China Factor In The Indo-US RelationsGuest Column by Kazi Anwarul Masud
(The views expressed by the author are his own)
In May last year British newspaper Financial Times published a Pentagon Report advising Bush administration to take more seriously the possibility of China’s emergence as a strategic rival to the US. Under the National Defense Authorization Act 2000 Pentagon has to submit an annual report on the current and probable future course of Chinese army and Chinese security and military strategy. According to the Pentagon report India, Russia and China are key determinants of international security environment in the 21st century.
Of the three, Russia is considered a constructive partner while China “has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the US and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional US military advantage”. Despite such disquieting report Pentagon advised that the US policy should remain focused on encouraging China to play a constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region.
There is a school of thought which believes that the US’ recognition of India as a civilian nuclear power has probably more to do with China’s investment in asymmetric military power “beyond Taiwan” than for love of Indian democracy. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye Jr. however doubts that China would ever be able to achieve the position of peer competitor of the US on a global basis given the facts that the US would continue to outpace the rest of the world in defense expenditure so that the US, as promised by President Bush, would never have to enter into an armed race with any country. Stunning Chinese economic growth has its own problems with inefficient state owned enterprises, growing inequality between the rich and the poor straining social cohesion, massive internal migration from the rural to the urban areas, corruption, inadequate infrastructure etc, and no less importantly the 1996 Clinton-Hashimoto declaration as the basis of post-Cold War stability in East Asia that would act as an impediment to nascent Chinese militaristic ambition, if any.
President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski firmly believes that Chinese leadership is not inclined to challenge the US militarily because China’s phenomenal economic growth is contingent upon good relations with the US, Japan, South Korea and other trading partners, and the US being the fourth largest trading partner and the source of largest US trade deficit, Chinese expectation of foreign direct investment of billions of dollars, and increasing number of the Chinese middle class make it difficult for the Chinese leadership to embark on any adventurous military policy against the US. Additionally there is no reason to believe that from Nixon to Carter to Reagan to Clinton to Bushany US President has deviated from the premise that a China that lives in isolation from the international community can be more devastating than one brought within the orbit of internationally accepted rules. There is evidence, however, that the American efforts to build up India as a global power were designed to use India as a countervailing power to possible Chinese expansionism.
After the Chinese revolution the US came to believe that the newly independent India was the only potential regional power that could check Chinese dominance of South East Asia. The American design was thwarted by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who refused play along. After the 1964 Chinese nuclear test Pentagon considered the possibility of providing India with nuclear weapons under the US custody. The idea was dropped as it ran counter to the non-proliferation agenda of the US administration. Bill Clinton’s March 2000 visit to India bound the two countries to “work together for strategic stability in Asia and beyond”. January 2004 declaration titled “Next Step in Strategic Partnership” and India Defense Relationship Agreement of June last year are believed to have China in sight, elucidated by Ambassador Robert Blackwell’s rhetorical question: why should the US want to check on India’s missile capability that could lead to China’s permanent nuclear dominance over democratic India?
But the recent Sino-Indian overtures do not give any indication at all that India, despite former Defense Minister George Fernandes’ inopportune remark that China remains India’s number one enemy has any intention to play the role of the US sentinel in Asia. Bush visit to India was not to strike a Faustian bargain but to recognize the reality of India as an economic and military power house. US Under Secretary Nick Burns speaking to the press at Delhi frankly confessed about the choice faced by the Bush administration regarding India’s nuclear program: - is it better to keep India in isolation or is it better to bring India into compliance actively with major international agreements that govern the disposition of nuclear materials and nuclear energy? India, Bush administration concluded, despite having nuclear technology for over three decades has not proliferated as opposed to North Korea and Pakistan and Iran which “lied to IAEA”.
The US Congress and the 44 nation Nuclear Suppliers Group both approved the agreement reached at Delhi that will give India access to billions of dollars of the US and other foreign atomic technology and fuel to meet India’s soaring energy needs. Non-proliferation issue aside questions had been raised as to whether India (for that matter Pakistan) needed nuclear weapons at all and of possible harm to the Indian populace from a continued expansion on India’s nuclear complex. Besides it had been claimed that the cost of producing nuclear electricity in India is higher than the cost of producing electricity from other sources. Chernobyl scenario and disposal of nuclear waste would pose additional problem.
Supporters of the nuclear deal saw it not only a way out for India’s soaring energy needs but also a virtual US recognition of India as a nuclear power because according to the Joint Statement India will have “the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology like the United States”. Detractors, however, point out that domestic uranium, freed as a result of uranium purchased from the international market, would be used to increase India’s nuclear arsenal. It is quite possible that the Indo-US deal would start an armed race between India, Pakistan and Chinaall desperately poor countries though India and China are role model for the developing world.
In the ultimate analysis the present global construct cannot afford to ignore India. Cato Institute’s Hand Book for the US Congress recommends that the US administration should focus on India as a leading diplomatic and economic partner of the US in South Asia and as a strategic counterbalance to China. Cato further recommends that India be treated as a central player in the US led war on terror and radical Islamic force in South Asia. Increased power, however, also brings increased responsibility for India vis-à-vis its neighbors. It would be unrealistic for India to aspire for recognition as a major global power if discontent remains in the South Asian region.
(The Writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh. He can be reached at kamasud@dhaka.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment