ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 28 February 2006

U.S. President’s Itinerary

SIGNIFIANCE OF HYDERABAD VISIT

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

One of the destinations of US President George Bush’s India visit is the city of Hyderabad. His predecessor Bill Clinton too visited Hyderabad in March 2000. But there is a difference in motivation of these two American leaders. Unlike Bill Clinton, George Bush visited this South Indian city because of, among other things, its social geography. Foreign policy advisors of  Bush have shown interest in this city because of the presence of a large number of Muslim population.

At a time when the anti-American sentiment in the Islamic World is at its height, President Bush  visited India which proudly claims its place as the second largest Muslim country in the world. The Egyptians who receive the second largest component of US foreign assistance are at logger heads with Washington on a host of foreign policy issues. Saudi Arabia, which has been a traditional American ally in the Persian Gulf, is home of Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader, who master-minded the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States. Pakistan, another American strategic ally, created the Taliban force in Afghanistan, which provided shelter to Osama and safe haven to his followers, so that they could plan the 9/11 attacks from the caves of that country.

In contrast to all these Islamic countries, Indian Muslims are known to be hardcore anti-Americans. Al Qaeda has no base in India. Indian Muslims do grieve, complain and express concerns over US policies and perceptions which are considered to be anti-Islamic. But Indian Muslims do not resort to terrorism or suicide bombings to avenge the perceived mistreatment of Islam and attack the innocents.

Of late, a series of events have occurred, which give some credence to Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilization theory. While many liberal and Leftist intellectuals quickly condemned this theory after its publications in mid-1990s, Osama bin Laden took it seriously and indeed launched his attacks against the centres of Western (Christian) civilization. The 9/11 attack has been interpreted by some Muslim intellectuals and followers of Al Qaeda’s ideology, as a response to perceived attack on Islam by the West.

A large majority of Muslim people in the Islamic world did not support the terrorist methods adopted by Al Qaeda to kill the innocents and destroy property. Nor did they loudly protest against the US attack on Afghanistan to flush out the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders from that country. But the continuation of NATO presence in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq under cooked-up justifications have angered a large number of Muslims around the world. The US handling of the Palestinian issue during the last months of Yasser Arafat, after his death and now after the victory of Hamas in the elections is not considered fair and just in the Muslim world.

Again the backdrop of all these developments, the US undivided attention on Iranian nuclear programme and pressure on Tehran to follow Washington’s prescriptions on transparency have generated an impression that the US intends to emasculate the Islamic civilization, while maintaining silence over the Israeli nuclear weapon capability. Even friendly Islamic countries in the Middle-East do not support the US position, although they simultaneously would not be comfortable with the Iranian nuclear capability.

Besides the West’s relations with the Islamic countries, the treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the incident involving flushing of the Holy Book of Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba, treatment meted out to Muslim immigrants and visitors to Western countries, including the US, and now depiction of the Muslim Prophet in a cartoon in a Danish newspaper have inflamed the passion among millions of Muslims around the globe. The reaction in several Muslim countries has also resulted in burning of the Churches and the Holy Bible.

What else could be an example of clash of civilization? It is true that the entire Muslim civilization is not at war with the Western civilization. It cannot be. The two World Wars that humankind witnessed and suffered in the first half of the twentieth Century did not involve every citizen of the earth. Nor did it affect every country equally. Even then we call those World Wars. There are differences and contradictions within the Muslim world and within the Western civilizations. But some people from both the civilizations appear to have been convinced that a clash is taking place between Muslims and non-Muslims, predominantly adherents of the Christian faith.

And this is dangerous. The non-state actors involved in this clash yield a capacity to cause a level of violence unprecedented in human history. Some of the state actors may inflame passion and other states may use violence to stop violence, in the process causing much more violence. When an Iranian leader speaks of wiping out a country in the Middle-East, it encourages certain non-state actors to try for that and induces other countries to prepare for preventing that. Before a madness is unleashed and a vicious circle assumes catastrophic proportions, sane nations have to come together to put an end to this phenomenon.

The United States as a victim of Islamic extremist violence and a country that has substantially contributed to it has a major role to play in ending religious extremism. India is also a victim of terrorism; probably India has lost more lives in terrorist attacks than any other country in the world. Yet, most of the terrorist violence in India is not the result of religious extremism. It has an external dimension, where some people of Muslim faith in Kashmir are incited to cause violence in the name of Islam. Massive majority of Indian Muslim population is on the side of the Indian state against these religious fanatics and terrorists. Barring communal clashes on the ground of local factors in modern India, neither the Hindus nor the Muslims have formed groups to eliminate the other by adopting terrorism as a method of achieving their goals.

