s largest Muslim-majority democratic country is crucial in America’s attempt to promote democratic values worldwide. Its strategic position sitting astride crucial sea lanes of communication makes US-Indonesia pertinent for enhancing stability in the global commons.

Jakarta’s ties with Beijing are tense and it wants a broader partnership with Washington. And then there is India the recent rise of which has been described

China’s ascent Yet the rapid ascendance of China in global economic and political hierarchy is shifting the international balance of power to a degree that could not have been imagined just a few years back. When Obama visited China in November 2009, he was at the height of his power domestically.

He was dictating the contours of his domestic political agenda. The opposition was weak and diffuse.

His Administration had ideas about China as the fulcrum of stability in Asia-Pacific. China’s growing economic and political clout was forcing the Obama Administration in early days to toy with the idea of G-2, a global condominium of the US and China whereby China can be expected to look after and ‘manage’ Asia-Pacific. The Obama Administration was signalling that it was more interested in managing America’s decline than in preserving its pre-eminence in the global order. There was no strategic vision about Asia apart from the hope that US and China could work together to sort out global problems.

Viewing this as an opening, China gave up its super power-in-waiting approach and started behaving like a super power that has already emerged.

After the Obama Administration notified the US Congress that it planned to sell weapons systems to Taiwan worth US$ 6.4 billion earlier this year, China was markedly aggressive in

the communist State is adopting a more aggressive stance against rivals and US allies in Asia and there may be more tension to come. The collision happened near a chain of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea called Senkaku that Japan has controlled for decades. Beijing essentially bullied its way through the crisis. When Beijing claimed that it now considers its ownership of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea as a “core interest,” fears increased in Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia that China is seeking to use its growing maritime might to dominate not only the hydrocarbon-rich waters of the South China Sea but also its crucial shipping lanes, the lifeline of regional economies.

Japan is still reeling from China’s diplomatic offensive on Senkaku and there is a growing sense that despite growing economic ties, Sino-Japanese ties will remain problematic in the foreseeable future. A strengthened US-Japan alliance is being viewed as essential for Japanese security.

Meanwhile, China has angered South Korea too. Seoul has grown disillusioned with Beijing’s shielding of North Korea from the global outrage over the Cheonan incident. An international investigation convened

by South Korea concluded that the sinking of the warship, which killed 46 South Korean sailors in March, was likely the result of a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine.

Instead of berating Pyongyang, China

by Obama as being in the best interests of both India and the US as well of the world.

So in an interesting way, a weakened US is finding that its global role might only increase in the coming years the world tries to come to terms with a rising China. But it will have to manage these years very carefully as the transition period in world politics, when a new power rises in the international system, have historically been rather destabilising. Despite all the protestations to the contrary, the US will retain its primacy in world politics for the foreseeable future.

The writer teaches at King’s College, London.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

27

US overreach?

PERCIPIENT

F

ew countries on the globe share so much in common as the two great democracies of India and the United States. Yet despite this commonality of core values like liberty, fraternity, equality and a free market – India and the US were estranged democracies during the Cold War. For strategic considerations of countervailing a much larger India, Pakistan repeatedly rented out its territory to further Cold War agendas.

India and Pakistan were always hyphenated and considerations of realpolitik led to the United States favouring and arming military dictatorships in Pakistan at the cost of India. Most of these were short term tactical agendas. Pakistan rented out its territory and indiscriminately weaponised its tribal society for the CIAs jihad against Soviet Forces in Afghanistan. At one point it was deemed the most successful covert operation in American history till it boomeranged in 9/11.

New paradigm The end of the Cold War had ushered in a major paradigm shift. The Soviet Union collapsed overnight and in 1990-91 the Indian economy was perilously close to collapse as a result of the second oil shock. Paradigm changes were needed to deal with a completely transformed unipolar world order. India liberalised its economy.

The Information-CommunicationTechnology revolution led to a services sector driven revival of the Indian economy. In 1998 India became a nuclear weapons power. Pakistan followed suit and the Kargil War erupted the next year. It was at this time that Bill Clinton focused his energies on South Asia. He recognised India’s power potential and leaned hard on Pakistan for initiating this most irresponsible conflict in a nuclear environment.

It was President George Bush, however, who realised India’s unique position and power potential in the backdrop of a rising China and an emerging multi-polar global order. Bush was emphatic in leaning towards India and fathered the Indo-US Civil Nuclear agreement. In fact he proposed a quadrilateral of democracies (US, India, Japan, Australia) to countervail the rising power of an authoritarian China.

At that stage Prime Minister Vajpayee had termed India and US as “natural

28

allies whose relations would contribute the key element in the architecture of tomorrow’s democratised world order”.

Unfortunately when President Obama took charge, his initial approach was to seek a modus-Vivendi with a rising China. The economic interdependence between the two was huge and Obama felt he needed Chinese support to pull US and the world out of the impact of the global financial crisis and looming economic depression. At the regional level he gave primacy to Pakistan to solve the mess in Afghanistan. India thus receded almost entirely from the US radar screen. A new bipolar architecture dominated by the US and China was possibly the worst geo-strategic scenario for India.

Multipolar power alignments had existed both at the times of World War I and II and had seen such rapid alignments / re-alignments based on perception of national interest and balance of power politics.

Altered geopolitics Luckily for India, China suddenly jettisoned Deng Xiaoping’s strategy of “hiding your capabilities and biding your time”. The Internal power equation in Beijing saw the increasing assertiveness of the PLA in the foreign policy arena. Post the global financial crisis, China sensed its moment had arrived sooner than expected. It found the USA hopelessly tied down militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and correctly surmised that it lacked the spare military capability to concurrently engage China in the Asia Pacific. Accordingly in 2009 it began to advertise its military strength through a series of high profile military exercises. In 2010 however it suddenly turned truculent. It rebuffed Obama’s overtures, seeing them as a sign of weakness. The paradigm shift in China’s posture left the whole of Asia deeply concerned. China turned very assertive over the border issue with India. It repeatedly raised the issue of Arunachal Pradesh. However concern mounted sharply when it jettisoned its neutral stance over J and K and began to staple visas on the passports of Indians of Kashmir origin. Soon reports emerged of Chinese troops in Gilgit and then came the crowning rebuke of denying a visa to the Indian Army Commander in J and K. Concurrently

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

China had turned highly aggressive over the issue of a US-South Korean Exercise in the Yellow Sea. Its response was so truculent that the US was forced to postpone the exercise for a month and change its location to the Sea of Japan. The Americans were alarmed and the Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Muller himself came to India to share his concern. The Chinese held a combined live fire drill of all their three Naval Fleets in the South China Sea. China has been increasingly riding rough shod over Vietnamese, Philippines and Indonesian claims in this area. There have been regular reports of minor naval clashes with Vietnam over the last few years. China added South China Sea and Yellow Sea to its list of core concerns (that included Tibet and Taiwan). Waves of alarm spread over the Asia Pacific.

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) G. D. Bakshi

Busting containment Thomas Friedman (writing in the New York Times) said, “A sudden upsurge in assertion of claims by China to all of South China Sea has triggered a Pre-Containment (or Containment lite) response by the USA and the concerned countries on the Chinese rim”. Christan Caryl (writing in the Foreign Policy Magazine) highlighted this paradigm shift. “For years, China was being praised by ASEAN experts for being so shrewd and deft in building cultural and economic ties with all of its neighbours and out manoeuvring the oafish Americans. However, in just six months China has cast itself in the role of a bully and prompted its neighbours to roll out the red carpet to Uncle Sam. China’s irredentist claims to the South China Sea have sparked considerable anger among other countries in the region. The Chinese massive naval exercise in South China Sea was possibly the last straw.

China has muscled Vietnam into halting its oil exploration in the South China Sea. It clashed with Japan over the incident of the apprehension of its Fishing Trawler’s Captain and succeeded in imposing its will.

Lingering suspicions Obama’s visit to India therefore occurred in a radically altered geopolitical context. For the first time all the countries on the Chinese periphery felt the need to invoke an extra-regional

potent alliance

India needs to be wary and chary of what America is trying to bring into this relationship. Intrusive posting of American personnel in sensitive military command and control centres ostensibly to protect technology copyrights is not something any self-respecting nation will tolerate, least of all India. American concessions to Indian sentiments are squeezed out of a clearly reluctant polity.

Indians cannot forget that not very long ago Obama had suggested a Chinese role in mediation between Pakistan and India - replete with the stinking aroma of the Yalta experience where the world was divided up into “spheres of influence”.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

29

US overreach?

PERCIPIENT

What India needs from America is not so much a buyer-seller relationship (hamstrung by a slew of restrictive legal tenders). India needs American assistance and transfer of technology to set up a military-industrial complex. That may entail lifting the FDI cap from 26 per cent to 49 per cent (or thereabouts) in the defence sector…

It would hardly help to buy sophisticated maritime reconnaissance aircraft sans the electronic gear. More than the platforms we need the electronics gear and software – but without strings and caveats.

We need joint R&D and useful tie-ups between our corporations currently the case. Then there was the Logistics Support Agreement that sought reciprocal logistical facilities at our ports and installations. What would happen if tomorrow the USA decided to attack Iran? Would India be constrained to provide logistics support even when almost 80 per cent of its oil supplies were sourced from the Gulf?

balancer to contain the power of an increasingly aggressive China. Simple strategic prudence and the balance of power calculations demanded that the United States reach out to India, Japan, Vietnam and other ASEAN States to counter-balance an increasingly truculent and assertive China. Shared values had not sufficed in the past to cement the natural alignment between the two major democracies of India and the USA. The rising power of an ascendant China however now provided the necessary stimulus for a closer engagement.

The build up to this visit was not smooth. There were deep lingering suspicions in the strategic community in India. US policy had often been the victim of short term agendas in the past. Obama needed Pakistan’s support

30

to win the war in Afghanistan and recall his troops. The Americans had been pressurising India not to respond to the terrorist attacks and even make concessions on Kashmir.

Don’t touch clauses The defence agreements were stuck because of American insistence that India sign a slew of legal agreements and safeguards. After much discussion India had signed the End Use Inspection agreement. Pending, however, were the agreements on Interoperability of Communications and Geo-spatial cooperation. These had obvious implications for our communication security. Such agreements could only be concluded in the backdrop of a much deeper political congruence between the two countries than was

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

President Obama’s initial fulminations on outsourcing and his highly ambiguous stance (when questioned by the media prior to his visit) on a permanent seat for India in the UNSC and taking the ISRO, DRDO, Bharat Dynamics and AEC off the Entities List, further added to deeply entrenched suspicions in Indian strategic circles. Some American interlocutors who preceded the President, laid great emphasis on Pakistani sensitivities on any Indian role in Afghanistan. True, Obama was not visiting Pakistan but before coming he had announced a US$ 2 billion weapons deal for Pakistan.

Such a start to so crucial a visit could hardly be deemed auspicious and initial Indian responses were cagey and cautious. In turn President Obama’s initial caginess on naming Pakistan for its role in the Mumbai terror attacks generated highly adverse comments in the media. There were leaks that the Armed Forces were being pressurised to sign the pending defence agreements against their deep reservations. The experience of spares support with the Fire Finder Radar had not been helpful.

The Indian operating environments range from - 50 degree Celsius in Siachen to + 50 degree Celsius in the Thar. As such most foreign equipment has to be tropicalised /modified. The CISMOA Agreement expressly forbids this (Only the Israelis have been permitted to modify their F-16s to their own requirements). There were (and there are) major reservations and question marks still on the issue /advisability of

signing these agreements. Obama had signed US$ 10 billion worth of contracts in Mumbai and gained 52,000 plus jobs for his domestic constituency. What had India gained in return? All eyes were glued to what would happen in New Delhi.

Breakthrough ■■ The New Delhi parleys generated a breakthrough of sorts. The sensitive politician in Obama had sensed the deep reservations in the Indian media and public mood. He came across as highly sincere and transparent in his press meet and the piece de resistance was his very stirring address to the Joint Session of the Parliament. He defined what was in it for India: ■■ Promise of US support for a permanent seat in the UNSC. This was a major political statement of support and provided a logical backdrop to the stated congruence of interests between the two democracies.

■■ Three of the organisations (ISRO, DRDO and Bharat Dynamics) were taken off the Entities List for dual-use technologies. The Atomic Energy Commission and its associated laborotaries however remain on the list.

■■ Agreement on the least contentious of the Defense deals – the C-17 Globemaster 70-ton capable transport aircraft was inked. It had no major electronic package involved and was a highly needed heavy lifter with the reach, capacity and range that would be handy in the Himalayas and equally in Out of Area Contingencies.

■■ A hundred GE-404 Engines would be supplied for our long delayed Light Combat Aircraft.

Win-win situation Overall therefore it was a win-win situation. Obama had not raised the K-word. In response to a pointed query by an American correspondent he had said America cannot impose a solution and endorsed the step by step Indian approach of tackling the less complex issues first. He had asked Pakistan to dismantle its terrorist havens and take action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai outrage. What was indeed refreshing was the Indian Prime Minister’s firm assertion that

India wanted an equal partnership and his equally firm stand that Pakistan could not talk peace and concurrently promote terrorism and coercion.

The most important component of the Joint Statement was the need for stability and access to the Global Commons (air, sea, space and cyberspace domains) and the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation. Obama praised India’s Look East Policy and advised it to engage the nations of South East and East Asia who are obviously threatened by the shadow of an assertive and aggressive China. China was the core issue that emerged more by implication in this dialogue. It drove the concerns that brought the two democracies together for the initial response of containment lite. It has asserted the validity of the Bush doctrine that recognised India as a unique power in Asia, one whose strategic and economic potential could be leveraged by Washington to help it navigate its way through the uncertainties and turbulence of the next few decades. However, the US President’s admonishments on Myanmar and Iran present caveats that the bureaucracies on both sides will have to address carefully. What is of essence is the need for overall strategic congruence and the establishment of a long term relationship that makes considerable strategic sense in the context of a rising and assertive China. This time around the US-India relationship would be rooted in far more solid geopolitical realities rather than ephemeral assertions of common values. Even these are vital and important but in the absence of a geo-strategic context had failed to cement ties between the two democracies. Cold War era suspicions linger in institutional memories and need to be addressed.

The key is a stable long term relationship based on a mutuality of interests that can override short term inconsistencies and turbulence. The overall strategic direction cannot be lost sight of in the negotiation of tactical shoals. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Union had consciously subsidised the Indian military build up to counter-balance a hostile China. It was a non-intrusive and unobtrusive relationship based on a clear mutuality of interests and shared threat perceptions.

There was never a requirement for

a slew of legal agreements. It was therefore a win-win relationship meant to last. The US must aim at a similar and durable relationship. There is a thaw in US-Russian relations and therefore a concurrent engagement should not pose a problem.

India may not be in a position to sign the Defence agreements (at least not until there is a more substantive agreement and understanding on issues of vital interest than we have at present). There are lingering doubts over availability of spares and future technological upgrades.

Military-industrial base What India needs from America is not so much a buyer-seller relationship (hamstrung by a slew of restrictive legal tenders). India needs American assistance and transfer of technology to set up a military-industrial complex in the private sector. That may entail lifting the FDI cap from 26 per cent to 49 per cent (or thereabouts) in the defence sector. Till then India may have to be circumspect in acquisition of key weapon systems from the USA. It would hardly help to buy sophisticated maritime reconnaissance aircraft sans the electronic gear. More than the platforms we need the electronics gear and software – but without strings and caveats. We need joint R&D and useful tie-ups between our corporations.

The US would gain immensely if it assists India in augmenting its military-industrial capacities. That would automatically balance the power of a rising and increasingly assertive China and shore up morale in South East and East Asia.

Balance of power dynamics have an inexorable logic that automatically guides policy formulations and implementation. Indo-US relations are now clearly prefaced by such a strategic grammar.

The writer is a combat veteran of many skirmishes on the Line of Control and counter-terrorist operations in J&K and Punjab. He subsequently commanded the reputed Romeo Force during intensive counter-terrorist operations in the Rajouri-Punch districts. He has served two tenures at the highly prestigious Directorate General of Military Operations. He is a prolific writer on matters military and non-military and has published 17 books and over 70 papers in many prestigious research journals.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

31

US overreach?

PRAGMATIC

United States-India: global

alliance?

Dr. K. S. Sidhu

T

India’s steady economic growth over the past decade has elicited differing and contending reactions from the two global powers, the US and China.

The former sees India’s growth as an opportunity to break out of the recession that plagued it these past two years.

And China sees it as a rival that needs to be cut to size and appears to be looking for an opportunity to do so militarily and establish a hegemony in the AsiaPacific region. The opportunities of the 21st century are spiked with thorns.

It will take a great deal of ingenuity for Indian leadership to traverse the minefield ahead.

32

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

he visit of US President to India took stock of various strategic issues demanding attention of two great democracies of the world to work as strategic partners for peace, security and development. Besides bilateral issues, the issues related to regional and world peace were also the focus of discussion between the leaders of two countries. Not only signing of defence treaty / agreement for purchase of certain military technology, equipment, missiles and drones but also terrorism and security occupied a prominent space (due to the problems created by the US indulgence in Afghanistan, wherein Pakistan was of greater prominence) were on the agenda. Despite the divergent worldviews of India and the United States, they tended to agree to build a strategic partnership.

US attitude towards India is determined by the latter’s location, status and position in international community and by its growing economic, political and military relevance in the international system.

Similarly, India’s need to seek US co-operation is determined by a variety of social, psychological, political and military factors to the extent of converting the “natural allies” into “strategic partners” to further their security and foreign policy interests. In this regard the following factors may be analysed: ■■ Internal and external factors determining the growing significance of India in world politics.

■■ The relationship of strategic factors with the ends and means of India’s foreign policy and national security.

■■ Major geo-strategic legacies, perceptions and realities influencing India’s strategic culture and grand strategy.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

33

US overreach?

PRAGMATIC

The fact that India is a liberal democracy will help the two countries develop necessary accommodations with less suspicion and tension than characterises the Sino-American relationship. But India’s path to power will be a long and bumpy one, as it works out its place in the region and the world. The legacy of a “non-aligned” foreign policy and fiercely independent strategic culture will make the prospects for strategic partnership more difficult ■■ India’s emergence as a viable regional and global economic and strategic performer and its implications for national interests and security strategies of other countries in the contemporary international situations.

