Growing US interest in South Asia
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The global power equilibrium has changed completely. The situation that existed after World War II is nowhere to be seen in the 21st century. The post-war period saw a completely new international order in which the dominance and influence of the United Kingdom declined. Until the war, the United Kingdom was a colonial power throughout the world. But the colonies that were the main source of economic might of the United Kingdom got independence from British rule one after another, which reduced the UK to the status of an ordinary European power. Following World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as two superpowers, which dominated the world almost until the end of the last century.
Cold peace
The post-war period was marked by an ugly Cold War. The superpower rivalry over the domination of the world created a sense of tension and division in the world that gave a different shape to international politics and international order. However, this situation, too, did not last long and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Cold War is now a matter of history, and a new situation has emerged, which some people call a ‘dawn of Cold Peace’. This has completely changed the security and strategic matters of the world.
With the end of the Cold War, the world has turned unipolar with the United States remaining the sole superpower. The end of the Cold War has brought about drastic change in the security landscape, in which Asia stands more prominently. The emergence of China and India as new economic powers has brought the world’s attention on Asia. The recent visit of US President Barrak Obama to Asia amply reflects the new and changed international strategic scenario and increased American interests in Asia.
South East Asia and the Middle East had always figured in American foreign policy because of their economic strength, strategic value and America’s deep engagement in the region. America has had strong economic and security stakes in South East Asia for a long time. After World War II, several countries in the region, including Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and even Thailand, depended heavily on the United States for their security.
These countries were forced to come under the American security umbrella because of growing threats from Russian adventurism in the region. Japan and South Korea were particularly dependent on the United States than the other countries. The United States, thus, needed to honour its security commitments in the region and guarantee freedom of navigation in the Pacific Ocean, South China and Indian Ocean.
So far as the Middle East is concerned, US interest is guided by oil and the security of Israel. Fundamentally, the basics of US interest in the region have not changed but have only increased in many ways. Terrorism has been a greater concern and challenge in protecting its oil interest in the Middle East. Its engagement in the Middle East is to guarantee regular oil supply, security of Israel and other militarily weak countries of the region and contain Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The significance of US engagement in the region was particularly recognised and valued after Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. Had the US not come to the rescue of Kuwait, Iraq would have gobbled up the tiny oil rich country, and Saddam Hussain would have unleashed terror in the entire Middle East.
South Asia was a neglected region for the United States and other global powers until recently. The 1080s decade remained a flashpoint of superpower rivalry in South Asia, but that was limited to Afghanistan following the Soviet Union’s intervention and military presence there. After the Soviet Union withdrew its army from Afghanistan, the United States considered its mission accomplished, and Washington virtually abandoned South Asia.
The United States focussed more on the other regions, including the oil-rich Middle East which is volatile from the political and security point of view. Moreover, the disintegration of the Soviet Union created many energy rich states in Central Asia which figured in the foreign policy and strategic interest of the United States.
However, this situation lived short as Afghanistan and the entire South Asia turned extremely volatile. Given the power vacuum in Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalists, the Taliban, emerged and captured power in Kabul which not only enforced Islamic rule, restricting fundamental rights and freedom of the people but also turned Afghanistan into a safe haven for terrorists, including Al Qaeda. US eyes were opened wide only after terrorists attacked targets in New York and Washington, which brought Americans back to South Asia again. Since then, the United States has shown greater interest in South Asia than ever before, which can be substantiated by the choice of South Asia as the first leg of the US president’s 10-day Asia trip.
South Asia is getting more prominence in American foreign and security policy. This so for a number of reasons. The issues that concern the United States in South Asia are nuclear proliferation, the Kashmir dispute, democracy and human rights, economic liberalisation and development, and environment. The United States wants to play its role in resolving these issues so that South Asia can remain a peaceful, democratic, stable and prosperous region. The key tools to promoting these American goals are policy dialogue, arms and technology export policies, development assistance, increased trade in the region, including free access to the regional markets for American goods.
Both strategic and economic interests are at work so far as American interests and engagement in South Asia are concerned. As America is fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan, Washington knows that it cannot win the war without the support of South Asian partners, in general, and Pakistan, in particular. Strategically, the United States values Pakistan more than any other country in South Asia whereas India figures prominently in its economic interest because of India’s huge market and its economy.
Be it in India, Indonesia, Japan or South Korea, Obama’s message during the entire visit to the region was focussed on the economy and only economy. In India, he agreed on a deal to bring Indian investment to the USA and pushed for more market access for American exports to India. Despite repeated requests from India, Obama refrained from making any kind of remarks that might annoy and antagonise Pakistan and other neighbours of India. Even on the Kashmir issue, Obama was quite cautious and emphasised on a peaceful settlement. In Indonesia, too, he talked about the economy. In Seoul, his focus was on the free trade agreement with South Korea whereas US-China currency-related matters figured more prominently in Tokyo.
The US president’s visit was, thus, solely guided by economic interest aimed at marketing the United States in Asia and creating jobs back in America so that the dwindling popularity of President Obama and his Democratic Party could be revived. Had the visit been guided by strategic interests, Obama would certainly have started the trip from Pakistan, as was the case with all previous presidents visiting South Asia.
Bridge
The United States seems to have changed its priorities and policies in South Asia. Washington has learnt the price of neglecting South Asia in the past. It seems that the United States wants to have increased engagements both strategically and economically, which could benefit all South Asians including smaller countries like Nepal. As Nepal’s strategic location can be used as a bridge between not only India and China but also between South Asia and South East Asia, Nepal should learn to seek benefits from the increased US engagement in South Asia, both strategically and economically.