Moreover, the Indian Muslim masses are truly democratic in their outlook and attitude. The multicultural and multi-religious Indian society has been woven in a democratic fiber that has set an example to others in the world. It is here that the US can learn a lot from India. No other country in the world is better suited to promote democracy in the Islamic world than India. The US is a suspect. So are its NATO allies of the Western world.

India needs American cooperation to end anti-Indian terrorism. The US can acquire great help from India to establish and promote democracy in the Islamic countries, which in turn can provide a long-term solution to anti-US terrorism. This is an important area both for India and America.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 21 February 2006

Bush Visit to India

HIGH Roadblock IN NUCLEAR DEAL

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

About six years ago, Indians were excited by an American Presidential visit to India during the national festival of Holi. Two weeks before the 2006 Holi, another American President scheduled to visit India. But this time around there is hardly any enthusiasm in India. To the contrary, there are hopes in the Government circle that this visit would pass off peacefully with accompanying preparations by some political parties, particularly the Left, that the US President should realize that everybody in India does not welcome him.

When an Indian Prime Minister visits the United States, the Indian Embassy remains on its toes to ensure that the trip is adequately covered by the local media and it remains an officially satisfying event for the Indian foreign policy establishment. The US Embassy perhaps has similar expectations. No government wants that a visiting head of a state is not received well by the people and the political parties. Likewise, no political leader desires that his foreign trip turns out to be damp squib.

Unless adequate care is taken, the incoming visit of the US President, George Bush may generate disappointment for both the PMO and the White House. First of all, American Ambassador in Delhi has surrounded himself with lot of controversies. His statement on the possible impact of the Indian vote at the IAEA over Iran nuclear issue on the US Congress was interpreted by the Left parties and others as coercive diplomacy. Mulford is not a career diplomat. There was an element of truth in his statement. But some sections of people in India sought to make a mountain of the molehill. His letter to the West Bengal Chief Minister protesting against inappropriate remarks on President Bush and its political and economic repercussions again appears to be a blunt warning, but the Left parties have taken strong objection by alleging that it was interference in the country’s internal affairs.

The American Ambassador should have taken the remarks on President Bush as an unfortunate aspect of freedom of speech. After all, many in the US consider the regrettable representation of the Muslim Prophet in cartoon by a Danish cartoonist as part of the freedom of speech. Simultaneously the CPM also has been over-reacting to the letter from the US Ambassador to the West Bengal Chief Minister. If the alleged remark against President Bush is correct, the CPM is not right in considering it as a mere internal affair of West Bengal.

The second crucial issue that appears to have already dampened the spirit in India over a second US Presidential visit to India in six years is the ravaging controversy over the July 2005 nuclear understanding between the two countries over forging cooperation in civilian nuclear technology. Some independent analysts, scholars and even a few former diplomats have serious reservations over the Indo-US nuclear deal. The deal is opposed by these people on the ground that it would enhance American leverage over Indian nuclear programme, both civilian and military, would negatively affect the country’s nuclear strategy, and would force India to compromise its autonomous foreign policy decision-making.

There was a high dose of optimism and confidence in the governing circles of India and the US that the nuclear agreement between the two would be ready for signature by the time President Bush lands in Delhi. But that optimism has been replaced by certain amount of anxiety and despair, as the Indian side has begun to perceive that Washington is intermittently shifting its goalpost by demanding newer items of compliance by the Indian Government. The visa difficulty encountered by Placid Rodriguez, one of the chief architects of India’s nuclear fast breeder programme, to address a conference in the US is an indication that the nuclear deal itself has run into high roadblocks.

Ambassador Robert Blackwill, predecessor of Ambassador Mulford, often proudly proclaimed that the number of visas issued to Indian academics and students outnumbered the total number of visas issued to the rest of the world. Now an Indian scientist of a high repute is finding it difficult to attend a conference in the US, even though he has received an invitation from an American organization. The timing of a letter by three prominent nuclear non-proliferation specialists to US legislators demanding more strict conditions on India over the nuclear deal is an addition to the list of expanding discontents.