■■ The convergent and mutual connections of India and United States as substantial strategic partners.

Basis of partnership India-US strategic partnership perceptions, problems and potential have been driven by three factors.

The existence of an Indian Diaspora in the United States; the tactical need to coordinate strategies with India following the demands of the War on Terror; and the US administration’s belief that India could play a role in the long run as a strategic partner of the United States by making it separate from the relationship with Pakistan.

India too has reassessed its own priorities and strategic options in the wake of the Soviet collapse. Logically the areas of convergence of interests of US and India include the following economic, political and strategic factors: ■■ The absence of world order is not due to any struggle between the great powers of today but there are other common factors, which contribute to influence their respective attitude. The rationale for security cooperation and stronger ties comes from the mutual challenges that they face in the War on Terror effort.

■■ Middle East / Gulf region, world’s largest reserves of the energy and South East Asia located on the strategic choke points linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, occupy a prominent place in the vital strategic and security interests of both of them.

■■ Both US and India value “the freedom of the high seas” and more

34

specifically the sea-lanes that emanate from the Hormuz Straits and radiate towards the West and East.

■■ Islamic fundamentalism is a live threat to India and domestic threat-in-the-making of the US. The roots of this threat lie in South West Asia - Pakistan and Afghanistan to be precise.

■■ Both USA and India have a convergent stake in status-quo in the existing strategic equilibrium in Asia-Pacific security architecture.

■■ The visit of US President, Barack Obama, to India at a time when there seems to be a clamour for American leadership in the Asian region in the interest of regional stability.

■■ With geo-economics supplanting geo-strategic and geo-political considerations in international relations and partnerships, the joint potential for US and India is very vast. The US President Barack Obama visualises Asia, especially India, as the “market of the future” for which he does not simply welcome India’s rise, but most ardently supports it and wants to invest in it.

Factors motivating US The United States envisaged a “New World Order” at the end of the Cold War, wherein US perceived victory as “Peace Dividends” in the form of United States emerging as the uni-polar global super power after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

However, due to the shattering of the predictable bi-polar strategic pattern, this was also accompanied by newer and greater strategic uncertainties.

Ashley Tellis, one of the architects of the new relationship with India has written: “The question … ought not be “What will India do for us”… rather the real question ought to be “is a

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

strong democratic (even perpetually Independent) India in American national interest. If the answer to the question is ‘yes’ then the real discussion about the evolution of the US-Indian relationship ought to focus on how the United States can assist the growth of Indian power” (Ashley Tellis, “The US-India ‘Global Partnership’: How significant for American Interests?”

Testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, November 16, 2005.)

Numerous factors advocate India’s credibility as a reliable partner capable of confronting several challenges because: ■■ As a liberal democratic country, India accepts the notion that the more democracy spreads, the safer Indians will be.

■■ India has been one of the foremost targets of jihadi terrorist attacks and shares an interest with US in bringing them to an end.

■■ India shares an interest with US in maintaining a balance of power in Asia.

China has been a historic rival to India and China’s growing power is viewed with considerable apprehension.

The complementarities of interests of US and India motivate US to help India grow stronger to play a positive role in ensuring strategic stability in Asia as well as promoting shared values of democracy and secularism and to make India play a more proactive role in furthering US international security interests. In this regard US has a number of options, such as: ■■ India’s educational capabilities can be further developed to provide higher technological and managerial education to a growing number of students from other Asian countries.

■■ Indian Navy could be strengthened to enforce a broader maritime security framework in the Indian Ocean.

■■ The potential Russian reappear-ance as an assertive competitor in the Asia-Pacific and with possibilities in the Middle East in addition to their plans for Europe having the potential to alter the future strategic equations in international affairs.

■■ India has the potential to provide adequate troops for peacekeeping, peace enforcement and nation-building efforts.

■■ Apprehension of strategic partnership between Russia and China complicates strategic equation on the Western rim of the Pacific.

■■ India can play a more proactive role in the sphere of non-proliferation.

■■ Credible challenges posed by Islamic fundamentalists in the region of Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics present serious challenges to the US role of peacemaker.

■■ Economically, India is a large market with a bourgeoning middle class and technologically skilled labour force.

■■ Indian diplomatic assets can be used to start a substantive dialogue with various countries of Asia.

■■ India’s development of its nuclear and conventional military capability can be used to prevent the rise of another dominant power to emerge in this part of the world.

The 21st century has brought about a new set of complex strategic developments that have propelled the United States to seek a strategic partnership with India, such as: ■■ Emergence of China as a major military threat in the Asia-Pacific with manifestations and indications of Chinese inclination to challenge American preponderance in the region.

■■ With the withdrawal of base facilities of US in vital strategic regions in Asia-Pacific, advanced military presence is being gradually diluted, seriously upsetting sea-lanes security for the US and its allies.

■■ Instable Pakistan’s increasing Talibanisation contains serious implications to further spoil the South West Asian situation along with Afghanistan.

■■ US seems to be replacing its dependence on vibrant democracies having the potential of peaceful and systematic economic growth, rather than the military dictatorships,

authoritarian regimes and sheikhdoms, which could not provide adequate support to the realisation of US objectives in the changing global perspective.

■■ For the realisation of vital interests of the US it seems to be shifting its policy to that of “prosecuting the global war on terror and reducing the staying power and effectiveness of the jihadi killers; preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including to terrorist groups; dealing with the rise of Chinese power; ensuring the reliable supply of energy from the Persian Gulf; and keeping the global economy on track”.

■■ For a United States strapped for manpower, Indian security assistance would be welcome since it would further US goal of checking radical Islam in the region thereby freeing US troops for action in other theatres in the war against terror.

For India to carry out such a role and emerge as a long-term strategic partner, the US has agreed to change its own perspective and policies to permit the rise of India to the status of a major power by: ■■ Supporting India’s quest to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

■■

Reshaping

international

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

35

US overreach?

PRAGMATIC On the eve of 21st century, the political and strategic developments in the regional and international security milieu present a serious paradigm shift for India because of the following factors: ■■ China continues to be the long-range security threat and has been becoming more aggresive in this regard despite the best efforts of India to be friendly.

■■ Emergence of Pakistan as a nuclear weapon State along with a considerable missile potential in South Asia with exclusive Chinese assistance.

non-proliferation regimes to permit India to become a de jure nuclear weapons State.

■■ Putting Taliban, Al Qaeda and anti-India LeT in one group, calling them irreconcilable and its offer of a military response to those who perpetrate violence like 26/11 or 9/11.

■■ Calling upon India and Pakistan to reduce tensions where “US cannot impose solutions.” This would permit India to play a greater international role.

Strategic economics India’s economic takeoff, which began in the mid-1990s, is probably the single most important reason for the new sense of confidence and optimism about India’s strategic direction and its battle hardened and modernising military and new, pragmatic diplomatic stance have put it on the path to becoming a great power.

India’s emergence as an independent power and strategic partner of the US represents one of the most significant events in the contemporary international security landscape. The statement of US President avowing intention to build “a true strategic partnership” with India has been his “highest foreign policy priorities” since he assumed office in January 2009. He further added before his visit; “Our teams continue to work hard to

36

reach an agreement that strengthens the international non-proliferation system while treating India in a manner consistent with our strategic partnership” (Hindustan Times, November 04, 2010).

There are several rationales favouring US opening to India such as they commit to promote, strengthen democracy worldwide and combat terrorism relentlessly. The two countries are also committed to an initiative, which provides a framework for economic cooperation, the joint promotion of democracy, energy and environmental cooperation continued defence cooperation and high technology and space cooperation.

Factors motivating India The much-propagated non-aligned strategy enunciated by India along with its dependence on Soviet Union could not prevent four wars being imposed on India and unending insurgencies on its peripheries. On the contrary, it brought about the intrusive presence of USA and China into South Asia and attempts by both to strategically balance India. Part of India’s logic of reaching out to the US is to help it out of its perceived encirclement by China in the Indian Ocean and South Asia. Besides this, India perceives Chinese expansion of influence in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf as a strategy of “encirclement of India” damaging.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

■■ The unabated continuation and strengthening of the China-Pakistan strategic nexus in South Asia and the growing estrangement between USA and China.

■■ Islamic fundamentalists have developed as the single most detrimental threat to India, externally and internally, sponsored and launched by Pakistan and funded by some of the Islamic States. This threat is difficult to be handled single-handedly by India.

■■ The erstwhile friend, Russia, neither has countervailing power nor is likely to use that power in favour of India to avoid annoying the Chinese as it has given enough indications of forging a quasi-strategic alliance with China to checkmate USA in the Asia-Pacific region.

■■ The US recognises India as a “responsible State with advanced nuclear technology” and indicates support to its civilian nuclear programme and urge others to do the same and, as such, provides the single most important, dynamic and strategically rich option of strategic partnership.

■■ India sits in the Indian Ocean basin, strategic interests and to India have come complex web.

centre of the where India’s the challenges together in a

■■ In terms of energy and economics, India would like to play a growing role in Central Asia both to check the role of China and Pakistan and also to satisfy its own developmental needs.

Reshaping policy The above factors clearly suggest that India has to review its policy. Not only to protect its national security interests, but also for its economic and technological growth, India needs to break out of its earlier politico-strategic mindset and opt for newer options.

India’s growing role in Asia and its perceived security challenges mean that it shares complementary interests, terrorism, energy and China, with the United States. As an Asian power, India would be ideologically and militarily different from China. Being a democracy that espouses social justice and economic growth, India provides an alternative role model to the nations of Asia.

of any strategic balancing of Pakistan against India. During his visit to India, President Obama, categorically stated “we will continue to insist to Pakistan’s leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks (must) be brought to justice.” The visit of US President to India has dispelled

develop necessary accommodations with less suspicion and tension than characterises the Sino-American relationship. But India’s path to power will be a long and bumpy one, as it works out its place in the region and the world. The legacy of a “non-aligned” foreign policy and fiercely independent strategic culture will make the

the long shadow that the Cold War had cast on the US-India relationship. On the economic front, the deals worth over US$ 10 billion will not only be useful for US in the domestic context, the tone and tenor of his oration in his address to the joint session of Indian Parliament, delivered a clear message of crucial strategic relationship of the 21st century.

prospects for strategic partnership more difficult.

Pragmatic approach Dogmatic approach of India, to view things in a manner limited to that of Pakistan or China and consider US policies in South Asia in a narrow context, has to be replaced with a more vibrant policy for analysing international economic and geo-political milieu. India has to visualise more maturely before assuming the status of a big power and also drive out others’ misperceptions of being a soft State; while strong nations declare and demonstrate their intentions, weak nations premeditate ambiguities.

The United States has given considerable recognition to India’s power potential through various pronouncements by its high officials including their Presidents.

In committing itself to supporting India’s full membership in the Security Council, Nuclear Suppliers Group and other multilateral export control regimes, the Obama administration has finally opened a door for the country to transcend the legal confines of a treaty, by supporting India’s membership of NSG, MTCR and other hi-tech regimes, that has defined global attitudes towards nuclear weapons for over four decades: the NPT and “constructing a paradigm beyond the NPT”.

Cold War baggage It has been categorically pointed out by the US that it does not have any binding to carry on its special Cold War relationship with Pakistan and therefore, no question

Besides advocating Indian demand for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, the joint statement issued at the end of President Obama’s visit to India stated to agree, on all terrorist networks, including Lashkar-e-Toiba, must be defeated; Pakistan must bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks; agree for close co-operation in combating terrorist financing; agree to pursue joint development projects in Afghanistan in capacity building, agriculture and women’s empowerment.” It may not be out of context to conclude that this visit and proceedings thereof are the culmination of the process begun

by Bill Clinton and furthered by George W. Bush to dissolve the lingering uncertainty holding back the US-India Strategic Partnership.

The fact that India is a liberal democracy will help the two countries

India’s reaction may require paradigm shift in some of the fundamental areas such as: a new stress on the importance of India’s contending economically on a global scale; a pronouncement of the predominance of selfinterest rather than Third Worldism and the embracing of a new pragmatism at the expense of traditional Indian idealism. India’s commitment to becoming a nuclear weapons power, its increased spending on defence and its search for new strategic partners punctuated this radical departure from the status quo.

Over the longer term, India may visualise numerous large, very significant projects for enhancing Asian and global security that will require active US involvement.

Two such issues stand out: creating new security design for Asia and establishing a new nuclear regime.

The writer is former Head, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies and former Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala, India.

He specialises in Indian Security and the Indian Ocean / South Asia region. He has authored five books and 45 research papers and articles.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

37

US overreach?

MULTILATERALISM

non-proliferation: US impetus

T

he first five months of the year 2010 were exceptionally busy for US non-proliferation officials.

The New START was finally concluded after several rounds of difficult negotiations between the US and Russia. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was finalised and announced in April just a few days before Washington hosted a Nuclear Security Summit to which President Obama invited 47 Heads of Government to deliberate upon the dangers of nuclear terrorism and the need to secure nuclear materials worldwide. Finally, the NPT Review Conference was steered to a sort of a happy ending in May 2010.

Each one of these events reflected the current nuclear concerns of the US administration and its efforts to deal with them.

US, Russia and China During the period of the Cold War, the US nuclear relationship with Russia (then Soviet Union) was the most significant determinant of international security. This equation has changed substantially since then. USA and Russia no longer perceive each other as nuclear threats that demand the kind of deterrence strategies that they pursued earlier. Of course, the relation remains important since 95 per cent of the present global nuclear arsenal resides with these two countries.

In an attempt to encapsulate the reality of the current relationship between the two nations, the New START, which though is yet to be ratified in both nations and the process is not expected to be an easy one in either Moscow or Washington, mandates substantial reduction in number of nuclear warheads. Both sides have agreed to reduce their nuclear warheads to 1550 each and their delivery systems to 700 launchers each.

While its nuclear relationship with Russia has been in the throes of transformation ever since the fall

38

of the Berlin wall, that with China is yet on shaky ground. The US has, on several occasions, expressed the need for greater transparency in China’s military modernisation efforts, doctrinal nuances and strategic intentions.

However, given the Chinese propensity for ambiguity and deception, it is unlikely that the American demands will be met. Rather, the Chinese are using the pretext of America’s pursuit of ballistic missile defence to justify the rapid military and strategic modernisation under way.

Meanwhile, the US is also discomfited by the Chinese attempt to push the envelope on nuclear proliferation by continuing its nuclear relationship with Pakistan (despite its non-NPT status and without the NSG approval) and shielding North Korea and Iran from a more strident international response to their alleged moves towards nuclear weapons. Therefore, while the US-China nuclear equation may be based on stable nuclear deterrence with an extremely low possibility of a bilateral nuclear exchange, it is, nevertheless, shadowed by the fog of suspicion and mistrust.

Multilateralism Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, the US has made efforts at stemming proliferation. These have taken different forms, have been led with different degrees of intensity depending on the nature of the administration and have met with varying levels of success.

Perhaps, the biggest turnaround in the present American approach to nuclear non-proliferation is evident in its return to multilateralism. Quite different from the approach taken during the years of President Bush in the White House who tried to commandeer a unilateral path of US non-proliferation, President Barack Obama has clearly put his faith in tackling current proliferation concerns through multilateral efforts.

Therefore, instead of unilateralist approaches and ‘coalitions of the willing’ type of efforts, the attempt of

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

the present administration is to forge a larger, more inclusive consensus on non-proliferation.

Flexibility One clear evidence of this was visible in the US earnestness to invest meaningfully in the eighth quinquennial NPT RevCon in May 2010. The adoption of a flexible approach by Washington inspired other nations too to remain constructive and that enabled the conclusion of a consensual Final Document. Owing to the fact that the last NPT RevCon in 2005 where the member States had not been able to conduct any useful debate on substantive issues, the 2010 Conference was under pressure of ensuring a semblance of success. Or, it was feared that the frustration and disappointment with the treaty might tempt member States to reconsider their commitment to it. Well aware of this, the US representatives to the NPT RevCon ensured a positive and constructive approach at the meeting. American readiness to make compromises prompted other countries to be flexible too and enabled the RevCon to achieve a consensual Final Document. While it would have been naïve to expect that the Conference would have the capacity to solve every contemporary nonproliferation challenge, it is noteworthy that the Final Document has identified a total of 64 actions on non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This itself has been hailed as a success of sorts.

Nuclear terrorism The return of the US to lead non-proliferation efforts is also a result of the realisation that the most important threat of the moment cannot be met unless all countries with the nuclear capability, technology and materials cooperate. The threat that most preoccupies the US today is the challenge of securing available nuclear material and technology worldwide

Dr. Manpreet Sethi

India cannot but be pleased with the wording of the dissuasive clauses of the US Nuclear Posture Review that threatens condign punishment to both State and non-State actors who may use nuclear materials for a WMD strike anywhere in the world because the most obvious source of such an eventuality is Pakistan which is now recognised world-wide as the epicentre and the fountainhead of global terrorism. The clauses bring within its ambit “facilitating, financing, providing expertise or safe havens” and it is for India, learning from its experience of how Pakistan has used deniability, prevarication and downright deceit to fend off overwhelming evidence of its involvement in the Mumbai attack, to ensure instantaneous international response to a threat that can only come from the Pakistani military establishment for being the sole arbiter of things nuclear in Pakistan.

US overreach?

in order to minimise, if not obviate, the risk of nuclear terrorism. This is reflected in the sequencing of the five key objectives that the US Nuclear Posture Review announced in 2010. It places “preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation” and “reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US national security strategy” ahead of the need for “maintaining strategic deterrence”, “strengthening regional deterrence”, including of the extended variety meant for reassuring allies and “sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal”. As is evident, current American preoccupation is with the risk of nuclear use by terrorists who might steal or seize nuclear material or obtain sensitive technology from the nuclear black market. The second major threat is perceived from nuclear proliferation that may be triggered by the provocative behaviour of States like North Korea and Iran as they exacerbate instability in their respective regions and tempt their neighbours to go down the same path.

