US policy shift may fuel tension in South Asia
Yuba Nath Lamsal
With the United States slowly leaning towards India, the smaller and weaker
nations in South Asia are getting increasingly scary on their security and
sovereignty. They may not be fearful of American presence in the region but
because of Washington's South Asia policy that has recently given more
weight to India and looking at the region through New Delhi's prism.
If we look at the past, all South Asian countries except India were
comfortable with Washington's South Asia policy and its presence in the
region. Even China was not prickly in strong US presence in South Asia but
Beijing and Washington cooperated in a mission to drive Soviets from
Afghanistan. It was India that was not happy with US policy and presence in
South Asia. Instead, New Delhi entered into a long-term military alliance
with the former Soviet Union that had been occupying a country of South
Asia-Afghanistan. India was the only country in South Asia that had endorsed
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
Pakistan acted so closely with the United States in the fight against Soviet
aggression in Afghanistan. Had Pakistan not cooperated with sincerity and
commitment, it would not have been possible to flush out Soviet troops and
liberate Afghanistan. The entire South Asia and the international community
including the United States ought to realize this reality.
However, things changed so fast that the allies of the yesteryears have
turned their back while the foes became bosom friends, true to the saying '
stranger becomes bedfellows' in politics and diplomacy. It is said that
there is no permanent friend and permanent enemy in diplomacy but there are
only permanent interests. This has been aptly translated into action by the
United States when it comes to South Asia policy. The United States had
multiple choices in the region. There could be more reliable friends and
allies in South Asia than India and America's alliance with traditional
allies would have been more natural and sustainable, which would be in the
interest of Washington as well as South Asian countries.
India needed the United States more than Washington needed New Delhi.
American interest to have strategic and military partnership with India is
guided by its extra-regional security and strategic interest. The United
States knows well that partnership with India will not only alienate
Pakistan but also made other South Asian countries more susceptible.
Although the stated policy of the United States is to have friendly and
cooperative relations with both India and Pakistan, this is not possible
given the present state of relations between India and Pakistan. Although
Pakistan does not match with India in terms of conventional troops and arms
pile up, Islamabad is fully capable for deterrence. If the United States
sides with India, Pakistan may be forced to opt for more nuclear weapons in
order to maintain military balance.
Like it or not India and Pakistan are two lions of the region which cannot
live in one den. The United States must choose one out of the two. Given the
developments that have unfolded in Washington and New Delhi, it becomes
clearer that United States prefers India more than Pakistan. Washington's
India preference is guided by its policy of checkmating China by encircling
from all sides. Secondly, India is a huge market which Washington wants to
exploit for its economic benefit.
But India desperately needs the United States more than the US needs India.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, India felt vulnerable for
supply of military hardware and accessories, for which India could go to any
extent. During the Cold War era when the military partnership between India
and Soviet Union was at work, Moscow used to supply more than 70 per cent
military spare parts to New Delhi. With sudden collapse of Soviet Union, New
Delhi was desperately in search of credible partner for the supply of its
military necessity. As a sole superpower, the United States came in to fill
that void. Washington killed two birds with one stone as it found a new but
lucrative market for both its military goods as well as industrial products
and, at the same time, it got a strategic partner to be used for its
interest. This shift in US South Asia policy is also attributed to China's
rise as a strategic and economic superpower. The new US-India partnership
is likely to change security balance in favour of India in South Asia. This
is also a testament of waning US military and economic strength. With being
trapped into the worst economic crisis, the United States may not be capable
of maintaining its military influence and control in the world and is, thus,
seeking to outsource its military and security arrangement.
It may be correct from US immediate strategic point of view as India would
be Washington's best bait to checkmate rising China. But it would be
counterproductive for the United States in the long-run. The hobnobbing with
India, the United States would definitely lose credibility in South Asia.
All South Asian countries do not have comfortable relations with New Delhi
and view India as a major source of threat to their security and
sovereignty. Pakistan fought wars with India over Kashmir since these two
countries were created in 1947 after British left South Asia. Sri Lanka,
too, has its bitter history of ethnic conflict, which was India's making.
Colombo knows well that India may play the ethnic card again in Sri Lanka
any time once its interests are not served. Bangladesh, too, has a feeling
that India has been exerting unnecessary pressure on some issues including
water resources, trade and transit. Indian interference in Nepal is naked
which has agitated majority of Nepali people. And overall sentiment in Nepal
is anti-Indian. Similar case may be in Bhutan even though Thimbu is New
Delhi's tutelage.
Against this background, the US-India strategic and military partnership is
definitely a threat to South Asian security because it has encouraged New
Delhi to flex its military muscle over South Asia contributing to new arms
race in the region. Already susceptible with India, South Asian countries
especially Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will have to opt for more
militarization in order to counter perceived or real threat from New Delhi.