It is true that Indo-US relations are not based on any single issue. The relationship has been robust in several other areas and there is not much reflection of those in the media. It is quite likely that the Indian Government will take proper care to highlight the positive aspects of the relationship and will prevent creation of a one-sided image of Indo-US relations. So much time, energy and resources have been invested by the US and India to elevate the bilateral relationship to unprecedented levels that neither side can afford to let the critiques paint a picture of their choice.

Critiques are important to remind those aspects of bilateral issues, which could have been ordinarily ignored. They are an important part of any decision-making. But democracies need to separate the self-serving critiques from the more genuine ones. While India has to ensure that its relations with the US do not bind India’s foreign policy and strategic decisions, the Indian leadership should avoid creating an impression that Indians are too difficult a people to befriend. The two countries which will certainly be jubilant to see gaps in emerging Indo-US ties are Pakistan and China. These two countries alone should not be allowed to determine India’s choice, but New Delhi will find it an expensive phenomenon not to factor these two countries in its calculations.

The UPA Government has successfully dealt with the offensive by the Left parties. In their enthusiasm to complain against the American hegemony, the left analysts almost leaned towards Iranian theocracy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh answered the queries over the Iran nuclear issue in both the Houses of Parliament without mentioning a word about the US!

It is clear that some parties are making a football of foreign policy issues on domestic political considerations. India at the current stage of its development cannot afford to allow that yet. We are an emerging power. We are yet to emerge as a power. It is important that we do not sacrifice our national interests at the altar of domestic expediency. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 14 February 2006

Beginning Of The End

American Empire Post Cold War

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra,

School of International Studies, JNU

There are signs that the American empire has been slowly on the decline and unless the US abandons military approach and adopts peaceful diplomatic approach to international issues, the decline may further accelerate.

With a robust economy, more than the combined GDP of any combination of major powers; defence expenditure more than the combined defence expenditure of next thirteen big defence spenders; a military with most sophisticated and state-of-the-art weapons with truly global reach; the United States has been able to shape the events and issues of the globe in the post-Cold War era. During the eight years of the Clinton Administration, the American economy and its commercial competitiveness grew at a consistently positive rate and filled the US treasury with several billion dollars of surplus money.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the Soviet disintegration, no second country in the world maintains a global presence and influence except the United States. No single country appears to have the potential to rival the US power and influence in the foreseeable future. Some Americans saw the international system in the post-Soviet era as a unipolar structure and advised the US Government to seize the moment and transform the shape and the image of the world after American ideals and virtues and, of course, keeping in mind the country’s national interests.

Actually, the world was more unipolar in the post-World War II period than the post-Cold War era. The US then accounted for about half of the world production of goods, possessed monopoly over the nuclear weapons and saw the pitiable economic and political conditions in most of the former imperial powers and had the luxury of donating capital for the reconstruction of war-devastated European economies.

In less than five years, the US lost its nuclear monopoly to the former Soviet Union and in less than twenty years there were a total of five nuclear weapon powers. In about fifteen years’ time since the end of Second World War, the West Europeans and Japanese indulged the Americans in fierce competition in the international market place. In about thirty years, the mighty USA had to concede defeat in the Vietnam War and withdraw all its military operations from Indochina.

About 14 years ago the powerful Soviet Union collapsed and its empire had begun to crumble a few years prior to that. Consequently the US emerged as the sole superpower in the world and several countries in the world—the neutrals, non-aligned and former adversaries-- began to bandwagon with the remaining superpower. But notwithstanding the songs of glory sung by a few American strategic analysts, world events, one after another, indicated that the US would not be able to maintain its empire, unless it avoided behaving like Roman emperors.

The American intervention in Haiti, withdrawal of its peacekeeping forces from Somalia after a few US casualties, intermittent bombing of Iraq, raining down of missiles in Afghanistan to retaliate terrorist bombing of US embassies in Africa, aerial bombardment of Kosovo, show of force in South China Sea and many more US military approaches indicated that Washington adopted ancient Roman approach to deal with international issues. Without consulting the major powers, with the consent and cooperation of a handful of traditional allies and often bypassing the UN system, the US sought to conduct international affairs by frequently resorting to its muscle power.

The 9/11 incident is partly the response of non-state actors to perceived unbridled hegemony of the US, particularly in the Muslim World. Almost the entire international community sided with the sole superpower in its declared global war against Islamic terrorism. The massive bombing of Afghanistan to eradicate Al Quaeda took place with political, territorial and intelligence assistance by several countries, including some Muslim countries. And, that included even Pakistan, the creator of Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which in turn had housed Osama Bin Laden and his organization.