Intrusive inspections In order to address these threats, the US efforts are planned along three main trajectories. The first of these is by reinforcing the non-proliferation regime centered on the NPT and by strengthening the IAEA safeguards and enforcing compliance with them. It may be mentioned here that the Final Document of the NPT RevCon also lay great emphasis on NPT member States to conclude the Additional Protocol for more intrusive verification of nuclear assets and facilities, though it stopped short of making it a mandatory condition for international cooperation in nuclear energy. The US is trying to build a consensus on this issue, as also on restricting the availability of dual use nuclear materials and technology to every State that wishes to have a nuclear power programme.

Counter measures Secondly, Washington has accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide, including through increased provision for funding of the non-proliferation efforts of the Department of Energy.

According to the NPR, the budget for the year 2011 is slated to go up by 25 per cent to US$ 2.7 billion and the

40

US overreach?

MULTILATERALISM efforts would aim at accelerating the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and the International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation Programme. The NPR has also sounded a warning that the US would “hold fully accountable any State, terrorist group, or other non-State actor that supports or enables terrorist efforts” to obtain or use WMD. The definition of such efforts includes “facilitating, financing, providing expertise or safe havens”. And in case of culpability, the US response would be “effective and overwhelming”. Significantly, the NPT RevCon Final Document also takes a stand on armed attacks against nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes and notes the suggestion by many States to craft “a legally binding instrument” in this regard.

Thirdly, the US has once again brought into focus the importance of pursuing arms control (New START, CTBT, FMCT) to help mobilize international support for both the earlier objectives. Of course, the domestic ratification process on both the New START and CTBT remains difficult in the US. The recent electoral losses for the Democrats in the US Congress will obviously not help matters and the Republicans have often enough reiterated their opposition to the bilateral and multilateral arms control initiatives. It remains to be seen how President Obama is able to translate his personal push for these efforts into meaningful action at home and beyond.

Indian support Meanwhile, from India’s point of view, the nature of the current focus on non-proliferation is a positive trend. The US initiative to “enhance national and international capabilities to disrupt illicit proliferation networks and interdict smuggled nuclear materials” would be useful given the fact that India faces a tangible threat of terrorism, including of the nuclear variety, from Pakistan – now internationally acknowledged as the source head of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. At the National Security Summit in Washington, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed support for national and international initiatives aiming at nuclear security. India has a well-formulated and effectively implemented export control regime that is in consonance with international

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

best practices. India has also joined the Global Initiative on Nuclear Terrorism and the Prime Minister has committed that the nation will not provide enrichment and reprocessing technologies to countries that do not already have them.

The Indo-US Joint Statement released on 08 November 2010 on the occasion of President Obama’s visit to India also expresses a “commitment to strengthen international cooperative activities that will reduce the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or material without reducing the rights of nations that play by the rules to harness the power of nuclear energy to advance their energy security.” The leaders have reaffirmed their shared dedication to work together to realise the commitments outlined at the April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit to achieve the goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials in the next four years.

Common interest It is a matter of rare opportunity that the American and Indian interests in non-proliferation coincide, in sharp contrast to the times when India was considered a non-proliferation concern by the US. Today, India has been accepted as a responsible State with advanced nuclear technology. India, therefore, has an opening in the current expression of nuclear concerns to shape the non-proliferation initiatives in a manner that help it to address its own threat perceptions (largely emanating from Pakistan and the Sino-Pak nexus) with the help of multilateral initiatives.

New Delhi must seize the initiative and adopt a more proactive approach in the matter in order to shape the non-proliferation regime of the future.

The writer heads the project on Nuclear Security at the Centre for Air Power Studies. She is author of the books Nuclear Strategy: India’s March towards Credible Deterrence (2009) and Argentina’s Nuclear Policy (1999); co-author of Nuclear Deterrence and Diplomacy (2004) and editor of Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World (2009), Global Nuclear Challenges (2009). Her research papers on nuclear energy, nuclear strategy, proliferation, disarmament, ballistic missile defence and related issues have been published in national and international academic journals and books. She regularly lectures at training establishments of Indian Armed Forces and has participated in Track II meetings.

POWER PEDDLING

Each US President brought with him his own peculiar flavour of how power should be wielded. President Eisenhower gave Pakistan guns which he assured solemnly would not be used against India prompting the ascerbic Krishna Menon to ask if ever a gun was created that would shoot only in

Dr. Rajiv Nayan Sanjeev Kr. Shrivastav

one direction.

Richard Nixon could never quite get along with Indira Gandhi. Little wonder that in 1971 he sent the Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal to prevent one of the greatest military victories of all time and thus rob her of the glory.

US Presidents: visits to India 1959 to 2010 Jimmy Carter tried to arm-twist Morarji Desai on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was on record that he would send a “stiff, cold letter” on the subject to the Indian Prime Minister.

Bill Clinton managed to warm Indian hearts by treating the Pakistanis like the terrorists they are - special arrangements were made to ensure that nobody could take a potshot at him at the airport.

George Bush came to undo some of the damage caused to regional peace and security by his father by allowing Pakistan to go nuclear in violation of US laws.

Barack Obama underscored the truism that there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies.

President Eisenhower

P

resident Dwight Eisenhower visited India in December 1959 during his second presidential term. He was the first US President to visit Independent India. Eisenhower noted in his memoirs that he wanted to visit India as he had been intrigued by the picture Prime Minister Nehru had painted about the region, its people and aspiration. Upon his arrival on December 10, 1959, he was given very cordial reception as Nehru noted that his welcome had exceeded our expectations as thousands of people had come down on the streets to see Eisenhower.

During his four-day visit to India, apart from engaging in extensive discussions with Prime Minister Nehru and other officials in India, President Eisenhower addressed parliament and visited Agra. Bilateral discussion between the two sides went off quite well. Both the leaders deliberated upon the issues and challenges in Asia, Europe as well as Africa. Commenting on

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

41

US overreach?

POWER PEDDLING maintaining good relations with both India and Pakistan.

India-Pakistan rivalry, Eisenhower insisted that US would never allow Pakistan to use its US military equipment against India. However, he pointed out that Indian troops deployment in Kashmir was a wasteful exercise. He also noted US ammunition supply to Pakistan was just for one week it should not cause much worry in India. He visited Pakistan also during this tour. Nehru insisted for an agreement between India and Pakistan on not using force to settle their differences. Pakistan President Ayub was not ready for it without a parallel agreement in principle for solving the Kashmir problem.

On India-China relations, Nehru told Eisenhower how puzzled he was about Chinese motives. Though India had taken initiative to establish friendly ties with China, Nehru was baffled by hard Chinese position on border dispute between the two nations.

Eisenhower did not dwell much on the Chinese issues and Indian concerns. He expressed hope that both the countries would resolve the matter peacefully.

Given the lack of warmth in India-US relations during that time, his visit was an icebreaker which initiated a dialogue between the two sides during the Cold War.

President Nixon President Nixon was the second US President to visit India. He was here in August 1969.

Despite sour personal chemistry with India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Nixon began his South Asian policy by

42

He continued the economic assistance programme. According to Dennis Kux, Nixon did not want to re-establish close military ties with Pakistan which he supported earlier.

His visit was a low-key affair and did not generate much enthusiasm among common people. The only substantial discussion between both sides was on Vietnam. He visited Pakistan also during this tour. In Pakistan, he was welcomed with greater warmth than in India, though relations with Pakistan at that time were not so good because of the resentment in Pakistan over the continued US arms restrictions.

Similarly, United States was worried about growing China-Pakistan ties.

But later Pakistan provided its secret help in US-China rapprochement process which resulted in the shuttle diplomacy of Kissinger to China, which prepared the ground for one of the largest investment blitzkriegs in human history, changing the landscape and face of China forever.

President Carter

mentioned, but it was recorded in the statement only as an Indian intention to join.

The economic element of the trade in general and agriculture in particular dominated the Presidential visit.

The joint statement also chronicled it.

Resume

convictions towards morals and their commitment for improved IndiaUS ties. The NPT overshadowed the otherwise a highly positive and optimist visit. Later, too, both sides could not build upon the understanding between the two nations. Unfortunately because of Nuclear Non-proliferation Act of 1978 which was the cornerstone of Carter administration’s policy and subsequent trouble for the Tarapur plant, the situation

President Jimmy Carter visited India in January 1978. He did not visit Pakistan during this tour to India.

During the Carter administration, US policy towards India was on a higher plane than what it was before.

Apparently, the Carter administration came to India to de-emphasise the Cold War or East-West concerns and was willing to pay greater attention to North-South issues. He wanted to strengthen relations. His National Security Advisor Brzezinski listed India as one of the “regional influentials.”

Dennis Kux has written, “In keeping with the new approach to South Asia and unlike Eisenhower and Nixon, the two previous presidential travellers to the subcontinent, Carter did not couple his trip to India with a stop in Pakistan.”

In India, too, Janta government led

by Prime Minister Morarji Desai also believed that good Indo-Soviet ties should not be at the expense of growing India-US relations.

Both sides issued a Delhi Declaration which noted, “Ends can never justify means. Nations like individuals, are morally responsible for their actions” which reflected both leaders’ personal

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

between the two countries deteriorated.

President Clinton President Willliam Jefferson Clinton, popularly known as Bill Clinton, came to India in March 2000. His visit had two very important contexts. One, in 1998, India had conducted nuclear tests for which US had imposed sanctions and other curbs and second, the Kandahar plane hijack incident.

Though President Clinton did not do much

on sanctions imposed against the nuclear tests, yet the visit demonstrated high symbolic activities on terrorism. Solidified by the visit, India and the US continued to work on counter-terrorism.

commerce with India after getting India-specific exemptions in the Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines. President Bush had made a bold move which won him laurels in India.

True, President Clinton spoke all the annoying non-proliferation phrases but the very fact that President Clinton visited India despite sanctions indicated that the US government had started the process of reconciliation towards the Indian nuclear bomb.

The visit marked separation of Indian nuclear facilities, though officially it was a separate event. It signified strengthening of the India-US strategic partnership.

However, the visit had other components as well. Once again, the US and India emphasised energy security and clean energy. Quite interestingly, the joint statement released at that time promised for India a “license exception for items that would otherwise require an export license to end-users in India engaged solely in civilian activities.”

President Clinton and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee issued a joint statement - “India-US Relations: A Vision for 21st Century.” The statement talked about ‘natural partnership of shared endeavours’ which led to the use of the phrase - “natural allies” for the India-US relations. The foundation stone for the science and technology partnership in general and energy partnership in particular was laid down during the visit. However, the US India’s largest trading partner - started realising the growing potential of India in the economic field. The joint statement devoted a considerable section on this fact.

Democracy also featured quite frequently.

President George Bush

There were other science and technologyrelated elements such as the establishment of a co-funded Bi-National Science and Technology Commission; promise to further cooperate in civil space, including areas such as space exploration, satellite navigation and earth science; permission to the launch of US satellites and satellites containing US components by Indian space launch vehicles; opening up of new opportunities for commercial space cooperation between the two countries; and the US support of the Indian lunar mission Chandrayaan-1.

President George Walker Bush came to India in March 2006. His visit assumed significance because at that time, the whole world was discussing the India-US joint statement released on July 18, 2005. The joint statement led to the relaxation of the US rules and regulations for nuclear

The two countries also discussed joint global security and safety framework in which both sides promised to work together to counter terrorism, to promote nonproliferation efforts, to promote maritime security and defence cooperation and so forth. Container Security Initiative was also

Trend Analysis of the Presidential visits clearly demonstrates that the twenty first century has put India on the US foreign policy and strategic map. Half of the visits have taken place in this century.

In about a decade, three visits have taken place and other three visits took place in more than five decades. During the Cold War, the Presidential visit took place after almost a decade. It seems the Indian Non-Alignment approach and status did not motivate the US to come to India during the Cold War period. However, the gap between the visit of President Carter and President Clinton is interesting. This gap of over two decades owes to two factors: the first could be the average gap between two Presidential visits, that is, a decade and another decade is because of the tense non-proliferation-defined India-US relationship after the end of the Cold War. In this century, the time gap between Presidential visits is getting reduced.

President Bush came six years after President Clinton and President Obama came about four years after President Bush.

Quite possible, the rising profile of India may make the next President to visit India sooner, within two years or just after the next US Presidential elections!

Dr. Rajiv Nayan is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi since 1993, where he specialises in export control, non-proliferation and arms control. He was a Visiting Research Fellow at Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo, where he published his monograph - Non-Proliferation Issues in South Asia.

Mr. Sanjeev Shrivastav is a Researcher at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

43

US overreach?

INSENSITIVITY

The parcel bombs that Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden says will be the jihadis' "low cost option" against the combined military might of the western world are already flying around. All it will take is slight modification to turn a localised explosion (as in a flying aircraft) into a weapon of mass destruction. There is a whole host of biological and chemical agents that can be acquired over-the-counter in any part of the world to make very lethal improvised explosive devices.

The Pakistan Army, riddled with rogues as the US itself has suddenly discovered, could help facilitate another massacre or a new edition of 9/11.

E

ven though, between us, we constitute the most powerful and the most populous democracy in the world, democracy has never really been the binding glue between the US and India. Though it has always been easy for politicians of both sides to mouth “democracy” as the greatest common multiple, the US has always given tinpot generals and military dictatorships greater weightage in its world view. It is this that has caused strange twists in behaviour that have coloured geopolitical attitudes.

Non-aligned bugaboo Nothing exemplifies this attitude better than the wording employed by President George Bush to whip Pakistan into line when he declared war on terror in retaliation for 9/11: “If you are not with us, you are against us”.

It was the same dictum that plagued India-US relations because India, the largest democracy in the world, chose Non-alignment as the cornerstone of State policy on overthrowing British colonialism. It put us, in American institutional eyes, as being “against us” and so, India as a nation always got short shrift in the American global scheme of things.

American anti-communism could not digest the reality that any nation professing Non-alignment could pose no military threat to its global network of military alliances and military bases. As a consequence, Pakistan which jumped at the opportunity to join the “Baghdad Pact” which led to the creation of the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) intended to “contain” the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and later the South East

44

Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO) to put the reins on that other Communist monolith China in the Pacific format got the cookies irrespective of that other reality that for most of its existence Pakistan has been ruled by military dictators.

Flush with arms The consequence was that Pakistan always had some of the latest US weapons in its armoury which gave it a feeling of invincibility. The F-104 Starfighters and Patton tanks which President Eisenhower sought to convince India would never be used against it stoked military dictator Ayub Khan’s ambition to try and delink Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of India in 1965 confirming former Defence Minister Krishna Menon’s apt comment that no guns have yet been created that fired only in one direction.

Such was the American commitment to Pakistan that even as the Bengalis rose in revolt after the elections in 1970 gave Sheikh Mujibur Rehman’s Awami League a majority mandate to rule Pakistan, the Punjabi atrocities against the Bengalis in East Pakistan led to the neighbouring Indian states being flooded with refugees. India’s pleas to rein in Pakistan fell on deaf ears in Washington. That encouraged Pakistan to launch attacks on nine Indian airbases in the western sector in early December, 1971. India retaliated with a massive attack on East Pakistan in conjunction with the local liberation force the Mukti Bahini. President Richard Nixon tried to turn the clock back on short-lived democracy in Pakistan and sent the US Seventh Fleet task force into,the Bay of Bengal to prevent the

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

US-India: friends in-deed?

Cecil Victor

creation of Bangladesh. It was an act Indians did not forget for a long time thereafter.

US insensitivity What added to the bitterness behind the scenes was that in January 1971, well before the war, two Kashmiris hijacked an Indian passenger aircraft and took it to Lahore at gunpoint. They released the passengers but the aircraft was blown up at the instigation of the Pakistan Army Inter-Services Intelligence. India had evidence that the gun used in the hijacking was part of a German consignment delivered to the Pakistan Army. Also, the explosive used to destroy the plane came from military sources. India sought US expertise to ascertain the source of the detonators recovered from the destroyed aircraft. The US fudged the evidence to protect the Pakistan Army.

Dirty bombs The seeds of a greater tragedy waiting to happen were laid by President George Bush (senior) when he kept giving Pakistan clean chits under the Presssler and Symington laws that required him to certify that Pakistan was not making nuclear weapons even though US experts like Leonard Spector had publicly warned that Pakistan’s “bomb-in-the-basement” programme was just “two screwdriver turns away” from becoming a reality. This was backed up by CIA evidence of the movements and activities of Dr. A. Q. Khan as he went about stealing and selling contraband nuclear materials from the Neatherlands to North Korea, Libya, South Africa and Iran. In 1990 President Bush (senior) announced to the world that he could no longer give Pakistan the required waiver

- an indirect confirmation that Pakistan had “gone nuclear”.

Proliferating to terrorists It was not just a cruel blow to nuclear non-proliferation but will come to haunt the US itself (much worse than 9/11) if the Pakistan Army, protector of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, hands over precursor material to the many terrorist groups it has nurtured under the flags of Al Qaeda, Taliban, United Jihad Council and a host of others to launch “dirty .bombs” on the US and Europe. Already parcel bombs are beginning to fly around the globe. It will take just a small amount of uranium wrapped around sticks of RDX to create unprecedented panic.

The case of the “lost” Stinger shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles tends to underscore the possibility that the Pakistan Army itself, not just alleged “rogues” could be the purveyor of material for “dirty nukes” to terrorists. After the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan the US tried to buy back the Stinger missiles

that the Central Intelligence Agency had given to the Pakistan Army to be used against the Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. Very few were returned because the Pakistan Army hid them away for use against India. And sure enough the missiles surfaced during the Kargil war that was waged against India not by “rogue elements” but by the Pakistan Army Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf himself from a safe haven in Beijing in 1999.

Strategic partnership?

More such lethal weapons are being supplied to Pakistan by the US even though it is very obvious that most of the weaponry that has already been delivered - the latest F-16s for instance - cannot be effectively employed against widely dispersed terrorists who have already been given wellfurnished accommodation by the ISI in safe havens in Pakistan’s metro cities. The intention is to put them out of reach of US Predator drone attacks that are currently picking out those who are managing the forward edge of

battle against the US-led International Security Force in Afghanistan in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal belt in singles (as in the case of Baitullah Mehsud) and in bunches as the most recent drone strikes have done in that salient.