This scenario suggests that the US policy shift and partnership with India
is likely to antagonize South Asian people, which would force South Asian
countries to join hands with other forces and alliances. Recently, some
smaller South Asian countries have sought China's entry into the SAARC
(South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) to counterbalance in
South Asia. Although China does not have any ill will against any country
and does not want to pose threat to any country, the move of South Asian
countries to bring China into the fold of SAARC as a full-fledged member is
reflective of the Indo-phobia psychology. With this growing susceptibility,
South Asia may turn into another zone of conflict. If conflict escalates in
South Asia in general and Indian Ocean in particular, there would be greater
risk in maritime security. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are
maritime states and if these countries get involved in conflict, the
international trade not only between South Asia and the rest of the would be
hit but also the entire international trade may come under threat because 50
per cent world's container traffic and 70 per cent of world's crude oil and
oil products transit through Indian Ocean. Thus, it may be counterproductive
for the United States in the long-run from security and strategic point of
view to side with India in the expenses of smaller South Asian countries.
Frictions between the United States and some South Asian countries have
already been visible whereas some countries are watching very closely and
cautiously the US role in the region. The relations between US and Pakistan
seem to have turned sour, which can be attributed to growing US-India
hobnobbing. Now Washington seems to have borrowed words from New Delhi in
maligning and criticizing Pakistan and accusing Islamabad of harboring
Islamic terrorists. Some Islamic terrorists may have used Pakistani
territory but the accusations against Pakistan of harboring terrorism may
not be fully true. Pakistan itself is victim of terrorism and Islamabad is
fighting its tooth and nail against Islamic militancy and terrorism.
The recent aerial attack by US-led NATO troops in Pakistan in which several
Pakistani soldiers have been killed has further irked Pakistan. More and
more Pakistanis are turning against the United States. Although perceived as
pro-West, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, too, does not seem to be contended
with new US policy who has said in public that if conflict begins between
Washington and Islamabad, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan. Karzai's
views reflect the overall sentiment of Afghan people. The United States and
the world, therefore, must understand the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan
have especial relations which cannot be separated by political or external
power. Like it or not Afghanistan is Pakistan's domain of influence. The
United States cannot win war on terror in Afghanistan without the support of
Pakistan. This has already been reflected in Afghanistan. As a result, the
war on terror which the United States is fighting in Afghanistan seems to be
increasingly dangerous.
Given this situation, it would do well if the United States reviews its
South Asia policy with weight to Pakistan and other smaller South Asian
countries. That would not only dispel fear and susceptibility and discourage
militarization and arms race in the region but also maintain a perfect
balance of power in South Asia.
With the United States slowly leaning towards India, the smaller and weaker
nations in South Asia are getting increasingly scary on their security and
sovereignty. They may not be fearful of American presence in the region but
because of Washington's South Asia policy that has recently given more
weight to India and looking at the region through New Delhi's prism.
If we look at the past, all South Asian countries except India were
comfortable with Washington's South Asia policy and its presence in the
region. Even China was not prickly in strong US presence in South Asia but
Beijing and Washington cooperated in a mission to drive Soviets from
Afghanistan. It was India that was not happy with US policy and presence in
South Asia. Instead, New Delhi entered into a long-term military alliance
with the former Soviet Union that had been occupying a country of South
Asia-Afghanistan. India was the only country in South Asia that had endorsed
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
Pakistan acted so closely with the United States in the fight against Soviet
aggression in Afghanistan. Had Pakistan not cooperated with sincerity and
commitment, it would not have been possible to flush out Soviet troops and
liberate Afghanistan. The entire South Asia and the international community
including the United States ought to realize this reality.
However, things changed so fast that the allies of the yesteryears have
turned their back while the foes became bosom friends, true to the saying '
stranger becomes bedfellows' in politics and diplomacy. It is said that
there is no permanent friend and permanent enemy in diplomacy but there are
only permanent interests. This has been aptly translated into action by the
United States when it comes to South Asia policy. The United States had
multiple choices in the region. There could be more reliable friends and
allies in South Asia than India and America's alliance with traditional
allies would have been more natural and sustainable, which would be in the
interest of Washington as well as South Asian countries.
India needed the United States more than Washington needed New Delhi.
American interest to have strategic and military partnership with India is
guided by its extra-regional security and strategic interest. The United
States knows well that partnership with India will not only alienate
Pakistan but also made other South Asian countries more susceptible.
Although the stated policy of the United States is to have friendly and
cooperative relations with both India and Pakistan, this is not possible
given the present state of relations between India and Pakistan. Although
Pakistan does not match with India in terms of conventional troops and arms
pile up, Islamabad is fully capable for deterrence. If the United States
sides with India, Pakistan may be forced to opt for more nuclear weapons in
order to maintain military balance.
Like it or not India and Pakistan are two lions of the region which cannot
live in one den. The United States must choose one out of the two. Given the
developments that have unfolded in Washington and New Delhi, it becomes
clearer that United States prefers India more than Pakistan. Washington's
India preference is guided by its policy of checkmating China by encircling
from all sides. Secondly, India is a huge market which Washington wants to
exploit for its economic benefit.