The global power equilibrium has changed completely. The situation that existed after World War II is nowhere to be seen in the 21st century. The post-war period saw a completely new international order in which the dominance and influence of the United Kingdom declined. Until the war, the United Kingdom was a colonial power throughout the world. But the colonies that were the main source of economic might of the United Kingdom got independence from British rule one after another, which reduced the UK to the status of an ordinary European power. Following World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as two superpowers, which dominated the world almost until the end of the last century.
Cold peace
The post-war period was marked by an ugly Cold War. The superpower rivalry over the domination of the world created a sense of tension and division in the world that gave a different shape to international politics and international order. However, this situation, too, did not last long and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Cold War is now a matter of history, and a new situation has emerged, which some people call a ‘dawn of Cold Peace’. This has completely changed the security and strategic matters of the world.
With the end of the Cold War, the world has turned unipolar with the United States remaining the sole superpower. The end of the Cold War has brought about drastic change in the security landscape, in which Asia stands more prominently. The emergence of China and India as new economic powers has brought the world’s attention on Asia. The recent visit of US President Barrak Obama to Asia amply reflects the new and changed international strategic scenario and increased American interests in Asia.
South East Asia and the Middle East had always figured in American foreign policy because of their economic strength, strategic value and America’s deep engagement in the region. America has had strong economic and security stakes in South East Asia for a long time. After World War II, several countries in the region, including Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and even Thailand, depended heavily on the United States for their security.
These countries were forced to come under the American security umbrella because of growing threats from Russian adventurism in the region. Japan and South Korea were particularly dependent on the United States than the other countries. The United States, thus, needed to honour its security commitments in the region and guarantee freedom of navigation in the Pacific Ocean, South China and Indian Ocean.
So far as the Middle East is concerned, US interest is guided by oil and the security of Israel. Fundamentally, the basics of US interest in the region have not changed but have only increased in many ways. Terrorism has been a greater concern and challenge in protecting its oil interest in the Middle East. Its engagement in the Middle East is to guarantee regular oil supply, security of Israel and other militarily weak countries of the region and contain Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The significance of US engagement in the region was particularly recognised and valued after Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. Had the US not come to the rescue of Kuwait, Iraq would have gobbled up the tiny oil rich country, and Saddam Hussain would have unleashed terror in the entire Middle East.
South Asia was a neglected region for the United States and other global powers until recently. The 1080s decade remained a flashpoint of superpower rivalry in South Asia, but that was limited to Afghanistan following the Soviet Union’s intervention and military presence there. After the Soviet Union withdrew its army from Afghanistan, the United States considered its mission accomplished, and Washington virtually abandoned South Asia.
The United States focussed more on the other regions, including the oil-rich Middle East which is volatile from the political and security point of view. Moreover, the disintegration of the Soviet Union created many energy rich states in Central Asia which figured in the foreign policy and strategic interest of the United States.
However, this situation lived short as Afghanistan and the entire South Asia turned extremely volatile. Given the power vacuum in Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalists, the Taliban, emerged and captured power in Kabul which not only enforced Islamic rule, restricting fundamental rights and freedom of the people but also turned Afghanistan into a safe haven for terrorists, including Al Qaeda. US eyes were opened wide only after terrorists attacked targets in New York and Washington, which brought Americans back to South Asia again. Since then, the United States has shown greater interest in South Asia than ever before, which can be substantiated by the choice of South Asia as the first leg of the US president’s 10-day Asia trip.
South Asia is getting more prominence in American foreign and security policy. This so for a number of reasons. The issues that concern the United States in South Asia are nuclear proliferation, the Kashmir dispute, democracy and human rights, economic liberalisation and development, and environment. The United States wants to play its role in resolving these issues so that South Asia can remain a peaceful, democratic, stable and prosperous region. The key tools to promoting these American goals are policy dialogue, arms and technology export policies, development assistance, increased trade in the region, including free access to the regional markets for American goods.
Both strategic and economic interests are at work so far as American interests and engagement in South Asia are concerned. As America is fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan, Washington knows that it cannot win the war without the support of South Asian partners, in general, and Pakistan, in particular. Strategically, the United States values Pakistan more than any other country in South Asia whereas India figures prominently in its economic interest because of India’s huge market and its economy.
Be it in India, Indonesia, Japan or South Korea, Obama’s message during the entire visit to the region was focussed on the economy and only economy. In India, he agreed on a deal to bring Indian investment to the USA and pushed for more market access for American exports to India. Despite repeated requests from India, Obama refrained from making any kind of remarks that might annoy and antagonise Pakistan and other neighbours of India. Even on the Kashmir issue, Obama was quite cautious and emphasised on a peaceful settlement. In Indonesia, too, he talked about the economy. In Seoul, his focus was on the free trade agreement with South Korea whereas US-China currency-related matters figured more prominently in Tokyo.
The US president’s visit was, thus, solely guided by economic interest aimed at marketing the United States in Asia and creating jobs back in America so that the dwindling popularity of President Obama and his Democratic Party could be revived. Had the visit been guided by strategic interests, Obama would certainly have started the trip from Pakistan, as was the case with all previous presidents visiting South Asia.
Bridge
The United States seems to have changed its priorities and policies in South Asia. Washington has learnt the price of neglecting South Asia in the past. It seems that the United States wants to have increased engagements both strategically and economically, which could benefit all South Asians including smaller countries like Nepal. As Nepal’s strategic location can be used as a bridge between not only India and China but also between South Asia and South East Asia, Nepal should learn to seek benefits from the increased US engagement in South Asia, both strategically and economically.
Comments
Post a Comment