Of what use will the newly fashioned “strategic partnership” between the two great democracies be if the US leaves behind a den of Islamist fundamentalists with a variety of the latest conventional weaponry and the means to access both nuclear weapons and “dirty nukes” that could become available to “non-State actors” to be used against India?

The US has always found it very difficult to discern who is a true friend and who a wily enemy.

The writer has covered all wars with Pakistan as War Correspondent and reported from the conflict zones in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in South East Asia as well as from Afghanistan. He is author of “India: The Security Dilemma”.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

45

US overreach?

fact sheets

the US-India partnership:

the fact sheets

Counterterrorism Cooperation

Since the first bilateral discussions on counterterrorism in 2000, counterterrorism cooperation has become a pillar of the US-India relationship. In the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the US and India resolved to deepen collaborative efforts and intensify exchanges, culminating in the signing of the Counterterrorism Cooperation Initiative (CCI) in July 2010.

This landmark agreement made clear the determination of our two governments to combine efforts to combat terrorism and to work closely to ensure the security of our citizens. Programs to exchange law enforcement best practices, hold reciprocal visits of senior-level officials to discuss lessons learned, conduct joint military training exercises and joining of forces in international fora on key counterterrorism issues, demonstrate the closeness of this cooperation.

Civil Space Cooperation

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to scale-up joint US-India civil space collaboration, including space exploration, earth observation and scientific education.

Clean Energy and Climate Change

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama reaffirmed their countries’ strong commitment to taking vigorous action to address climate change, ensure mutual energy security and build a clean energy economy that will drive investment, job creation and economic growth throughout the 21st century. The Leaders strengthened US-India cooperation on energy and climate change through the following initiatives, including a number of joint research and development projects, public-private partnerships and major commercial sales of renewable energy technologies.

Cybersecurity

The US and India recognise the importance of cybersecurity and its growing role in world prosperity, commerce and culture.

Accordingly, the US and India are advancing efforts to work together to promote a reliable information and communications infrastructure and the goal of free, fair and secure access to cyberspace.

The US-India partnership is indispensable to addressing the challenges of our times. This strategic relationship encompasses a range of issues, activities and programs that reflect the vision of President Obama and Prime Minister Singh that benefits not only the people of the United States and India but the world as a whole. Attached are a series of fact sheets on these issues, with their summaries.

Export Controls

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama committed to work together to strengthen the global non-proliferation and export control framework and further transform our bilateral export control cooperation to realise the full potential of the strategic partnership between the two countries. The two leaders agreed to take mutual steps to implement a four-part export control reform program, including: support for India’s membership in the multilateral export control regimes, removing India’s Defense and Space-Related Entities from the US “Entity List;” export licensing policy realignment and export control cooperation.

Trade and Economic Cooperation

The United States and India, the world’s two largest democracies, share one of the world’s fastest growing trade and investment relationship. This relationship is based on a shared commitment to an open market economy as the key determinant of economic growth, development and job creation. In furtherance of this commitment, President Obama and Prime Minister Singh took note of several current initiatives in connection with the President’s visit to India.

Partnership for an Evergreen Revolution

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama agreed to work together to develop, test and replicate transformative technologies to extend food security in India as part of an “Evergreen Revolution.” These efforts build on the historic legacy of cooperation between the United States and India during the Green Revolution and will benefit farmers and consumers in India, the United States and around the globe and will extend food security in India, Africa and globally.

The Partnership for an Evergreen Revolution will contribute to achieving the objectives of the US global development policy, which places a premium on broad-based economic growth as the foundation for sustainable development and the bilateral US Feed the Future Initiative, which focuses on creating a foundation for sustainable economic growth by helping countries accelerate inclusive agriculture sector growth through improved agricultural productivity, expanded markets and trade and increased economic resilience in vulnerable rural communities.

46

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

CEO Forum

Recognising the vital role bilateral commerce plays in the global strategic partnership, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh highlighted the importance of the US-India CEO Forum and the progress made in implementing its recommendations. The US and Indian governments addressed recommendations in the areas of clean energy, infrastructure, education and export controls.

Defense Cooperation

The US-India defense relationship has grown from solely military-to-military links into a mature partnership that encompasses dialogues, exercises, defense sales, professional military education exchanges and practical cooperation. The leaders reaffirmed the importance of maritime security, unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation, in accordance with relevant universally agreed principles of international law.

US-India Economic and Financial Partnership

Since US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner traveled to Delhi in April 2010 to launch the new US-India Economic and Financial Partnership with Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the two governments have institutionalised deeper bilateral relations on economic and financial sector issues. These efforts include a macroeconomic dialogue and financial sector and infrastructure working groups.

Education

President Obama and Prime Minister Singh are committed to an expanding, dynamic and comprehensive education partnership, including expanding academic exchanges, developing university and school linkages and holding a US-India Education Summit.

Entrepreneurs Roundtable

This event introduced the President to the next generation of Indian entrepreneurs and showcased innovative partnerships between US and Indian businesses that are creating new markets for US-manufactured technologies. These entrepreneurs represent some of India’s most thoughtful and articulate minds on the major challenges facing India today and showcase the promise of the country’s dynamic, private sector-led inclusive growth. Their innovative business solutions are helping address some of India’s most vexing challenges – such as clean water, power, health care, education – while creating new markets for their US technology partners.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

47

US overreach?

fact sheets

US overreach?

UNSCRUPULOUS

The National Export Initiative

As part of the National Export Initiative, President Obama noted that India - with its tremendous economic growth and its large and growing middle class - is a key market for US exports. These involve some of our country’s largest companies, but also an increasing number of small and medium-sized enterprises. On the margins of the President’s trip, trade transactions were announced or showcased, exceeding US$ 14.9 billion in total value with US$ 9.5 billion in US export content, supporting an estimated 53,670 US jobs. These cross-border collaborations, both public and private, underpin the expanding US-India strategic partnership, contributing to economic growth and development in both countries.

Indian Investment in the US

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Sheru Thapliyal

The United States is the world’s largest recipient of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). India is among the fastest growing investor in the United States. As the US-India economic relationship deepens, investment from India contribute to the growth and vibrancy of the American economy and in the creation of jobs in the United States. Over the last decade, investment capital from India grew at an annualised rate of 53 per cent reaching an estimated US$ 4.4 billion in 2009. This growing flow of capital from India reflects the increased integration of the two economies and has brought many benefits to the United States, increasing US exports and supporting tens of thousands of jobs in the last six years alone.

Nuclear Security

The United States and India signed a memorandum of understanding that provides a general framework for cooperative activities in working with India’s Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership, which India announced at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit. In working with India’s Centre, the United States will give priority to discussion of best practices on the security of nuclear material and facilities, development of international nuclear security training curricula and programs, joint outreach on security issues to their respective nuclear industries and cooperation on other nuclear security activities as mutually determined.

Deepening US-India Strategic Ties

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama renewed their commitment to expand cooperation on strategic issues facing the United States and India and agreed to deepen and broaden strategic consultations on core foreign policy issues of mutual concern. Such consultations reinforce Prime Minister Singh’s and President Obama’s vision of transforming the US-India relationship into a true global partnership that reflects the extensive and growing strategic ties between our two countries.

US-India Development Collaboration in Afghanistan

President Obama and Prime Minister Singh agreed to collaborate closely to assist the people of Afghanistan by identifying opportunities to leverage our relative strengths, experience and resources. Our collaboration will focus on agricultural development and women’s empowerment, where Afghanistan’s needs are great.

Securing the Air, Sea and Space Domains

President Obama and Prime Minister Singh agreed that in an increasingly interconnected world, it is vital to safeguard areas of the sea, air and space beyond national jurisdiction to ensure the security and prosperity of nations. The United States and India have launched a dialogue to explore ways to work together, as well as with other countries, to develop a shared vision to protect peace, security and development of these areas.

US-India Open Government Dialogue

President Obama and Prime Minister Singh entered into a formal partnership on open government. The United States and India share strong democratic foundations as well as an enduring commitment to transparency and innovation as foundations for responsive and accountable government in the 21st century. Both nations believe that democratising access to information and energising civic engagement through the use of new technologies are critical to delivering better services, especially to those at the bottom of the pyramid; fostering greater entrepreneurship and economic opportunity; and improving our ability to collectively solve problems.

- Released by White House, Washington DC, USA

the US-India partnership:

the fact sheets 48

US-Pak umbilical cord!

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

“Strategic partnership” with India notwithstanding the fact that the US deliberately did not inform New Delhi about the David Headley Coleman terrorist reconnaissance mission in Mumbai is the template to judge Washington’s future handling of the Pakistani cradle of terrorism. If the Taliban is accommodated in Afghanistan, which it must, then things will fall into place - exactly as they were before 9/11!

T

sent some till Pakistan raised a hue and cry and linked the military aid to solving the Kashmir problem. US then got an Indo-Pak dialogue on Kashmir going which came to naught between a voluble Bhutto and a reticent Sardar Swaran Singh.

hose of us who were dismayed that President Obama, during his otherwise successful visit to India did not term Pakistan as a terrorist State, fail to realise that Pakistan has been a friend of USA since the time in early fifties when Eisenhower was the US President. Pakistan had signed a mutual security pact with US in 1954.

Unscrupulous Pakistan

Those were the heady days of Non-Aligned Movement with Nehru occupying the moral high ground and denouncing USA with vigour while overlooking what Soviet Russia was doing in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other satellite countries. The denouement came with the Chinese aggression in 1962 when except for two countries, none of the Non-Aligned countries spoke up for us while US generously offered help and indeed

The centre point of Pakistan’s foreign policy has always been India. Unlike us Pakistanis were not encumbered by any moral philosophy. Perhaps they had studied Chanakya better than us! For them an enemy’s enemy was their friend regardless of the ideology. That is how they came to befriend China even while being members of CENTO and SEATO and thus part of USA’s containment of communism concept. They realised early on that it pays to be a friend of a

super power and they also realised that with India warming up to the Soviet Union despite its Non-Aligned tag, they had no option but to ally with USA. A grateful USA was generous with aid, both financial as well as military. In the case of latter, they were fully aware that Pakistan can use the military aid only against India but apart from making some perfunctory noises, US could not prevent Pak from using US military hardware against us in the 1965 war.

The US-Pakistan friendship, if it can be called that, follows a serrated curve – highs followed by lows. The high of fifties was followed by a low of sixties, then again a high in the early seventies when Nixon was planning to make his historic visit to China and recognise the PRC. The US tilt towards Pak in the 1971 war and their action of moving

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

49

US overreach?

the Seventh Fleet into the Bay of Bengal were a part of this strategy of keeping Pak in good humour as a conduit while talks with China were going on. Once the mission was accomplished, US cooled off.

Fathering Taliban, Al Qaeda The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 again took the US-Pak relations to a high. Zia realised that Pakistan was now in a position to get anything from USA by becoming the base for operations against the Russians. That is the time when arms were poured into Pakistan by CIA, Taliban was raised, trained and armed and ironically Osama bin Laden was brought into the loop. No one visualised the long term consequences of raising and arming the Taliban and how the spectre will start threatening Pakistan itself one day.

The withdrawal of Soviets from Afghanistan had two important consequences. Firstly it hastened the breakup of the Soviet Union and secondly Taliban occupied Afghanistan and started ruling there. In the aftermath of Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent splintering of Soviet Union, US need for Pakistan was no longer felt. So the sinecure continued.

However during the period from its break-up in 1971 to early nineties, Pakistan established what it calls the “All Weather Friendship” with China and got both the nuclear as well as missile technology. US just winked at this blatant violation of all international norms. Perhaps US was too busy rearranging its priorities and world view after it took care of the Evil Empire. Then came the nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan in May 1998 and sanctions were slapped on both the countries but US-Pak relations sinecure went into a downslide and during the Kargil conflict of 1999, US was blunt in telling Pakistan to withdrew its troops from Kargil heights.

9/11 watershed The cataclysmic events of 9/11 shook the US and rest of the world like nothing before. This was the first time US homeland came under attack – if not conventionally but by terrorists.

George Bush vowed to finish Al Qaeda and action in Afghanistan started to oust the Taliban regime there and catch Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

50

US overreach?

UNSCRUPULOUS Naturally this war needed a logistics base and Pakistan once again was in US good books which continues till date. In US scheme of things, there are two kinds of terrorists. One who are a threat to the US and the others who are creating mayhem in India in the garb of jihad and are spreading elsewhere too. Obviously the priority is to destroy the former and hence the war against terrorism in Afghanistan in which NATO counties have been roped in however unhappily. We need to understand US attitude to terrorist strikes against us in this context. We always run to US in the event of a terror strike and expect them to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. This does not behove a country aspiring to be a world power. Except for cursing Pakistan, we have taken no action to stop terrorism. How did we then expect US to denounce Pak from our soil. At the risk of repetition, it needs to be said that Pak has been a trusted ally of US since the fifties while we are warming up to the US only now and talking of strategic partnership.

Af-Pak dimension Another dimension to US-Pak friendship is the arrangement that will be worked out post US withdrawal from Afghanistan starting in mid-2011. Pakistan is quite clear that India must not be allowed to play any role – humanitarian or otherwise.

Pakistan must install a friendly regime in Afghanistan obviously of the Taliban and gain its often talked about but meaningless strategic depth. US must surely be looking for an assurance from Taliban that there will be no terrorist attacks against US. Whether Taliban will honour such a commitment, only future will tell. If post US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, terrorist attacks against India increase, so be it.

US homeland must not come under attack.

Securing nukes?

Another aspect that needs to be considered in this complex web of US-Pak friendship is the security of Pak nuclear weapons. From time to time US expresses its anxiety and continually Pak assures US that its nuclear weapons are safe and there is no chance of their falling into terrorist hands. What is most likely and neither US nor Pak can say openly is that in all likelihood,

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

US would have undertaken the safe custody of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

US cannot take a chance in this and since US has a great chemistry with Pak Army which controls nuclear weapons in Pakistan, it is a most likely scenario.

An interesting aspect of US-Pak enduring friendship is the fact that this friendship is confined to only the two establishments. Pak populace hates US intensely because it feels that US has been just using Pakistan for its benefit and it is not a friendship of equals.

There may be truth in it. Pak comes on US radar screen when required and disappears once the need is no longer there. They also hold the US responsible for creation of Osama and the Taliban and all terrorism in Pak. They may not be far wrong.

Restraining Pakistan?

How does this US-Pak friendship sinecure impact on the region? As far as India is concerned, we have always maintained that Pakistan is the epicentre of all terrorism in the world and would like USA to do something in order to force Pakistan to close the terror tap. However US has its own compulsion and it is unlikely that they will restrain Pakistan. The only area where the US has moved from fuzziness to clarity is Kashmir, Obama categorically stated that US will not mediate between India and Pakistan and both the countries have to find the solution by dialogue. Pakistan, while maintaining the charade of talks, believes that its strategy of bleeding India by a thousand cuts will work.

CURBING ISI

global war on terror: Af-Pak strategy Dr. Arpita Basu Roy

One intriguing aspect of US-Pak friendship is that China does not seem to be worried about it. It has never commented on war on terror being fought by US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and by Pakistan in its FATA and Waziristan. Pakistan has also managed to maintain its all weather friendship with China and is doing a fine balancing act. The impact of US-Pak friendship on other countries in South Asia is minimal.

The writer is working for a multinational information technology company after his retirement. He is PhD in Sino-Indian Relations and contributes regularly to magazines, periodicals and newspapers on Strategy, Security and Defence related issues.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

51

US overreach?

CURBING ISI

After some groping around in the darkness of terrorism President Barack Obama appears to have hit the right note by not insisting on troop withdrawals from July 2011. It will put a kink in the Taliban / Al Qaeda tactic of biding time for the NATO troops to leave to overrun the Karzai government in Kabul. It has not gone unnoticed that drone strikes against the terrorists have increased and the Haqqani tribe on which Pakistan has tagged its Afghanistan policy is on the run Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Kayani was seen trying to create new safe havens in Khurram agency before acceding to US demands to “do more” in North Waziristan.

­­­­U

S President Barack Obama’s “Af-Pak” strategy unveiled on March 27, 2009 is under review with an eye on the impending deadline of July 2011 for the US forces to start handing over the responsibility to the local forces. The review will be focusing on two aspects of the Obama administration’s Af-Pak policy: if it’s on the correct path and if it’s happening at the correct pace. The review will factor in views of international stakeholders in the region, including India.

President Obama’s discussions with Indian leaders on his recent visit will be added to the review. Whether, after international troop withdrawal the region will slip back into chaos and into the hands of Pakistani handlers happens to be India’s primary concern.

H`istration is increasingly emphasising the idea that the United States will have forces in Afghanistan until at least the end of 2014, a change in tone aimed at persuading the Afghans and the Taliban that there will be no significant American troop withdrawals in the summer of 2011. The message shift is effectively a victory for the military, which has long said the July 2011 deadline undermined its mission by making Afghans reluctant to work with troops perceived to be leaving shortly.

Against this backdrop an analysis of the strategy and how it unfolded and worked out becomes the primary concern of this article.

Policy review In 2009 as part of US President Barack

52

Obama’s review of the Afghanistan and Pakistan region undertaken by the White House, Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional military commanders, Obama shifted his strategy from President Bush’s with a threepronged focus. The clear-cut strategy named “Af-Pak” strategy unveiled on March 27, 2009 outlined the intensification of a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge reinforcing positive action and an effective partnership with Pakistan.’’ Af-Pak strategy had also referred to the need to integrate “non-ideologically committed” and “reconcilable insurgents” into the Afghan government and promised an increase of aid to Pakistan to US$ 1.5 billion annually over at least 5 years, extendable to another five years.

Pak one-upmanship As National Security Advisor General James Jones put it, the United States would “treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries, but as – with one challenge in one region”. The term Af-Pak which was popularised and possibly coined

by Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan was highly criticised in Pakistan. It was argued by Musharraf that the strategy puts Pakistan on the same level as Afghanistan which he claimed was not the case. Afghanistan, he claimed had no government and the

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

country was completely destabilised while Pakistan was not. He also did not forget to rule out an Indian hand in such terminology. According to some other Pakistanis, Pakistan could be bracketed and compared with India but not with Afghanistan. He mentions that the United States has lumped Pakistan with Afghanistan under “Af-Pak”, a diplomatic relegation, while India is lauded as a growing power, being de-linked from Pakistan and increasingly being compared with China. Answering questions at a June 2009 press conference in Islamabad, Holbrooke “said the term ‘Af-Pak’ was not meant to demean Pakistan, but was ‘bureaucratic shorthand’ intended to convey that the situation in the border areas on both sides was linked and one side could not be resolved without the other.”

In January 2010 Holbrooke said that the administration had stopped using the term “because it does not please people in Pakistan, for understandable reasons.”

Responding to realities Barack Obama gave General Stanley McCrystal, the then US and NATO commander in Kabul, (who was later removed in June 2010, after contemptuous quotes which appeared in an article in Rolling Stone magazine) only 18 months to achieve the goal of dismantling, defeating and preventing the return of Al Qaeda in both countries with a 30,000 troop surge which will stay until July 2011

- a staggering if not unfeasible task when one considered the gains the Taliban had made in the past few years and the frail state of the Afghan government and army. Ahmed Rashid was of the view that, “what Obama could have said - instead of offering a date certain for withdrawal - was that in parallel with an improvement on the battlefield, a better performance by the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and greater co-operation from Pakistan, US forces could start withdrawing from 2011. Instead, the US President has presumed that the situation will manifestly improve in the next 18 months - something that few in the region believe can happen.”

These additional troops were expected to stamp out the Al Qaeda, mortify the Taliban, establish the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police, provide the space and security for development and delivery of services to the Afghan people - and then withdraw. From the beginning it seemed like a tall order impossible to achieve within the given time frame.

Curbing ISI Another component of the strategy related to the increase of aid to Pakistan came under criticism. Although Obama promised that there would be “no blank cheques” instead, there would be benchmarks for progress and frequent evaluations. The US Congress was disgruntled that aid to Pakistan is being increased in spite of the experience of the past five years. Billions of dollars of financial aid had not succeeded in improving the efficiency of counter-insurgency operations and purging Al Qaeda’s “safe havens”. Loss of civilian lives and army casualties are a marker of the ineptness of the operations. The Congress wanted “conditionality”; such that American aid becomes contingent on Pakistani co-operation in fighting the Taliban, controlling the “notorious” ISI and securing its nuclear weapons.

Mishandled Apart from Obama’s unrealistic expectations of the speed at which Afghanistan can improve to his standards and timeline, Obama offered no concrete civilian component and no design for producing the essential US civilian contribution, the President was discouragingly vague on this

important counterpart to the increase in military effort. He said that more resources would be devoted to civilian efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, to contribute to safety and society building and emphasised that “we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers,” but he did not say how many or from where they will materialise. Finally, there was the absence of allies in this strategy’s development and announcement.

Neither Afghanistan, nor Pakistan, nor NATO heads of State were present when Obama declared his policy and many criticised him for making it look like America’s war.

State capacity neglected The problem also lay in weak Afghan institutions lacking capabilities.

America’s hopes rested on the Afghan National Army (ANA), which numbered some 90,000 soldiers, taking charge. However not a single brigade was self-sufficient or combat-ready.

The only charge the ANA had was of Kabul city, where thousands of Western troops are available for back-up. Some 70 per cent of current ANA recruits are illiterate and cannot read the simplest orders or be tasked with anything remotely sophisticated. The 93,000 police recruits are in even worse shape.

In addition, Afghan civilian institutions, whether in Kabul or in many provinces lacked the resources and capabilities to ensure that essential public services are delivered. Karzai also acknowledges that public corruption remains a major problem. Citing these weaknesses, foreign donors tend to bypass Afghan government institutions and deal directly with local tribal leaders or other extra-governmental structures, which compounds the problem by limiting their contributions to building Afghan State capacity.

Constitutional reconstruct The issue of promoting an enduring reconciliation between the Afghan government and influential members of the Taliban is more controversial.

The intent is to exploit the fact that the Taliban leadership was not a cohesive group; some might accept a settlement whereas others are too close to Al Qaeda. Karzai and Western leaders have repeatedly insisted that their reconciliation offer does not extend to Al Qaeda terrorists. It was one viable

way of stabilising the country and thereby ensuring an early withdrawal of the Western forces from the region.

However, the Taliban leadership, supposed to be based in Pakistan, had rebutted all offers of negotiations.

The Taliban also refuses to accept Afghanistan’s current constitution, which was adopted after the Taliban lost power. It embodies many liberal democratic principles that most Taliban leaders consider objectionable. The guarantee of equal rights for women is considered a major point in dispute.

They have, instead, successfully exploited the weaknesses in the Western approach and strategy and have transformed the war to their advantage.

The mainstream Taliban leadership has publicly rejected the current overtures, as it has done with earlier initiatives.

Shortly after the London conference, Taliban representatives demanded that all Western troops leave Afghanistan before they will engage in direct talks with the Kabul government. Karzai has sought to finesse the issue by noting that a peace agreement that ended militancy would bring about the withdrawal of all foreign military forces.

Negative perceptions In October 2010, new details emerged about talks between that Afghan government and the Taliban that could possibly lead to a settlement of the nine-year conflict. The talks involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group’s leadership, who were secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops. Part of the overall American strategy is to wear down the Taliban with ground offensives, in the hope that they will become more receptive to a deal.

Despite their defeat in 2001, the Taliban has continued to wage a guerrilla warfare from a base in the mountainous and largely lawless tribal area on the Af-Pak border. A six-year archive of classified military documents, released in July 2010 on the Internet by a group called Wikileaks, painted a bleak, ground-level view of the conflict. They amounted to a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

53

US overreach?

US overreach?

CURBING ISI

DESCENT?

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Dipankar Banerjee

NATO war-weariness Wavering Western will is already causing problems for several options.

On the one hand, the unwillingness of Western publics to support an enduring military commitment in Afghanistan, on the other hand, a lack of strong Western backing contributed to the failure of past reintegration and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan. Coalition members have expressed greater support for Karzai’s peace efforts as their military situation has deteriorated. At London, they pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to his new Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund. Yet, the patent Western war weariness has convinced many Taliban leaders that all they need do is sustain their military pressure for a few more years and NATO

54

forces will leave, allowing the Taliban to overwhelm the weak Afghan National Army.

Staying the course?

Appearing too keen to secure a negotiated settlement could intensify doubts about Western willingness to stay the course in Afghanistan, both among the Afghan people and in neighbouring countries such as Pakistan. The Taliban has long sought to convey the message to Afghans and Pakistanis that they should not resist them because they will eventually prevail once Western troops invariably leave. However one gets a sense that the US will not abandon Afghanistan or the region - to “violent extremists”, Obama said in India. Meanwhile the transition will begin in July 2011, with the total withdrawal of combatant troops happening possibly in 2014,

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

a timeline suggested by Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai. It’s likely to be firmed up at the NATO summit in Lisbon on November 20. The NATO discussions will also be added to the review. At the moment, it appears that there will be no significant American troop withdrawals next summer. Implicit in the message is that the United States will be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.

The writer is Fellow at the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies (MAKAIAS), Kolkata. She has been working on Central and South Asia, with Afghanistan being the area of her specific interest since 2000. She has contributed articles on peace-building, population movement, gender issues, problems of transitional politics and regional cooperation to several research journals, edited books and encyclopaedia.

At certain points in the debate on the likely character, intent and world view of the New China creeps a comparison with pre-democracy Europe and the lawlessness of contending ambitions.

Will China behave the same way as did these European empires and oligarchies? Much will depend on how soon the New China mops up the energy resources that its current generation of rulers have so jealously subsumed. Acquiring land for agriculture and lebensraum in Siberia reeks of a repetition of musty history.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

55

US overreach?

DESCENT?

N

othing excites policies in a nation than the notion that its influence and role in the world is likely to be replaced by another.

Concurrently, attempts by nations to outperform others and the resultant competition for leadership inevitably generates tension. In the past this had often led to tension, conflict and even wars. Is this the nature of the challenge from China to the world’s leading power, the USA? Relations between the US and China in recent years have been both competitive and cooperative. Will this change as both nations continue along their respective path in the future? Or, as we must, how should this relationship be transformed to contribute to peace and stability?

Changing equations There is no doubt that China today has emerged as a major contender for global influence. Equally, a perception has grown, more imaginary than factual perhaps, of an imminent decline of US power. Taken together these herald major changes in Asia and the world. Along with this is the current steady decline of Japan and the rise of a truncated Republic of Korea. Close behind is India with its high economic growth that has taken place in an environment of democracy, tolerance and transparency, which has allowed it to build benign partnerships around the world. Yet, New Delhi remains unable and unprepared to play a role globally.

It is a contention of this article that Asia today is in an early stage of a tectonic power shift. Deng’s national strategy of deliberately keeping a low profile globally, even as it emerged economically, was characterised by his sixteen character statement: “Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capabilities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.”

Aggressive emergence This phase in China’s global strategy ended in 2008 with three clear and powerful statements.

First, was the Beijing Olympics in October that year, followed by the October 1, 2009, 60th anniversary military parade in Tiananmen Square

56

highlighting its indigenous, advanced weapons industry. Finally, it culminated in the Shanghai Expo in 2010, with 73 million attendees, the largest in world history. These demonstrated clearly and unambiguously, without apology, China’s emergence as a world power, its military prowess and its technological achievements. It is also the emergence of an assertive China, one that no longer goes along with Deng’s dicta, but asserts its role emphatically.

Interdependencies The above would seem to suggest that China and the US are now set on an inevitable course of confrontation and competition. This is far from reality, yet. As leading powers China and the US are also intertwined in a number of interdependencies which make it imperative for them to get along. First, is trade and commerce where the US dependence on Chinese manufactured goods ensure that America’s middle class can continue to enjoy a higher standard of living than would otherwise have been possible.

Second, China’s enormous holding of US government bonds make their economies so interdependent that any sudden attempt to alter this would be catastrophic to both. Third, there are few global issues, whether controlling the adverse elements of climate change, enhancing global trade or addressing world energy issues or regional conflicts; which can be satisfactorily handled without serious collaboration and cooperation from both.

Embarrassment of riches Yet, emerging power disequlibrium are also beginning to tell their own tale.

China’s enormous foreign currency reserves and regular and huge monthly trade surplus has put great amounts of money in the hands of an authoritarian Chinese leadership, with which it is in a position today to buy global alliances.

Bribe authoritarian leaderships around the world through financial gifts and offer other huge developmental support. Simultaneously it can acquire access and ownership, sometimes a monopoly, of major resources of the world; from ‘rare earth’, to oil and gas, coal and iron ore and anything else that may be precious. Large money also buys Beijing friendships and create dependencies not just on its borders

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

but around the world. On the other hand America’s enormous public debt, to be carried forward for decades, has reduced its public diplomacy and global influence. The two major wars it has recently fought, longest in its history, where it has simultaneously financed all sides to the conflict, has impoverished it beyond imagination.

The Chinese way?

The nature of governance in both countries itself provides a challenge.

While a democratic and participatory politics should be of enormous advantage to Washington, it also has major limitations. The fractious nature of its two leading political parties, has today paralysed decisionmaking where its national interests require firm and decisive action. The November 2, 2010 election has made it worse in the US, at least for the next two years.

Instead, China’s 76 million Communist Party members, top echelons of which are seriously corrupt, are yet able to frame policies that propel them to sensible long term policies. China’s infrastructure is infinitely better than any other country including the US, its decision-making is fast and implementation is even faster. Notwithstanding the constant fear among the top leadership of the possibility of serious dissatisfaction among the people, it seems to still be able to manage its policies well. Still, the internal challenge to China’s leadership must never be underestimated. In the year 2009 alone, 1,24,000 incidents of internal violence took place. Yet, the big question for China is how it would manage the transition to the fifth generation leadership? In the next two to three years three fourths of the top leadership in both the Party and Government in China would change. It would then pass on to a new generation of leadership that has less experience at these levels and whose entire credibility and acceptance relies on support of the Party hierarchy managed through an opaque system of patronage. Would this new leadership remain united? To ensure and garner popular support will China turn increasingly nationalistic?

Would the PLA then remain entirely responsive to the Party, when the latter has no experience of either the military or any credibility with the Army? It is unlikely that we will ever be entirely sure.

Self-serving It must be said, however, that on coming to power, the Obama administration made serious attempts at assuaging China. Hillary Clinton made an early visit and stated that “we were in the same boat”, an unmistakable acknowledgement of China’s importance. There was even a talk of a G-2 partnership, a kind of a two nation condominium, that startled the world. But, even more damaging, Obama seemed to suggest in China a role for it in South Asia. A stronger sidelining of New Delhi is difficult to imagine.

What then are the likely points of friction that concern us today and how could these be addressed?

First, is China’s assertiveness in the seas on its eastern and southern coast. This territory in the high seas, vaguely defined, has been declared

by Beijing as an area of its “core interest”.

This is at par with Taiwan and Tibet.

A withdrawal from this position would be a serious loss of face and yet, the alternate may lead to a confrontation, where the US has already indicated support to ASEAN.

Second, is PLA presence in the Indian Ocean and China’s domination of the littoral areas. While India has been talking and conferencing with littoral navies, China has acted and secured its interests. The second phase of this contest will begin with the PLA Navy’s aircraft carriers sailing and basing themselves in the region. The matter at issue is time. Will it be in five years or ten and on what scale.

New empire?

The third and more important issue is the comparative economic strength of the US and China. Niall Ferguson, the well respected economic historian predicted in a Foreign Affairs article that China might catch up with the US as early as in a decade. Empires, he asserted, will no longer collapse over a hundred or more years, but may do so today in a decade. Will China then be the leading economic power globally by 2020? Several caveats would be in order and no prediction should be attempted on such an imponderable topic. Yet, it is not alarm bells, but sensible strategy and policy that are warranted today.

Again, three possible measures are suggested and none are likely to be easy. First, is internal to China.

As Wen Jiabao himself suggested to Fareed Zakaria in Europe recently, political opening up has to accompany economic liberalisation. China has to be increasingly on the right side of history, in its own interest. Second, is to resolve China’s maritime boundaries. The same pragmatism that allowed it to settle some of its land borders should now be applied at sea. It is not going to be easy.

Finally, assuring maritime security and safety of sea lines of communication from the Persian Gulf to Japan and Korea. A cooperative and collective approach by all concerned parties is necessary for this.

It is in India’s strategic interest to play an active role to make this possible, by no means an easy task. `

The writer has served in all operational theatres and the wars of the Indian Army. Commissioned into the 1st Gorkha Rifles in December 1960 he has been an instructor at the Indian Military Academy, the College of Combat and twice at the Defence Services Staff College (once as Chief Instructor, Army). He attended the Staff College at Camberley, UK and the National Defence College, New Delhi. For the last 23 years he has held Director level positions at leading think tanks in India and the region specialising in international security and strategy.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

57

US overreach?

WANING?

It could well be that we have become caught up in what is known as the “bandwagon effect” when an idea appears larger than life and hence attractive enough to act like a magnet. Everyone heads for it. The world, at the moment is mesmerised by an America afflicted by the acts of the Lehman Brothers and other such corporate crooks on the one hand and the interminable military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that have sapped US liquidity and resilience. Hence the prognostications of decline and demise. Because it is such an attractive proposition it has a growing following. That’s the “bandwagon effect”.

V

arious theories have been offered to explain the rise and fall of the great powers. Paul Kennedy in his famous book titled The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers has identified imperial overreach and overspending on the defence as a major cause for the decline of great powers. From Sparta in the ancient Greece through Roman Empire till the United Kingdom in the twentieth century the great powers have declined because of military adventurism and overspending on the defence. Right now the US army is engaged in fighting counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran can be the next target of regime change.

Overreach?

America is paying huge price for its imperial overreach. Moreover, the United States is the greatest spender on defence. The United States defence budget is higher than the defence budget of the next fourteen great powers’ defence budget put together.

The US spending on the military research and development is higher than the R&D budget of the whole world put together. After the US, China is the next biggest spender on the defence but Chinese military budget is less than ten per cent of the US defence budget. The US has spent and is spending billions of dollars in the invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. If Paul Kennedy’s thesis is correct then the US decline is imminent.

Robert Gilpin in his famous book War and Change in the World Politics argues that periphery borrows the

60

technology from the core and put it to more productive use than the core and creates more wealth and value and gradually overproduces and overtakes the core. Newly created wealth is invested in developing new innovative technologies. Over a period of time, the periphery becomes the core and core becomes the periphery. Right now this is happening in the case of America and Europe on the one hand and emerging Asian powers particularly China and India on the other. The west is declining and the east is rising. This has led to the possibility of the advent of the Asian century in the foreseeable future at the cost of America and Europe. China, India and other Asian economies are borrowing technology from the West particularly the US but putting it to more productive use than the US itself. China has emerged as the global manufacturing hub and India as a global back-office. With the rise of the Asian powers the decline of the West and the US seems inexorable.

Comparative equilibrium However, there are several scholars, who do not accept the thesis that the American influence has declined or is declining. Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek is one such scholar. In his famous book The Post-American World: And The Rise of the Rest, Zakaria argues that it is not the America, which has declined but the rest of the world has risen. It is because of the rise of the rest particularly China and India; it appears that the US has declined. The US still maintains its secular growth with certain hiccups here and there which is bound to happen in the

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

leading economy of the world, which is dominating the global economy for more than a century since 1890. There is no example in the world history where any economy has enjoyed number one position for such a long time.

Prophets of hope Zakaria contends that there have been three instances since Second World War when the US emerged as the super power, when it was said that the US influence is declining but all the three times the US bounced back, retained its super power status and edge over other great powers. First time in the late 1950s when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1956, it was said that American power has been eclipsed by the Soviet Union.

But Soviet Union throughout the Cold War remained the number two super power. It always tried to catch the US and in the process eventually collapsed.

During 1970s in the aftermath of the oil crisis, second time it was argued that oil exporting Middle-East because of its enormous oil revenue and West Europe because of its technological innovation will overshadow the American power but nothing of the sort happened.