But India desperately needs the United States more than the US needs India.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, India felt vulnerable for
supply of military hardware and accessories, for which India could go to any
extent. During the Cold War era when the military partnership between India
and Soviet Union was at work, Moscow used to supply more than 70 per cent
military spare parts to New Delhi. With sudden collapse of Soviet Union, New
Delhi was desperately in search of credible partner for the supply of its
military necessity. As a sole superpower, the United States came in to fill
that void. Washington killed two birds with one stone as it found a new but
lucrative market for both its military goods as well as industrial products
and, at the same time, it got a strategic partner to be used for its
interest. This shift in US South Asia policy is also attributed to China's
rise as a strategic and economic superpower. The new US-India partnership
is likely to change security balance in favour of India in South Asia. This
is also a testament of waning US military and economic strength. With being
trapped into the worst economic crisis, the United States may not be capable
of maintaining its military influence and control in the world and is, thus,
seeking to outsource its military and security arrangement.
It may be correct from US immediate strategic point of view as India would
be Washington's best bait to checkmate rising China. But it would be
counterproductive for the United States in the long-run. The hobnobbing with
India, the United States would definitely lose credibility in South Asia.
All South Asian countries do not have comfortable relations with New Delhi
and view India as a major source of threat to their security and
sovereignty. Pakistan fought wars with India over Kashmir since these two
countries were created in 1947 after British left South Asia. Sri Lanka,
too, has its bitter history of ethnic conflict, which was India's making.
Colombo knows well that India may play the ethnic card again in Sri Lanka
any time once its interests are not served. Bangladesh, too, has a feeling
that India has been exerting unnecessary pressure on some issues including
water resources, trade and transit. Indian interference in Nepal is naked
which has agitated majority of Nepali people. And overall sentiment in Nepal
is anti-Indian. Similar case may be in Bhutan even though Thimbu is New
Delhi's tutelage.
Against this background, the US-India strategic and military partnership is
definitely a threat to South Asian security because it has encouraged New
Delhi to flex its military muscle over South Asia contributing to new arms
race in the region. Already susceptible with India, South Asian countries
especially Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will have to opt for more
militarization in order to counter perceived or real threat from New Delhi.
This scenario suggests that the US policy shift and partnership with India
is likely to antagonize South Asian people, which would force South Asian
countries to join hands with other forces and alliances. Recently, some
smaller South Asian countries have sought China's entry into the SAARC
(South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) to counterbalance in
South Asia. Although China does not have any ill will against any country
and does not want to pose threat to any country, the move of South Asian
countries to bring China into the fold of SAARC as a full-fledged member is
reflective of the Indo-phobia psychology. With this growing susceptibility,
South Asia may turn into another zone of conflict. If conflict escalates in
South Asia in general and Indian Ocean in particular, there would be greater
risk in maritime security. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are
maritime states and if these countries get involved in conflict, the
international trade not only between South Asia and the rest of the would be
hit but also the entire international trade may come under threat because 50
per cent world's container traffic and 70 per cent of world's crude oil and
oil products transit through Indian Ocean. Thus, it may be counterproductive
for the United States in the long-run from security and strategic point of
view to side with India in the expenses of smaller South Asian countries.
Frictions between the United States and some South Asian countries have
already been visible whereas some countries are watching very closely and
cautiously the US role in the region. The relations between US and Pakistan
seem to have turned sour, which can be attributed to growing US-India
hobnobbing. Now Washington seems to have borrowed words from New Delhi in
maligning and criticizing Pakistan and accusing Islamabad of harboring
Islamic terrorists. Some Islamic terrorists may have used Pakistani
territory but the accusations against Pakistan of harboring terrorism may
not be fully true. Pakistan itself is victim of terrorism and Islamabad is
fighting its tooth and nail against Islamic militancy and terrorism.
The recent aerial attack by US-led NATO troops in Pakistan in which several
Pakistani soldiers have been killed has further irked Pakistan. More and
more Pakistanis are turning against the United States. Although perceived as
pro-West, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, too, does not seem to be contended
with new US policy who has said in public that if conflict begins between
Washington and Islamabad, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan. Karzai's
views reflect the overall sentiment of Afghan people. The United States and
the world, therefore, must understand the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan
have especial relations which cannot be separated by political or external
power. Like it or not Afghanistan is Pakistan's domain of influence. The
United States cannot win war on terror in Afghanistan without the support of
Pakistan. This has already been reflected in Afghanistan. As a result, the
war on terror which the United States is fighting in Afghanistan seems to be
increasingly dangerous.
Given this situation, it would do well if the United States reviews its
South Asia policy with weight to Pakistan and other smaller South Asian
countries. That would not only dispel fear and susceptibility and discourage
militarization and arms race in the region but also maintain a perfect
balance of power in South Asia.
Comments
Post a Comment