http://www.asianage.com
India-US defence is in a
frame that cannot work
- By Prakash Karat
The framework agreement on Indo-US
defence relations signed in Washington recently is a major step to
harness India to serve the US strategic goals in Asia.
Indo-US military collaboration began in January 1992 during the P.V.
Narasimha Rao government. An Indo-US Army Executive Steering Committee
was set up. This was followed by the setting up of the Joint Steering
Committee of the two Navies. Joint naval exercises were conducted in
1992. In 1994, the Joint Steering Committee of the two Air Forces was
set up.
The Indo-US Military Cooperation Agreement was signed in 1995. This
agreement, the first of its kind, provided for officers of the Indian
armed forces being sent to the United States for training programmes,
staff exchanges and joint exercises.
The BJP-led government took forward the military collaboration to the
level of a strategic alliance. This was in keeping with the Vajpayee
government’s declaration that India was a natural ally of the US.
After the interruption caused by the sanctions imposed by the US after
the Pokhran explosion in 1998, the BJP-led government proceeded rapidly
to cement a strategic alliance with the US. This involved regular joint
exercises between the defence wings of the two armed forces and
resumption of the International Military Exchange and Training (IMET)
Programme for the Indian armed forces.
The BJP-led government offered port and airport facilities for the US
armed forces when they began their military operations in Afghanistan
after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Vajpayee government was
disappointed when the US decided to make Pakistan the frontline state
and ally. The BJP-led government redoubled its efforts to make India act
as a junior partner for US strategic interests in the region.
It was in this period that the Indian government allowed the FBI to set
up its office in Delhi. It was the first country to welcome the National
Missile Defence programme announced by President Bush. The BJP-led
government agreed to use Indian naval ships to escort US ships through
the Straits of Malacca.
The current agreement takes this strategic and military cooperation
further. There are four major features which stand out and which are not
in India’s security and strategic interests.
Firstly, the agreement says the two defence establishments will
"collaborate" in multinational operations when it is in their common
interests. There is no mention of the United Nations auspices for such
operations. By this clause, India has accepted the US concept of
multinational operations in third countries without UN mandate. It is
well known that such operations — such as the multinational force in
Iraq — are commanded solely by the United States military. The UPA
government should explain what are the multinational operations outside
the purview of the United Nations in which India can participate with
the United States.
Secondly, the agreement states that both countries will expand
collaboration relating to missile defence. It is well known that the US
is actively trying to build a missile defence shield by drawing in Asian
countries as part of its National Missile Defence system. Japan has
already agreed to be part of the system. The US cannot be offering the
Patriot missile system without expecting India to be part of this
overall missile defence system.
One should remember that in the Nineties the US sought to prevent India
from developing its missile defence system. Two instances can be cited.
In 1992 the US pressurised Russia to cancel the sale of cryogenic rocket
engines to India by the threat of sanctions against the Russian space
agency Glavkasmos. In August 1993, the US alongwith G7 countries issued
a diplomatic note to India not to deploy the Prithvi missiles and to
stop the Agni programme.
If the US is today offering the Patriot missile system to India, it is
only with the motive of interlocking India in its missile defence
system.
India and the US have gone beyond just talking about ballistic missile
defence. In a report in the Hindu dated October 9, 2004 by Amit Baruah,
an interview to the October issue of Force magazine by David Mulford,
the US ambassador to India, has been cited. "Asked if he saw the
possibility of the two countries going beyond merely talking about such
defences, the ambassador was quoted as saying, ‘Yes, I think that is
what is under discussion now. There has already been a discussion about
technology and systems.’ Do you think that ballistic missile defences
would destabilise the entire region? No, the ambassador responded,
stressing that these were defensive systems. ‘The only problem that I
see is that it is a technically complicated subject and there are
different generations of systems available. So the issue is to figure
out which system is needed where. This is a complicated process.’ Mr
Mulford said."
Third, the agreement talks about shared security interests in protecting
free flow of commerce via land, air and sea lanes alongwith preventing
the spread of weapons of mass destruction and associated materials, data
and technology. It is unfortunate that the UPA government does not view
security issues in Asia as those which can be discussed and resolved
among the Asian countries but seeks to advance US interests in the
region. For instance, the security of the sea lanes is an issue in which
the US has already involved the US Navy in the Malacca Straits.