Middle-East is torn with the troubles and the West Europe is languishing at the same position.

influence. If three times doomsayers have been proved wrong then fourth time there is no guarantee that they will be proved right. Zakaria is confident that American influence is resilient and the US will overcome challenge posed by the rising China.

over the innovative technologies and overwhelming military superiority makes the US formidable power, whose influence will not decline in the foreseeable future.

Ashley Tellis has argued that as long as the US will continue to be the attractive destination for global surplus

Thus, there are contending views regarding the declining American influence as a super power. As usual

Consumerism trap

Prof. Tej Pratap Singh

American dream vs Chinese hegemony capital and talent, the American influence will not wane. The enormous capital at its disposal enables the US to put the global talent in the R&D. American investment in the R&D is the highest in the world. This results into development of innovative civilian and military technologies. America has virtual monopoly in the new fields of science and technology. Because of this monopoly, America enjoys hegemonic position globally. This hegemony is further strengthened by the overwhelming American military superiority on the land, sea, air and space. Militarily the US is the strongest power. America is the only country which has the capability of power projection throughout the world. Global surplus capital, global talent, monopoly

the truth lies somewhere in between.

America has not declined as the doomsayers are saying. At the same time, it is no longer in the pre-eminent position, which it was at the time of the end of the Second World War in 1945 and the Cold War in 1990. The main source of strength is economy and if economy is declining then political decline cannot be arrested. Sooner or later economic decline will have its impact on the political status of the country. The US economy at present is not in good shape. It is having huge budgetary, fiscal, current account and trade deficits. The US is the largest global consumer and China is the largest global manufacturer. It is said China produces and America consumes.

This mismatch between production

and consumption has led to the US running huge trade deficit with China.

Wal-Mart’s global procurement chain is basically China procurement chain. Not only China, America is having adverse balance of payment position with most of its trade partners. The kind of trade the US is having with its partners cannot be sustained for a long period of the time.

The global economic crisis had its fallout on the employment situation in the US. The global economy is recovering but it has failed to have desired impact on the US employment position. The US is having 9.4 per cent rate of unemployment.

This high rate of unemployment has dented the popularity of the

Third time, during 1980s it was said that Japan will overtake America. But since 1990s, the Japanese economy has stagnated and it has been the two consecutive “lost decades” in the Japanese economy. Fourth time, it is the rise of China, which is being said will lead to the decline of the American

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

61

US overreach?

Obama administration. Recently his Democratic Party performed poorly in the Congressional and Governors election. The dismal economic situation has compelled the US to deviate from its core values of free trade and commerce. To protect its jobs, the US is resorting to the protectionist measures.

The protectionism currently being practised by the US will have disastrous consequences for the global economic recovery. The US protectionism will compel other nations to resort to protectionism to protect their markets.

This competitive protectionism will destabilise the nascent global recovery and will create situation similar to the great economic depression of 1929-32.

Its all an illusion?

However, American economic decline and Chinese rise is illusory. The US-China or US-third world economic relationship can be explained by the English word “U”. The US is at both the ends of this “U” in the global economic system. At the descending curve and bottom end are China and other third world manufacturing giants. Enormous R&D is needed for any new product.

The US has virtual monopoly over the innovative technologies because of its enormous expenditure on the R&D. However, the manufacturing takes place in China or other Asian countries but global marketing, sale and servicing is controlled by the American MNCs. This can be explained by the example of i-pod or i-phone.

These products were developed by the American multinational Apple.

They are manufactured in China but again these are marketed throughout the world by the Apple stores. The real value is at both the ends of “U” in the development of the new product and then by the sale and service. Both the ends and ascending curve are being controlled by the US multinational companies and only low end manufacturing is outsourced to China or third world. The huge profit is being made by the US companies and not by the Chinese or third world workers. It is because of the availability of cheap labour that US multinational companies have relocated their manufacturing in China or third world.

However, because of outsourcing of manufacturing, the US has lost jobs but not the wealth. Outsourcing which is the result of economic globalisation has enabled the US companies to increase

62

NCC DAY

WANING? their profit but definitely at the cost of American jobs, which is being resented by the American workers and Obama administration.

Power - hard and soft There are two types of power hard power and soft power. America occupies dominant position in both the powers: hard as well as soft. The US economy is still number one economy and will continue to be so in the future despite the rise of China and other emerging economies. Militarily the US has no peer. China is a distant second.

America is controlling all the four spheres land, sea, air and space. No nation including China can challenge overwhelming American military superiority. Being a large country, the US is self-reliant in natural resources and can sustain its population without being dependent on others for its energy or food or any other need, which is required for the comfortable living of its citizens. America has all the elements of hard power.

Image problem Human rights abuses by the US in Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Gharib prison have sullied the image of America as a crusader of human rights and civil liberties. The aggressive and interventionist foreign policy pursued by the Bush administration has dented the benign image of America. Bush policies have made America the most hated nation in the Islamic countries. All this has led to erosion in the soft power of the US. Despite all these, the US still enjoys considerable soft power. The US is still the land of hope, opportunity and liberty. People throughout the world have American dream and no Chinese dream or any other nation’s dream. The US is still most attractive destination for immigration, trade, commerce and investment. The world can live under benign American hegemony but not the Chinese or any other nation’s hegemony. American culture, values, life, etc. despite several flaws is the most popular globally.

If America uses its soft and hard power judiciously, which Joseph Nye calls “smart power”, then America can sustain its power and influence for considerable period of time. Still there is no substitute for American power or influence. Its alternative Chinese power

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

generates a lot of fear, hostility and uncertainty globally. For global peace, stability and prosperity, the American power and stability is the safest bet.

America has to preserve its global alliances, which have crumbled because of neoconservatives’ aggressive pursuit of power politics. America has several options in its repertoire to preserve its hegemonic global position. The hard power of military should be the last option. But Bush administration overused its military option, which led Francis Fukuyama to observe that if hammer is the only option then whole world will look like a nail. The hammer and nail approach of Bush has caused the great damage to the US global image.

However, Obama administration is trying to change this image of America by using Joseph Nye’s “smart power” and has succeeded also to some extent in improving the image of America.

In conclusion, we can say despite considerable erosion in the American influence and power, American dream has not come to an end. America continues to be number one military power, economic power and cultural power. America is in the position of Bismarck’s Germany, where for every nation its relationship with America is more important than its relationship with any other nation in the global community.

Relationship with the US is number one relationship and other bilateral relations come after that. It is true for China, India, Russia, Brazil or any other nation. Sino-US, Indo-US, Russo-US, Brazil-US relationship is the highest priority for China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. Sino-Indian, Sino-Russian or Indo-Brazil relations etc. come only after their relationship with the United States. As long as America will enjoy this unique situation which was briefly enjoyed by Germany in Europe during the time of Bismarck, America will retain its power and influence. It will continue to be sole super power or only hyper power in the world. Hence all talk of declining American influence as super power in my view is unfounded.

The writer is Associate Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. He has been awarded Faculty Research Fellowship by Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute, (SICI) and Charles Wallace Visiting Fellowship by Cambridge University. He is also Salzburg Global Seminar Fellow.

BRIEF 2010 PRESS CONFERENCE: 19 NOV 2010 National Cadet Corps is a Tri-Services Organisation comprising the Army, Navy and Air Force, engaged in grooming the youth - The Leaders of Tomorrow’ - into disciplined and patriotic citizens. The genesis of the NCC can be traced back to the First World War when the Britishers created the University Corps as the third line of defense and to have a large pool of trained youth available for employment into the Armed Forces.

After independence the present day NCC under the Ministry of Defence came into existence on 16 Apr 1948 through NCC Act XXXI, 1948. NCC was formally inaugurated on 15 Jul 1948 as soon as the schools and colleges reopened after summer vacation. The Girls Division of the NCC was started in Jul 1949. In 1950 Air Wing was added on 01 Apr with one Air Squadron each at Mumbai and Kolkata. The Naval Wing of the NCC was raised in Jul 1952, thus completing the true representation of all services in the Corps.

Presently, NCC has approximately 13 Lakhs Cadets under its fold.

However, the NCC Day is celebrated on 3rd Sunday in the month of November every year to commemorate the first ever function held by the NCC on its inception. The first Prime Minister of India, Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru presided over this function in Nov, 1949 in Delhi.

Youth Development Programme. Training in NCC instills qualities like nationalism, patriotism, discipline, team spirit, espirit-de-corps, leadership, self confidence and personality development. NCC gives a tremendous opportunity to one and all irrespective of caste, creed and religion. Some of the Youth Development Initiatives are :To reach out to the youth from remote areas SSBs Interview

National Integration Communication Skill

Career Counseling IT exposure

Personality Development Human Values

Increase in Cadet Strength After consistent efforts made during the past few years, NCC Cadet strength has been ennanced by 2 lakhs by the Govt. Sanction has been accorded for the following :(a) To absorb the additional cadet strength of 2 lakh NCC cadets by raising of 01 Gp HQ, 10 Army NCC Units and 01 each Naval and Air Units every year, commencing from 2010-11 for five years. (b) To authorize additional service manpower to the tune of 140 Offrs, 465 JCOs and 1025 NCOs of the three services, an accretion to the existing establishment of the three services to enable provisioning of manpower required for NCC. (c) The cadet strength increase and the setting up of new establishments in this regard will be effected in five phases beginning from the current Financial Year. During the 1st Phase (2010-11), the following Gp HQ/NCC Units are being raised :Gp HQ

Dehradun (UK)

Army Units (Girls) Gangtok (Sikkim) Kohima (Nagaland)

Rayagada (Orissa) Dumka(Jharkhand)

Jagdalpur (Chhatisgarh) NOIDA(UP)

Army Units (Boys) Navarangpur (Orissa) & Bangalore North (Karnatka & Goa) R&V Sqn - Rewa (MP) Naval Units - Bhatinda (Punjab) Air Force Unit - Kochi (Kerala) & Aizwal (Mizoram) (d) Sanction for raising of Group Headquarter at Dehradun (UK) has already been accorded by the Govt. The proposal for raising of the remaining new raisings are at an advanced stage of processing.

Increased Ratio of Girls Cadet - we have been able to raise the ratio of girls cadet to 24%. Efforts are on to raise their share to 33% in near future.

Recent achievements - Four ex NCC cadets Ms Tejaswini Sawant, Ms. Lajja Goswami, Mr. Deepak Sharma won silver medals at the CWG 2010. Ex NCC cadet Lt Divya Ajith Kumar was awarded the ‘Sword of Honour’ at OTA, Chennai. She is the first ever to win this coveted prize beating even the boys in military subjects.

US overreach?

EURO-US SCHISM

Two years ago Barack Obama in his style and rhetoric gave the impression that his would be an inclusive approach to global issues.

Europeans had hoped that the Bush years of arrogance would be replaced with real partnership. Global policing is not what the world is all about. Obama has only half a tenure left to learn the lessons of the past two years. If he continues to treat Europe offhandishly he will pay the price for Afghanistan and other hot potatoes.

T

wo years ago most of the European intellectuals and politicians were strongly supporting Barack Obama. Mr. Obama as a democrat, young and dynamic politician and in opposition to his predecessor was for them like a promise of new relations between Europe and America, potential opening of a new chapter. After the presidency of George W. Bush Europeans had the impression that “younger sister” America - had transformed herself into an unpleasant policewoman. Only Obama could change this impression.

After two years it is obvious that Europe is not an interesting partner for America.

Euro-American schism We can analyse AmericanEuropean relationship from a different perspective. For many years Europe used to consider America as a “younger sister” adding a little bit of slight to this attitude. It was only in the 20th century which saw a complete change in the nature and proportion of this relationship. But Europe still cannot accept the fact that it is America that is global policeman and powerful global player.

During the last few years there were some difficult situations of confrontation.

For instance NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, 1999.

America, supported by United Kingdom, had pushed very strongly to attack Yugoslavia. Most European countries - like France, Italy and Spain for instance - were skeptical.

It was the first moment when we could observe a split in transatlantic relations.

Intra-Europe divide Four years later, in 2003 the gap

64

increased. A conflict around war in Iraq could possibly have much more serious consequences for future of NATO and also relations between America and Europe. French president, Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder were leading representatives of “Old Europe” who had been against this war. At the same time a conflict was raging between “old” and “new” Europe (former communist countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria or Hungary) which had supported Washington. Apart from the sense of this war, White House made lots of mistakes in relations with Europe. The primary sin was creating the impression that America is the global policeman and the only role for Europe is listening and supporting.

There was not enough place for real debate and exchange of views. Europe - which is easy to understand - wanted a partner relationship.

European euphoria That is why just before last presidential election in US almost all European intellectuals and politicians were supporting Mr. Obama. He appeared to be the anti-thesis of former American governments. Young, dynamic, modest representative of Democrats, pleasant and open for a dialogue - that was the European image of Obama.

Few days after election, observing European reactions and reading newspapers I had the personal impression that Barack Obama was elected President of Europe or at least European Union - the comments were so emotional and full of hope and happiness. His victory had been welcomed with great enthusiasm from Paris through Madrid to Berlin.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Dominika Cosic

Nobel Prize But after few months of honeymoon came time for a deeper reflection. The last flicker of Obamamania and glory of president was the Nobel Prize for Mr. Obama. It was a moment when commentators and journalists started to think and rethink about the attitude of American president and American politics towards Europe.

Third - the so-called Swift agreement allowing EU citizens’ bank data to be transferred to US - is finally to come into force (after few months’ battle). The final decision came after many acrimonious debates. European politicians did not want to see American banks having so much information

But even compared to the Bill Clinton presidency (mostly thanks to Madeline Albright and her Czech roots) this government really gives the impression of not being interested in Eastern Europe. For Mr. Obama much more important partner is Russia (which is quite understandable) but not exactly very positive and opinion about Missile

about EU citizens. It is against clients’ rights and even - as some of deputies to European Parliament said - the charter of fundamental rights.

Defence is strong enough proof of confirmation of this theory.

observers, even those very enthusiastic about Obama, it was a very visible symbol of disregard for EU sentiments.

Finally the conference took place in November, in Lisbon just the next day after NATO Summit. The declaration

by Obama (that America and Europe are closest strategic partners who should help each other and Europe is crucial element for global stability) and his nice smile did not change the

So what’s going wrong, what’s the problem? There are at least three serious points of dispute.

Disputes galore First - financial crisis. America, which in fact was origin of this crisis, has chosen a completely different way of fighting the resultant recession.

For Europe the only way is cutting of expenses, reduction of budget and increasing taxes. America, on the contrary, is going in different way - animation of economy and public support for investments. It’s a completely different way of thinking and acting which does not help in co-operation.

Second - climate changes and ecology. Europe, mostly “old Europe”, has expected that new American government will support her efforts in this area. Specially since, in his campaign, Mr. Obama was talking about ecology. In December last year in Copenhagen (Denmark) there took place a very important “climate conference”.

European Union wanted to encourage other big countries to support her initiative “climate package” and reduction of emission of CO2. American statement has disappointed EU. Washington has not accepted European proposition.

Visa irritants But lists of problems and problematic affairs is much longer. There is also the question of American visas for citizens of some European countries like Poland, which has been loyal American partner. It is still under the visa regime and her citizens require a visa to visit America. And there is no likely positive change on the horizon.

Relations and American attitude towards Eastern Europe is another galling chapter.

Traditionally Democrats have been less interested in this part of Europe than Conservatives.

And Afghanistan - in opposition to White House most of European countries do not want to continue this mission, specially sending more troops.

It is a problem very difficult to solve.

Insensitivity In this short history of relations between Mr. Obama’s government with European Union there are also several political and diplomatic faux pas. Last May, Spain (which was then holding the presidency of European Union) wanted to organise in Madrid an EU-US summit. Almost at the last moment Washington informed that President Obama would not take part in the summit. Because of this reason meeting was postponed. For European

general impression that Europeans have of Obama. Specially because the American president (since beginning of his term) has visited Europe only seven times and that too mostly for night halts.

There is visible change between Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Obama’s attitude to Europe. They have completely different styles. In the case of Bush it was too much arrogance. But in the case of Obama there is no partnership.

There is only indifferent attitude to Europe. And that is not the same as a partnerhip.

The writer is European correspondent of Polish weekly magazine Wprost. She specialises in NATO and European Union affairs and also the Balkans issues. She is correspondent (Europe) of Defence And Security Alert (DSA) magazine from India.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

65

US overreach?

RESURRECTION

the Obama

the united

It will be too much to expect Obama to do with India what Nixon did with China in 1972: A turnaround so complete that it left the world stunned. We will have to be satisfied with seeming intangibles like he did not repeat his atrocious call to China to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. But if he plays games with what India requires to protect itself against an overly aggressive China then we must read it for what it is - the inertia of a nation in decline.

A

fter the three-day Indian visit of the United States (US) President Barack Obama, analysts sat down to grade the visit. The grading varied according to the perspectives of analysts. No doubt, the visit witnessed a flurry of activities ranging from interacting with youth and children to addressing Indian Parliament and business people. The conclusion of the visit also ended the accompanying sound and fury. Activities resulted in tangible and intangible deliverables.

The trip saw gathering of a momentum through op-eds, talk shows and a few think tank reports. Gradually, a consensus emerged that the visit would dispense very few high-ticket items.

candidature for the UN body. All are of the opinion that the President’s speech in the Indian Parliament and its reiteration in the joint statement endorse India’s candidature for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council. For sure, there are roadblocks.

However, the US endorsement should clear one major hindrance. By unnecessarily raising the issue of the vague language, Indian commentators, especially retired diplomats, may give a space to the US to vacillate on the issue again. Already the opposition to the endorsement has started pouring in from different quarters.

UNSC seat?

The second most tangible gain is on export controls. A number of Indian organisations were on the Entity List of the US Export Administration Regulation (EAR). The EAR is the regulatory body of the US government for controlling dual-use technology export controls. The placement of Indian organisations on the Entity List made it difficult for them to acquire dual-use goods for their projects. As a result, many projects were delayed.

On the spreadsheet, the most visible or tangible gain is the US endorsement of India’s candidature for permanent membership of the United Nations (UN) Security Council. Obama’s statement in the Parliament did not satisfy many Indian commentators, especially retired diplomats. They felt that the statement was not unequivocal. Claiming an expertise on dissecting statements, this section found reiteration of the old vague American line.

