Coping With Another Bush

- Dasu Krishnamoorty

In India and elsewhere, Bush Junior's White House occupancy has evoked a mixture of apprehension and euphoria, the first because of his Republican credentials and the second because of the changed global scenario represented by the collapse of the Soviet State which could be relied upon to contain possible American adventurism. With chances of alternatives emerging to the reality of a single economic and military super power shrinking by the day, feverish efforts are under way to forge a world-wide consensus for other countries to accept the reality of American leadership of the world. No amount of nit-picking by media experts and seminar regulars can cloud this truth. Just when this idea of American leadership of the world was crystallising into a recognisable philosophy in the US, a Democratic administration took over the reins and put the project on the backburner. Chip of the old block that he is, Bush Jr. evokes fears that he may try to revive the chorus which reached a deafening crescendo in the last years of his father's tenure. This certainly calls for discretion in our exuberance in evaluating Indo-American relations.

Indian diplomacy must begin with the realisation that never in the histories of India and the United States as sovereign and independent nations have the dice been so overwhelmingly loaded against us, specially after the disappearance of the only other super power and our affiliation to a new economic philosophy. India has little use for the US except as an importer of its capital and goods. While the US accounts for 30 per cent of India's foreign trade, we account for only one percent of America's foreign trade. A decade of economic reform has increased our vulnerability to predation by US firms. Yet American firms are not rushing in but eroding our power to negotiate by dithering and by smart cartelisation where possible. One can instantly forget, therefore, that the vast middle class market in the country automatically provides us economic leverage against the United States. This is evident from the huge gap between FDI proposals accepted and their actual consummation. Moreover, America's economic relations with any country or region are accommodated to the needs of its powerful MNCs. All calculations to increase exports to the US must necessarily reckon with this truth.

Despite this discouraging scenario, an objective and open-minded evaluation of a Bush prospect is necessary for us to accommodate to what is yet an unfamiliar situation. We need to give attention to five areas which are crucial to meaningful Indo-American relations. Two of them, human rights and CTBT give us room for relaxation because the Bush administration does not put much store by them. Economy, Pakistan and China are three other areas where our diplomacy will be put to test. Notwithstanding our tendency to read too much into middle level American bureaucrats' statements and draw sustenance from them, Secretary of State Colin Powell's indication before Bush's inauguration to review and lift Pokharan sanctions is welcome as it signifies known Republican intentions to jettison CTBT. Bush made his opposition to the treaty clear during his election campaign. But as well-known columnist Jairam Ramesh says "giving up the CTBT does not mean that non-proliferation will cease to be an American concern. It will continue to be so although what form a new CTBT will take remains to be seen." Because the essence of American thinking on nuclear proliferation is that "if India agrees to some limits on its nuclear capability, it could get significant political and technological co-operation from the United States."

Delhi cannot afford to lower its guards in dealing with Washington because of the existence of a very hawkish political and media lobby which prowls the corridors of the US Senate and House of Representatives limiting the power of the American President. To wish away this lobby is to wish away reality. This lobby was behind the Pentagon plan for global domination, which came in the last days of Bush Sr. in office. The 46-page document described India as the "hegemonic" state whose aspirations in South Asia need to be restrained. Entitled Defence Planning Guide, the document says : "We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive US-Pakistan military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in south-west Asia and therefore endeavour to build our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns." According to Jairam Ramesh, "Bush will certainly try and explore new avenues of military co-operation with Pakistan. There are many influential advisers in the Republican camp who still recall the Pakistani contribution to ridding Afghanistan of the USSR's presence, a key trigger for the ultimate demise the communist regime in Moscow."

Human rights issue comes in handy to American administrations in expressing low-profile disagreements with other countries. There has really been no clear-cut human rights policy in the US. As Bharat Bhushan, a senior Indian journalist says, "US congressmen will argue on behalf of almost any interest group provided they are either their voters or have made campaign contributions to them." He mentions Khalistanis and Kashmiri fundamentalists among these lobbyists. Bhushan says that "these interests are not the only ones that are critical of India. On human rights violations, India is given a hard time by Asia Watch, Lawyers Committee on Human Rights, Physician for Human Rights and Amnesty International of USA." According to Bhushan, these groups are really not unfriendly to India but it is India's failure to convincingly explain her dilemmas in dealing with insurgents and sabateurs that gives these groups a handle. The tragedy with NRIs who make campaign contributions is that instead of striving to undo this negative image, they work to bolster their interests in the US.

However, it is not wise to dismiss American preoccupation with human rights as merely of nuisance value. A very powerful Republican group dedicated to the proposition that America alone can and should provide leadership to the world is resurfacing. Responding to a statement made by an official of the Clinton administration that "the United States was now withdrawing from its role as international leader." Michael Mendelbaum says (The New York Times, June 9, 1993) "there are three areas of international affairs of surpassing importance where US leadership is necessary." He mentions a peaceful and stable Russia as the first area. The second is the creation of a new security order. "Even with the cold war at an end, an American military presence of some kind is needed in Europe and the Pacific. The purpose is no longer deterrence but reassurance," says Mandelbaum. The same sentiments are endorsed by Brent Snowcroft (The New York Times, July 2, 1993). Croft says "a better world can emerge only as a result of strong and enlightened leadership. Whether we like it or not, US alone can provide that leadership." This is the kind of philosophy that provided legitimacy to US invasions of Grenada, Panama and Iraq. It is a warning to countries which discount American propensity to intervene in the name of human rights for lack of other valid reasons.

China is a communist state and any shift on its part from political centralism to pluralism will, in its view, weaken it. India has problems with China; CTBT, border dispute and Dalai Lama, for instance. But as the Times of India (editorial on 12 January 2001) says "the (impending) change in administration in Washington provides an appropriate backdrop for China and India to review their policies towards each other to mutual advantage." Clinton's visit in April aroused Chinese suspicions that the US was using India as a foil against it. The Chinese have not taken kindly to our n-tests and constantly pressure Washington to get Delhi to sign CTBT. Giri Deshingkar, senior fellow at the Institute for Chinese Studies, thinks China is suspicious of possible US endorsement of India's "minimum deterrent" plans. And as Jaswant Singh told Parliament the boundary dispute is not even close to being resolved. It is easier for Delhi to get around problems with Washington than with Peking. White House, of course, will work to ensure that the two Asian giants do not jell too much with each other that they can dilute America's status as the world's sole super power. In short, there are several variables which make any forecast about mutual relations between the three countries realistic.

Indo-US relations have always been tenuous and to expect an overnight sea-change is to be naive o the extreme.

Disclaimer