It is significant that Malaysia and Indonesia took the stand that they
can cooperate with Singapore to ensure the security of the sea lanes in
their region when the latter proposed to involve the US. The
formulations in this section seek to involve India in the proliferation
security initiative sponsored by the US. The US has set up a Regional
Maritime Security Initiative (RMSI) in which Australia and Singapore are
participants.
The littoral states of the Straits of Malacca are Malaysia, Indonesia
and Singapore. Both Malaysia and Indonesia are opposed to the
introduction of external armed forces in guarding the Malacca Straits.
Unlike Singapore, which wants the involvement of the US, the two
countries have been advocating a joint regional initiative in the Asean.
The chief of the Indonesian Navy stated in January 2004 that "Indonesia
deems it not necessary to include troops from outside countries
including the United States — to be involved in safeguarding the
strategic waterway." (Jakarta Post, June 17, 2004)
Fourthly, the prospect for co-production of defence equipment is
mentioned. This is clearly meant to lure India to buy F-16 fighter
planes and open the market for US weaponry. But we find no specific
commitment on lifting the curbs on supply of high technology which has
been raised by India continuously.
The UPA government should know the track record of the US in using
weapons supply as a political tool. Time and again the US has cut off
supplies or imposed sanctions through decisions of the US Congress or
the administration whenever it perceives a country as not willing to
accept its policies and strategic goals.
The US wishes to see India as its reliable ally like Japan, South Korea
and Philippines. That is why it offered to station an Indian officer in
the Pacific Command and the Central Command. The demand that India
should have a position in the Central Command was being made by the BJP-led
government and the pro-American strategic experts. Further, the
agreement displays the US’ interests to make the two armed forces
compatible for joint operations through "inter-operability."
The UPA government in its Common Minimum Programme has committed to
pursue an independent foreign policy and promote multi-polarity in
international relations. Regarding the US, the CMP states, "Even as it
pursues closer engagement and relations with the USA, the UPA government
will maintain the independence of India’s foreign policy positions on
all regional and global issues."
Can the defence minister and the UPA government explain whether this
agreement is in consonance with this approach in the CMP?
The Indo-US defence agreement comes at a time when the US is actively
working to contain China. It is pressurising the European Union not to
lift its embargo on the supply of arms to China. Donald Rumsfeld, the US
secretary of defence, recently in Singapore, has voiced concern about
China’s defence expenditure and acquisition of arms. The US does not see
China as a strategic partner, but as a strategic rival. In contrast, the
US approach manifested in this agreement is to prop up
India as a counterweight. It is clear
that India will be given concessions only if it plays the role the US
has designated for it in its global and Asian strategy.
Defence minister Pranab Mukherjee before leaving for the US told the
media that he is going on an "exploratory" visit. If such an
"exploration" has resulted in this agreement, one shudders to think of
what will be the outcome of a substantive visit.
This agreement has come just before the first official visit of our
Prime Minister to Washington this month. There are apprehensions. The
government is anxious to get US support for a permanent membership of the Security Council. The
government should be warned not to give further concessions to the
US.
The stand of the Left parties on defence, security and foreign policy
issues is resented by the BJP. L.K. Advani had warned the UPA government
not to allow the Communists to meddle in security matters. This was
stated when we protested against the chief minister of Assam saying that
the FBI was welcome to investigate the bomb blasts in the state last
year. Advani had justified the FBI being involved in such enquiries.
After all, this is the gentleman who in 1999 welcomed the first Indo-US
joint naval exercises. And this is the gentleman who was the first home
minister to pay a visit to the CIA headquarters at Langley. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the BJP has welcomed this agreement
wholeheartedly.
We are rejecting the contention that the Left cannot have any say in
security, defence and foreign policy issues. It is our intervention that
rallied the Opposition against sending troops to
Iraq at a time when the Vajpayee government was on the verge of deciding to
do so. We shall not hesitate to express our opinion. Matters of
security, defence and foreign affairs cannot be treated as holy cows and
kept away from public debate and scrutiny.
The Indo-US defence agreement should remain just a framework. It need
not be fleshed out.
Prakash Karat is the general secretary of the CPI(M). This article has
been extracted from a speech he made at a Left Front meeting on July 8
in New Delhi
|