The reactions of several US government officials in the media should rest the linguistic controversy about the US endorsement of the Indian

66

Dual-use technology

Before the Obama visit, a question that haunted the Indian strategic and policy communities was: Will the Indian organisations disappear from the US Entity List in the joint statement issued during President Obama’s visit?

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

visit:

relationship

And in general hope and wish both were: Possible. And if not all, at least a majority of them were expected to disappear. Though the joint statement gives an impression that all the Indian organisations have been lifted from the List, yet a fact sheet released by the US government specified the organisations which are to be removed.

Still, several subordinate organisations of the Department of Atomic Energy appeared to have been left on the Entity List. These are: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre, Indian Rare Earths, Nuclear reactors (including power plants) not under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, fuel reprocessing and enrichment facilities,

application, they have to exercise discretion in deciding a case. Several factors or criteria may cloud their judgment.

The US President and his administration may have a challenge to inculcate a different kind of culture in its control bureaucracy. The right kind of atmosphere should be created by the announcement. The task should be to build on that.

Other roadblocks

Now, Bharat Dynamics, four subordinate organisations (Armament Research and Development Establishment, Defence Research and Development Lab, Missile Research and Development Complex and Solid State Physics Laboratory) of the Defence Research Development Organisation, and the four subordinate organisations (Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, Solid Propellant Space Booster Plant, Sriharikota Space Centre and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre) of the Indian Space Research Organisation are out of the list.

Strange exclusion

Dr. Rajiv Nayan

heavy water production facilities and their ammonia plants.

The next question is: will it end the dual-use curbs for India? The American export controls system would be certainly better. However, there is no guarantee that all the curbs would go.

The removal of organisations from the Entity List has just removed a layer of controls. Despite the removal of all or most of the organisations from

the Entity List, India may have to struggle to find some items because of the operation of missile and nuclear weapons related curbs in the US policy.

The US Administration will have to change the core of its policy for India.

Apart from regulation and law, orientation, approach and attitude towards a country and its concerned organisations matter a lot. When licensing authorities examine a license

In fact, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) explicitly mentions: “The removal of an entity from the Entity List removes only the additional license requirements imposed by the entity’s listing on the Entity List and does not modify the license requirements that may be applicable under the EAR [Export Administration Regulation] as a result of an item’s classification on the CCL [Commerce Control List] and the proposed country of destination for the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of the item.

Additionally, if you know or have been informed that the item proposed for export, reexport or transfer (in-country) will be used in a weapons of mass destruction or missile delivery system program, you must seek a license pursuant to the requirements found in part 744 of the EAR.” Besides, the US has also supported India’s membership for multilateral export control regimes. These regimes

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

67

US overreach?

are the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. Although the membership of these consensus-based regimes would require time, yet it may not be discounted that it could be a big step towards India’s mainstreaming into the non-proliferation regime.

Whether the UN Security Council or the multilateral export controls regimes, the US support is vital for gaining access. In the current international system, it is impossible to enter into any international organisation or amend any international law without the implicit or explicit consent of the US. The membership of the NSG and the MTCR could be strategically very advantageous.

The entry into the MTCR may be relatively easy, but finding the way into the NSG and the Wassenaar Arrangement could be tough if criteria for the membership are taken into account. The Indian and American diplomacy may have to work together for the task in the future. Admittedly, the Australia Group could not be very useful for India. The Hyde Act wanted India to adhere to the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. It seems it was a balancing act. Getting the membership of the Australia Group could be easiest. The growing profile of India will be the real arbiter of its entry into the multilateral regimes.

Eventually, an ‘emerged’ India would get entry into all the regimes. India’s entry would be a gain for the regimes.

In fact, it will be a win-win situation for both. If India finally joins the regimes, it would be a great opportunity to participate in global high technology governance or management.

New bedrock The two countries also decided to work on several science and technology areas that draw on expertise from both countries. Many of these areas are not in the sensitive technology domain; so, it does not attract similar attention as do export controls, the multilateral export control regimes, or for that matter, civil space and defence cooperation. But India and its relationship with the US would be immensely benefited by the partnership for evergreen revolution, clean energy and other educational collaborations. These developments

68

south Asia

RESURRECTION could create a silent revolution for the Indian economy and provide bedrock for the relationship.

“P” factor Also Obama’s acknowledgment that Pakistan provides a safe haven for terrorism is another important outcome of the presidential visit. Although the US President made the statement on Pakistan after much wavering, it should send Islamabad the signal to wind up its terror infrastructure. He was emphatic on that.

The visit had many non-tangible gains as well. The bipartisan support of the relationship in both the countries is one such gain. In the US, when Obama took over the Presidency, many apprehended that the relationship would lose track. Second non-tangible gain has come through Obama couple’s dance diplomacy which connected them to the future of India - the youth. Hopefully, the two keep the link for mutual gains. Third, unlike the US relationship with Pakistan, the Indo-US relationship is multifaceted which got extra stress during the visit.

The National Export Control Initiative projected a new dimension and focus of the relationship.

Debit side Did the visit have some costs for India? Other than the traffic curbs and the dampening of the Diwali festival in Mumbai, one may cite India’s commitment to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation.

In India, the debate about it has not begun. Many find the Convention of little value.

However, there are some disappointments. First and the foremost was the US wavering and soft approach to Pakistan and the needless advice on maintaining regional stability and a stable Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan is a global liability that needs to be sorted out. Without properly settling the Pakistan question, the entire symbolism and approach to counter-terrorism become meaningless. The eventual gain on Pakistan became possible only because of the timely intervention of a spokesperson of the opposition party. It generated momentum notwithstanding some opponents of the statement on a few television channels. Critics became

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

silent only after a young Mumbai girl quizzed the President Obama the factor which had compelled the US to make a terrorist State like Pakistan its ally. Her question was the question of the Indian people in general and Mumbaikars in particular who suffered the trauma of 26/11.

Critics out of tune The opposition to the mainstream Indian thinking reflected by the spokesperson of the opposition political party and the young Mumbai girl was shocking. The critics sitting on different television channels were supposed to give an independent, balanced and objective assessment. On the contrary, they seemed the hired agents of either the India or the US government. The US misreading of Pakistan is a chronic disease of a section of the US Administration. The misreading and mismanagement have led to the making and strengthening of Taliban along with conventional and nuclear arming of Pakistan. Any neutral observer would tell all this is threatening regional and global peace and stability.

STARK REALITIES

The Obama visit highlighted both the intra and the inter conflictual situations that abound in this part of the world. In the exploitation and management of dwindling resources can be seen a deepening of chasms between nations and yet there is the possibility that if an element of equitability is introduced solutions are possible. Dominance and the simulacra of power politics could be counter-productive in the long term.

Vice Adm. (Retd.) Barry Bharathan

Second is the nuclear issue; Obama knows that the new Senate and its security establishment would not allow it to ratify the Test Ban Treaty. Similarly, he knew that nuclear disarmament would not happen. Still, he gave these issues unnecessary space in the joint statement.

Instead of non-issues, he should have focused on more relevant issues.

Apart from some economic deals and science and technology agreements the visit was strong on symbolism. Even all the big ticket announcements such as the endorsement for the UN Security Council membership or multilateral export controls entry or export controls liberalisation still remain only oral assurance. The Indian government may have to keep reminding the US Administration to formalise these assurances and eventually translate words into deeds.

The writer is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi since 1993, where he specialises in export control, non-proliferation and arms control. He was a Visiting Research Fellow at Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo, where he published his monograph - Non-Proliferation Issues in South Asia.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

69

south Asia

STARK REALITIES

M

ohammed Arif Captain, Pakistan Rangers pulls his coat parka tight. He and his men are up in the Siachen glacier at 16,000 feet facing their counterparts.

Everything is frozen, bodies, weapons, equipment, minds and hearts.

Suddenly a loud speaker crackles from the Indian side ‘Id Mubarrak’. This is not at all strange despite exchange of fire a fortnight ago. Responsibility, resignation, resolve, anger, acceptance are part of the prevailing military ethos in this land.

A Bangladesh frigate challenges the eastern fleet on patrol in north Bay of Bengal very close to the disputed half submerged Moore island. This is despite the fact that the Indian Navy trains number of officers and sailors of the former free of cost every year.

Considerable aid from India to this country is yet another matter.

differences, the security dimensions in South Asia dominate perceptions, discussions and relationship between every country in the region. SAARC continues to be a lame duck platform of endless negotiations and obdurate positioning by all players.

The Sri Lankan Navy arrests fishermen from Tamil Nadu and seizes their boats with an offshore patrol vessel donated by India.

Fratricidal divide

Arunachal Pradesh has appeared as part of China in the Google map. China has also issued stapled visas to people of J and K.

Historical realities were overtaken with the fragmentation of the subcontinent in 1947. India and Pakistan became separate and independent.

China also became a republic in 1949.

Borders drawn by the British were unacceptable. Aksai Chin on the west of the Himalayan border and Arunachal Pradesh on the east are still being claimed by both China and India.

Independence and formation of all these republics began with bloodshed, battle, mayhem, ethnic violence.

Sub Inspector Jarnail Singh of the BSF leads the daily sunset parade at the Wagah border between India and Pakistan. A unique pantomime between two nations that draws emotional response from passionate spectators on both sides of the border.

It also reminds one of the tragedies of a fratricidal divide of erstwhile India.

The Indo China dak exchange continues as usual in Nathu La in Sikkim agnostic of the relationship between India and China.

Major Manoj Nair of the 6th JAK Rifles is in the headlines for single handedly killing three militants in the valley while rescuing a bunch of school kids from a village school in Kupwara.

The dynamics of diplomacy seems so hollow in the face of the above stark realities. The groove of country to country relationship in the subcontinent is stuck in the rut of an imbroglio across security, geopolitics, geography.

Trade, cooperation, development are adversely affected with a negative effect on self-sufficiency and increased dependencies on the developed world.

South-eastern and West Asian countries closer home are mute spectators, unable to comprehend the complexities, compulsions, contradictions in South Asia.

Two infantry men from Indian army on routine patrol have been killed in an ambush. This is part of the killings and counter killings, a daily occurrence in Jammu and Kashmir. Yet there is ambivalence about repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in J and K.

The Indian Ocean and Asia are central to the world. A bridge between the East and the West impacting the globe in energy, ethnic, demographic, emerging markets, maritime gateways, civilisational and cultural terms.

A BSF jawan turns a blind eye to illegal crossing of the border by a group of Bangaldeshis who will merge into India’s demographic milieu. An estimated 4,00,000 is the annual crossover.

South Asia is mythical, modern, enigmatic, ethnic, dogmatic, divided and subdivided by a combination of actions, events and involuntary reactions. It is a land that has been invaded many times, absorbing other races, cultures. The English subjugated India progressively by a divide and rule strategy. All this changed when Gandhi came on the scene. The hasty departure of the British left behind a sundered South Asia with many strategic issues unanswered.

Sixty years plus after the departure of the British and compounded by the inability of leadership to get consensus on geographical

The ISI has sent in some indoctrinated Sikhs into Punjab to spread chaos and terror. It is in a time warp still working on it’s own dynamic of creating chaos and mayhem both internally and externally.

Twelve NATO troops died in a helicopter shot down by a Taliban missile just outside of Kandahar.

70

Stark realities

Security ambiance

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Emerging equations

In 1948, Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir resulting in the creation of a Pak-occupied Kashmir and an Indian owned Kashmir.

The 1962 Sino-Indian conflict despite the Panchsheel agreement was the catalyst for China to become integral to the security calculus of South Asia.

The 1965 Indo-Pak war ended in a stalemate but added to the overall animus in relations.

The 1971 war resulted in further dismemberment of South Asia.

The creation of Bangladesh though inevitable introduced another dimension into the already compounded scenario. After the euphoria of independence evaporated, Bangladesh has hardened its approach.

Overflight rights, Farrakka barrage, Moore island, significant illegal Bangladeshi immigration into India are all unresolved issues that give the already strained security situation an adverse dynamic.

The Kargil conflict exposed Pakistan’s futile military adventurism and India’s resolute response with maturity that prevented escalation.

Sri Lanka has managed to sustain itself with the help of China, India, Pakistan. USA, Israel also give some military aid. India has been sensitive to the Emerald Island’s internal struggle.

It enabled the marginalisation of

LTTE. It also provides substantive free military training as well as appreciable aid.

Myanmar too has been engaged by India as part of its strategy to counter growing Chinese influence.

In a nutshell border issues, Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh, water, island ownership claims, fishing areas and demarcating acceptable

international maritime boundaries define contours of intra-South Asia and inter-South Asia dialogue and security concerns.

Confrontational construct This imbroglio is a complex security, confrontational quadrilateral construct. China despite being outside of South Asia dominates it in letter, spirit, intent and influence. It is now a

presence that is at once uncomfortable, countervailing, accomodating, acceptable, nevertheless looming, depending on whether you are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan or Myanmar. It impacts, inhibits, influences South Asia across the span of geopolitics, geography, economics, technology, commerce, infrastructural, developmental, military aid, training.

Their claim as the middle kingdom between heaven and earth is part of

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

71

south Asia

STARK REALITIES

their perception management strategy.

Indian evolution

India is in an invidious position with boundary and regional disputes with China, Pakistan, Bangladesh.

India has become a happening place on the globe. Antagonistic USA, indifferent Europe, inhibited Middle East, distant SE Asia look at india with admiration and appreciation. Even confrontational China is one of our biggest trading partner thanks to our Peace and Tranquillity initiative by Late Prime Minister Rao. The recent visit of President Obama is vindication of India’s importance to the world.

The commercial value of India’s big emerging market is an incentive too.

The United States has played a proactive, unwitting, obtuse role.

Initially South Asia was its staging post for containment of communism and the then Soviet Union. Pakistan was more than a willing ally, using this to maximise its effort to marginalise India.

India’s non-aligned approach and the subsequent support of Soviet Russia alienated it further from America.

Ownership, possession of Kashmir is the pivot upon which India-Pakistan relations revolve and rebound on one level. On another plane, gross misperceptions, visceral animosity, Islamic internalisation of moderation and externalisation of radicalism result in a centrifuge of complexities that are irréconcilable for the present. Both are in a state-of-war mindset since partition. The 1948, 1965, 1971 and the recent Kargil conflict did not mushroom beyond short durations due to International intercession, indecisive leadership, relative military limitation and economic weaknesses.

Malign China Post 1962 the Indian mindset has become defensive with an unstated Pak centric, Sino deferential approach.

The economic resurgence of China, its didactic leadership focus, global trading capacity, trade surplus with United States, overt and covert military suppport to Pakistan, Bangaldesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal unsettle India.

It appears nonplussed at best and diffidently ambivalent at worst in the pursuit of its ‘interests and threats’.

The infinite wisdom of the Indians has beaten the odds. It has evolved as a progressive, stable, secular democracy with global recognition. Perhaps the realisation of the overarching need to achieve economic well being and development drives the Indian polity to constantly seek balance between military spending and progress. Mature restraint, resilience to act within the realm of real politik is remarkable considering the contradictions and conundrums of a large democracy.

72

The last six decades have indeed seen changes in both internal and external security dynamics. A colluding and countervailing communist China, a military / ISI dominated, India-obsessed Pakistan, imploding Aghanistan, an impoverished Bangladesh, strife ridden Sri Lanka, Maoist dominated Nepal confound India daily. Compounding this is the dense and compartmentalised work culture of the Indian democracy.

On the ground the causes of the security imbroglio are daily experienced.

The effect of being in a constantly strained antagonistic posture adversely affects national governance. South Asia spins in vortices of involuntary, helpless political leadership, mutual suspicion, unwillingness for right earnest dialogue further weakened by rampant corruption. Terror mechanisms also make for hardened stands, further raising the costs of security.

Spinning vortices Military nuclearisation of South Asia has introduced a dimension that is at once threatening, restraining and frightening. The probability of uncontrolled radical elements seizing control of nuclear weapons in an unstable Pakistan is a latent risk that the subcontinent is learning to live with.

The cold start doctrine propounded by the Indian military along with its declared ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons is viewed with skepticism by Pakistan.

Pakistan has been mostly a military dictatorship. Despite its alliances with USA and China, it is yet to come to terms with its internal religious, social, ethnic contradictions and convulsions.

It is Indo-phobic to the core of its

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

governance. It sponsors terrorism which has recycled itself to its own detriment. The Afghan situation and the Taliban cause Pakistan grave internal crises. The Middle East despite the Islamic connection is reluctant to openly align with Pakistan. The USA is now an involuntary ally with military presence in Afghanistan that requires constant support and accomodation of Pakistan.

A partitioned Afghanistan may be in the offing. Taliban dominates south and east, a Pashtun sronghold. If America opts to withdraw whenever it does, Pashtunistan may beome a reality.

This is bound to add fuel to the already almost burning Pakistan in that part of the woods.

Possibilities The Afghan angst is bound to have a cause and effect impact in South Asia with over half a billion people of Islamic faith stretching from central Asia to Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar. Its containment is an imperative.

Collective social counter response, effective anti-Taliban propaganda, well supported by cohesive regional security support is perhaps the only optimal option.

The USA-NATO-Pakistan combine despite some successses are losing the war in the Hindu Kush.

Western withdrawal is only a matter of time. A myopic South Asia would be in for rude shocks in the long term if it fails to respond.

By defintion ‘imbroglio’ implies a confusing, messy complicated situation, It involves disagreement, intrigue and discord. The subcontinent knows this only too well.

SAARC as a forum needs to take a leadership call.

Containment of terrorism, increasing intra-regional trade, developmental cooperation along with human security imperatives should be major thrusts Indian leadership continues to have a ‘touchy feely’ reactive security strategy approach without any asserted policy.

The absence of a stated Indian miliary doctrine, however understandable has also resulted in sub-optimal military preparedness in terms of force levels, infrastructure in the north-east even for a graded military response Indian military readiness to take on a two front war would require considerable resources, time, along with inestimable ramifications in terms of percentage GDP expenditure. The reaction of China, Pakistan, Bangladesh is another imponderable. Cost benefit analysis would perhaps recommend

status quo in Indian security and military preparedness while pursuing diplomatic initiatives

Ironic futilities Intractable is the position of all countries of the region regarding geographical markings, land ownership, sharing of waters and delineation of maritime boundaries.

The degrees of stand off flucutuate from simmering discontent to high tension.

Hitherto not a single conflict has vindicated the reason for its initiation.

All players perhaps realise that military engagement would perforce be of short duration with enormous economic

impact along with the ever present possibility of escalation into the nuclear dimension. More critically intercession

by USA, Russia and other countries is bound to have an inhibiting influence on a military-to-military engagement.

It is bad to have a battle. It is worse to have a futile one with no gains for any one. At the end of the day nothing in the subcontinent would change.

The three major players China, India, Pakistan despite considerable military spending do have significant military hollowness in the conventional warfare domain. None of these enjoy overarching superiority and depend on external support for high tech defense

Pakistan is paranoid about India engaging Afghanistan. India continues to contribute to infrastructural development with a policy of military abstainment. The combined Indo-Pak military potential, their mountain warfare experience can bring in much needed security, social stability to the entire Hindu Kush region. It can even signal a new beginning of a reoriented South Asian order. Existing adversorial relationships make this impossible. It would perhaps need a miracle of a mature futuristic vision by South Asian leadership to embark on a new beginning

Indian security perspectives India can contain Pakistan in a conventional confrontation. With China it has adopted a defensive posture. The

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

73

south Asia

technology and munitions. China with annual defence budget of nearly US$ 90 to 100 billion does dominate compared to India’s US$ 30 billion and Pakistan’s US$ 5 billion.

The vastly disparate state of governance, mutual suspicions and deep distrust among the leadership, make for high probability in regional discords and tensions. In many ways the subcontinent leadership seems to convey a sense of obdurate helplessness in its collective failure to achieve even the first few steps towards a meaningful dialogue on possible solutions. Confrontational posturing

to mask strategic ambivalence and uncertainty seems more favourable both for negotiation as well as internal political expediency. As stated earlier nuclear weaponisation of the region however dangerous has managed to add an element of diffident restraint to the existing uncertainty.

Military preparedness, readiness, security vigilance, collateral defence requirments frenetically continue in the region. This has a continuing spiralling cause and effect syndrome on the diplomatic, political military fronts.

Accommodation possible?

A unipolar world, the new international global order, world trade agreements call for a resurgent South Asia. Recognition of this futuristic reality is a tough task. The necessary

74

corruption

STARK REALITIES beginning would perforce be predicated on the tenor, tone and tempo of SinoIndia understanding of their positions, roles and responsibilities in the region.

The peace and tranquillity agreement has had its positive collateral dividends.

There has to be accommodation and adjustments. Recognition of Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory and Aksai Chin as Chinese could be one such.

Talibanisation is not good news for all countries including Central Asian Republics. Terror and Taliban are synonymous. China, India and Pakistan have a major stake in its containment.

This can be progressed only if there is some rapprochement between India and Pakistan with tacit cooperation from China. SAARC forum needs to deliberate on this across various government and non-government channels. Within South Asia, India is the largest and prosperous democracy.

Within Asia, China is a powerhouse in perception, intent and actions. India has to recognise this reality. Pakistan as a ‘failing State’ is highly vulnerable. It’s balkanisation has serious consequences for the region. The US president has also called upon Indian understanding on this aspect.

that water, food, health, energy security need to be also looked at with priority attention. Genetically, geographically, ethnically, historically this ancient land is interwoven into the DNA of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. No one nation can survive alone in the long and large term. Kashmir may cease to be relevant within the next decade if we do not address the vital aspects of human sustenance that may cause implosion and resultant involuntary transmigrations within the region.

Acceptable compromise options stated above would help in incremental progress paving the way for improved resolution and reducing conflict probabilities. On the South Asian steed, China holds the reins, India is on the bridle, Pakistan has the whip.

Iqbal’s poem is very relevant...

Kashmir is critical. The Pakistani mindset precludes acceptance of the LOC as a redefined international border. Even a willing India may be hard put to sell this concept at home. To start with a moratorium on sponsoring terrorism, reigning in ISI has to be one of Pakistan’s initiative.

The conditionality of ceasing support to terrorists by Pakistan could be enforced by the United States with tacit Chinese support. Indo-Pak dialogue needs to be resumed and realigned to focus on Afghanistan, containment of Taliban, maintaining status quo on Kashmir, adopting effective CBMs, increasing trade and initiating the process of a no war pact.

YUNAN MISR ROMAA, SAB MIT GAYE JAHAN SE.

Hitherto security is being looked at within the narrow confines of sovereignty through military means. Equating demography with essential basics of human sustenance is the key to survival and human dignity. Assessment of natural and developmental resources would reveal

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Vice Adm. (Retd.) Arun Kumar Singh

By defintion ‘imbroglio’ implies a confusing, messy complicated situation.

It involves disagreement, intrigue and discord. The subcontinent knows this only too well. SAARC as a forum needs to take a leadership call. Containment of terrorism, increasing intra-regional trade, developmental cooperation along with human security imperatives should be major thrusts.

Criticality of Kashmir

Outlines of implosion

probity

AB TAK MAGAR HAI BAAKI, NAMO NISHAN HAMAARA. Ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome are lost. Now only memories. but our civilisation remains; It has stood the test of time.

KUCH BAAT HAI KI HASTI, MIT TI NAHI HAMAARI. SADIYON RAHA HAI DUSHMAN, DAURE JAHAN HAMAARA. Something is in us. That preserves us.

That keeps us ever-smiling. though the fates and chances of the world have ever tried to break us.

The writer is former Vice Chief of Naval Staff.

He also served as Indian Naval Attache in Washington DC.

Shakespeare aptly said: “There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.” If India is rising this is the time for its leadership to rise above itself and take the nation to its assigned destiny. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the man for the moment. His economics has brought India to its present state of buoyancy. Will he be able to take destiny by the horns and steer the nation through the “shallows and miseries” that Shakespeare preordained for those not resolute enough to take the tide at its flood?

I

am no admirer of the late Sir Winston Churchill, whom I have always regarded as a diehard imperialist, unwilling to give independence to India and totally biased against its people and culture. However, Churchill was undoubtedly a great war time leader and given the almost continuous spate of scams, insurgencies, terror threats and external conventional cum nuclear threats from Pakistan-China, there is undoubtedly a need for great Indian

leadership, since India is in a state of undeclared war. It appears that our leaders seem to be doing their utmost to prove correct the humiliating phropecy of Churchill, who said: “Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts.

They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabble. A day would come when

even the air and water would be taxed in India”.

It is no consolation that Great Britain too has had its share of scamsters and traitors, since we have to worry about India and its future.

Leadership and zero tolerance to corruption are directly linked to national prosperity and security. China too has large scale corruption, but also has a ruthless leadership, which deals

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

75

corruption

probity

very harshly with people found guilty by courts of “corruption, extremism and separatism”. Chinese courts do not take decades to give a verdict.

Constitution sacrosanct The recent “media reported alliance” between the Inter-Services Intelligence, separatist Kashmiri leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, writer-activist Arundhati Roy and the Maoists certainly poses a challenge to Indian security. I wonder what Geelani’s few “liberal” supporters have to say about his press reported statement that “Kashmiris cannot remain with India because it is secular”! Maybe, such people should spend a few years in Pakistan or PoK and then make a comparison between secular democratic India and a theocratic State which sponsors global terror in the name of religion. Even the three government appointed Kashmir interlocutors, basking in their new found importance decided to give a “ball by ball cricket commentary”, including talking about “amending the Indian Constitution to cater for additions on Azadi”.

Corrupt leaders However, the greatest threat to our national security comes from a historic lack of leadership, strategic vision, accountability and corruption which has now apparently included some retired military brass, as witnessed by the Mumbai Adarsh Housing Society scam (“Kargilgate”), which has eclipsed the much larger CWG (Commonwealth Games) scam and made the public “forget” some of the earlier large scams, despite the recent November 2010 CAG report listing the infamous 2G scam as having caused a potential loss of a staggering Rs. 1,76,000 crores to the exchequer!! Indeed this emerging nexus between the politicians, bureacrats and military, if proved correct could be disastrous for national morale and security. Remember the old saying drilled into the minds of young military officers the world over i.e. “there are no bad soldiers, sailors or airmen, only bad officers!”

While the law takes its own torturous course (most cynics will agree that nothing is likely to happen, as the inevitable next big scam, will overshadow “Kargilgate”), it is imperative that the 31-storey “Adarsh”

76

building be demolished immediately, as a warning to future scamsters. Can Manmohan Singh, provide leadership, by not just his personal example of honesty, but also by taking stern action? A start can be made by doing a one time check on the properties of all past and present MPs, Joint Secretaries and above (and their equivalents in the Police and other civil services) and Major Generals and above (and their equivalents in the Air Force and Navy).

Zero accountability Our present system of government decision-making is apparently so designed that it rewards “no decisionmaking” and lack of strategic vision, while ensuring zero accountability.

Remember the disastrous 1962 war with China where the Army Chief (General Thapar) was sacked, but those responsible for not clearing files for military modernisation were not punished, i.e. the defence secretary “survived” (I don’t, fittingly perhaps, recall his name). Amazingly, the report on the 1962 debacle has not yet been declassified, though almost five decades have passed!

Remember the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts where no one was held accountable and worse still, no action was taken to tighten up coastal security, leading to the more disgraceful 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, where we refused to retaliate, despite having convincing taped proof of ISI involvement? Or what, for example, does it say of our self-preservation instinct that even as we approach the second anniversary of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, the trial of the one lone terrorist who was arrested alive is still ongoing, while the guilty in the 2001 Parliament attack, is still in a “mercy petition queue” for his death sentence to be carried out?

Focused leadership While the role of the military in raising a bailey bridge in five days to replace a collapsed pedestrian flyover to the Jawaharlal Stadium received due publicity, how many are aware that the Army and Navy sportsmen, did the nation proud by winning six gold medals each (total 12 gold medals) during the CWG. Indeed, the 41 soldiers and sailors who participated (out of a total of over 600

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

Indian sportspersons) contributed 27 medals to the overall Indian tally of 101 medals. The Railways too contributed another 17 medals. Why have Haryana and Manipur produced so many medal winners? Is there a lesson to be learnt here? The answer to all these questions, perhaps lies in focused leadership of the concerned organisations or states.

India a land of scams?

I do not agree with the decision of the National Democratic Alliance government to bid for the CWG, but I do feel that once the Games were allotted to India, the incoming United Progressive Alliance government should have either taken the task seriously (within strict budget limits), or withdrawn the offer to host the games. Typically, it did neither. The basic reason for the chaotic start of the CWG was that about four years were wasted in twiddling thumbs, ego hassles and also because no single person was designated as “the buck stops here” leader.

Military bunglers A lot of muck may emerge in the course of the recently announced inquiry, if it is conducted impartially and is actually completed by January 15, 2011.

While those found guilty of financial impropriety need to be punished and blacklisted, it’s time to ensure that those found guilty of leadership failure must be banished from public life forever (in a democracy, this latter role is ideally performed by the voters during the next polls, but public memory being short, maybe a PIL, would help in getting judicial intervention for specific cases). As regards the military brass involved in the sordid Adarsh scam, sterner action needs to be taken, given that the building was meant for the families of Kargil martyrs.

Redeeming elements The CWG was partially salvaged by the outstanding performance of Indian athletes, the various artistes participating in the opening and closing ceremonies, the hardworking masons, carpenters, electricians and the security forces. However, it’s important to learn a few elementary lessons from the CWG because, since 1947, with the rare exception of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Indo-Pak war, our entire system of decision-making has degenerated into one based on taking no decisions

and passing the buck. Again, due to Indira Gandhi’s leadership, the 1982 Delhi Asian Games were a resounding success and cost the exchequer only Rs. 600 crore. Fortunately for India, the vast non-governmental sector burns the midnight oil, so our economy is growing despite the lack of leadership and rampant corruption.

National security When the same system of nongovernance is applied to matters concerning national security, the results could be totally disastrous. India has become like the Tower of Babel. Look at the way in which some political parties tried to score brownie points over the recent Ayodhya High Court judgment, or on the ongoing Maoist insurgency, or the Batla House encounter of 2008?

Our foreign policy too appears to be hobbled by the same lack of leadership and strategic vision since it operates in a vacuum without the essential backing of military and economic power. Someone mentioned in jest that India wants to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan to “the last American Marine” since China has outsourced Afghan security (post NATO withdrawal) to Pakistan.

Can we at least station Army and Air Force training teams in Afghanistan to

train the Afghan military? Can India give stapled visas to the inhabitants of Tibet and Xinjiang provinces? Can we dare to improve trade ties with Taiwan? Given China’s supply of short and medium-range ballistic missiles (in violation of MTCR), cruise missiles and nuclear weapons to Pakistan, why can’t India at least offer to sell, or gift, a few MTCR-compliant (below 300 km range) Prithvi 2 ballistic missiles and Brahmos cruise missiles to Vietnam? Just as the Chinese Navy has a permanent threeship presence in the Gulf of Aden since January 2009, can we have a similar permanent naval presence in the AsiaPacific region, especially now since Vietnam’s Haiphong port may be made available for logistics support? I agree that this proposed deployment would be expensive and would need the Indian Navy to induct more warships and refuelling tankers, but at least this expense will contribute to national security, unlike the CWG.

Indira Gandhi paradigm So is there any hope for “rising” India? The answer is, yes, but only if we can finally learn a simple lesson from our sad 1,000-year history of foreign subjugation, Kargilgate, the 2G scam and the Delhi CWG, viz that the essential requirements of leadership

(integrity, strategic vision, decisiveness, will power, accountability, leading by example, abiding by the law) have remained unchanged through centuries. India’s leaders should learn a lesson from our few success stories — the private sector, the military and our cricket team. And, yes, there is another time-tested lesson to be learnt from Indira Gandhi (1971), i.e. great nations have decisive, ruthless leaders who are not terrified of going to war, when national interests so demand.

National leadership is directly linked to national security and prosperity.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh needs to steer the ship of India on a bold and visionary course. Can he bite the bullet and take some very tough decisions? If not, then India is in serious trouble, in the not too distant future, since the billions of dollars of imported arms, will not suffice to protect a nation whose leadership is corrupt, incompetent and unaccountable.

The writer is former Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Vishakhapatnam. He was Director General of the Indian Coast Guard during the Tsunami of 2004 and Commander-in-Chief of the Tri-Service, Andaman and Nicobar Command.

He is also a prolific writer on maritime, strategic and nuclear issues.

December 2010 Defence AND security alert

77

Write for Defence and Security Alert (DSA) a new wave, world class monthly magazine is being hailed as the harbinger of a revolution in India’s defence and security journalism.

To strengthen our mission of making every citizen Aware and Alert we invite distinguished experts with original, novel and constructive ideas - for a Safe and Secure India and the World - to join the mission and write for DSA. Please mail your articles to: articles@dsalert.org

We at DSA welcome your critique and suggestions. Please tell us what other topics you will like to read in your DSA. Write to us on: info@dsalert.org

Novem

ber 201 0

Subscribe Now !

Cover Price Tenure 1 year 2 years 3 years Discounted Price Tenure 1 year 2 years 3 years

Issues 12 24 36

For India ` 1440 ` 2880 ` 4320

For SAARC Countries US$ 240 US$ 480 US$ 720

For Rest of the World US$ 300 US$ 600 US$ 900

Issues 12 24 36

For India ` 1296 ` 2448 ` 3456

For SAARC Countries US$ 216 US$ 408 US$ 576

For Rest of the World US$ 270 US$ 510 US$ 720

Yes, I would like to avail the Subscription of DSA 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years I would like to subscribe for Gift a Subscription Name (Personal).........................................................................Organisation.................................................................Sex.................

Education / Qualification Graduate Post-Graduate Professional Any Other Profession...................................................................................Organisation.......................................................................................

Billing Address.......................................................................................................................City...........................................................

Shipping Address...................................................................................................................City...........................................................

State.........................................Pin..............................................Tel......................................Mob.........................................................

Your Birth Date........................................................................... Marriage Anniversary........................................................(Optional) DD / Cheque No..........................................................................Dated.................................Drawn on................................................. for `.............................................................................................in favour of OCEAN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Payable at New Delhi Or Please Charge `................................(in words).................................................................................through my credit card to my: Choose any one: Credit Card No............................................................................Expires................................Signature of CC Holder............................ * Please attach your ID proof with your signature in case of credit card payment. * Please add ` 50 for all outstation cheques.

All payments in favour of Ocean Media Private Limited, payable at New Delhi. * Condition applies.

Terms and Conditions: Minimum subscription is for one year (12 Issues). Your subscription will start with the next available issue after the receipt of your payments. DSA will be despatched through Postal / Courier Services.

Packing and forwarding charges will be borne by DSA. Online edition of DSA shall be complimentary to all subscribers of Print Edition for single user. Please mention your subscription ID in all your future communications. Please forward us the completed subscription form with all the required details. DSA will not be responsible for any miscarriage or delay, if postal address is incorrect.

This subscription form supersedes all the previous. Please address all your subscription related queries through Email:subscription@dsalert.org or call us at: +91-011-23243999, 23287999, or fax at: +91-11-23259666 or write to us at: Subscription department, Ocean Media Private Limited, 4/19 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002 (INDIA) F o r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d s u b s c r i p t i o n q u e r i e s p l e a s e c o n t a c t : + 9 1 9 2 1 0 2 1 8 3 5 5 .

The terms and conditions may change without any prior notice. This offer is for new subscribers only. Subscription form can also be downloaded from our portal www.dsalert.org

cartoon

request

We request all academicians, thinkers, policy makers and authors to write for DSA for a safe and secure India and the world.

We invite

you to send the synopsis of your esteemed works for book publication related to defence and security.

We intend

to publish research based, authentic, interesting and thought-provoking writings, exclusive photographs and art-works on defence and security issues in India and around the world.

laugh n relax!

SAARC COUNTRIES : US$ 20 REST OF THE WORLD : US$ 25 DECEMBER 2010

INDIA : ` 120 VOLUME 2 ISSN

ISSUE 3

0976-206X

9 770976 206003

USA Special

> VOLUME 2 > ISSUE 3 > DECEMBER 2010

Majestic recognition to

India stands “shoulder to shoulder”