Before, Afghanistan could see some stability and peace; the Bush Administration began to resort to old American ways of handling political issues through military means. The best demonstration of it was the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The rationale of this invasion was not adequate. The number of supporters to this military misadventure in the world was scant. The legitimacy of this action was almost zero.

The consequences have been devastating for the US. Iraq had no terrorists earlier, but the country soon witnessed terrorist violence as has been admitted by the US. The US forces led an international coalition force and entered Iraq as a liberating force, but soon came to be viewed as a foreign occupying force. The Iraqi resistance shows no signs of ending after about three years of the US-led invasion.

The pressure on Syria in the wake of an alleged Syrian connection to a political assassination in Lebanon, the relentless pressure on Iran on the nuclear issue, the widening differences with Saudi Arabia, the Abu Ghraib prison mistreatment issue, alleged excesses committed in Guantanamo Bay prison camp, flushing of Quran in the toilet and the current controversy surrounding “inappropriate” depiction of Muhammad in a cartoon published in Denmark and reprinted in other European media together have generated an impression that the West-led by the US is on a path of confrontation with the Muslim World.

Notwithstanding the cooperative attitude of many Muslim governments, the US has come to realize that anti-Americanism as a force has taken deep root in the Muslim World and has been consistently on the rise. In the backdrop of continuing US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is safe to presume that anti-Americanism will create enormous hurdles for the US role in the world and may become one of the forces that would be responsible for the decline of US Empire.

Today, North Korea has emerged as new nuclear weapon power in East Asia. The US multilateral diplomacy has not achieved its desires result in the Korean peninsula. Iran has decided to confront the US on the nuclear issue, despite Washington’s success in roping in four other nuclear weapon powers to get the Iran nuclear question shifted to the UN Security Council from the IAEA. Venezuela in the Western Hemisphere has been loudly defying the US power.

The Soviet Union’s demise, end of Euro-communism, China’s economic openness and liberalization and the continuing US embargo have not been able to bring Cuba on to its knees. The US specialists and political leaders are increasingly looking frustrated over the unstoppable march of the Chinese economic juggernaut. Germany and France vehemently opposed the US policy towards Iraq bringing the political differences within NATO to the surface.

All these demonstrate the decline of US power and influence around the globe. Unless, the US adopts diplomatic and economic means to conduct its international affairs, sooner than later the decline is going to pick up speed and momentum. Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World will most likely provide the spark that would induce the Americans to start some soul-searching.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 7 February 2006

Iranian Nuclear Tangle

 Challenges BeforE India

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

Iran has stunned the world by refusing to compromise on its suspected civilian nuclear programme, even though the Big Five nuclear weapon powers, which are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council, threatened to take the question to the Security Council.

After the majority of member countries voted in favour of the resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)meeting in Vienna last week, to refer the Iranian nuclear question to the Security Council, Tehran adopted a confrontational stance and announced that it would now begin full-scale production of enriched uranium, would end all voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and would not allow the IAEA’s short-notice inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the Additional Protocol of the NPT.

This stance of Tehran, accompanied by its high rhetoric against the United States, Israel and the West in general, has made it difficult for countries friendly to Iran, such as India, China and Russia to take a stronger stand favourable to Iran. Germany and France, which adopted anti-US positions on the US approach to Iraq, were also prepared to assist Iran and avoid the American confrontational approach, but the Iran-EU dialogue went no where due to Iran’s intransigence and the EU-Three were also finally induced to make common cause with the United States.

India has been consistently improving its ties with Iran. Apart from its commercial and business relations, New Delhi announced a “strategic partnership” with Iran in the midst of its international isolation. The proposed gas pipeline project from Iran to India through Pakistan was given high priority considerations in India to cement Indo-Iranian cooperation. However, even New Delhi found it difficult to support Iran at the IAEA in view of its un-conciliatory attitude and offensive diplomacy.

Iran perhaps hoped that India would abstain from the IAEA voting in view of the strong pro-Iranian position of the Left parties, which support the current UPA coalition. While many Indians fail to understand the Left parties logic behind supporting Iran, it did generate expectations in Tehran. In order to make and implement an independent foreign policy, New Delhi does not have to oppose the US all the time.

But the Left appears to have drawn a line between the hegemonic US and the theocratic Iran and prefers to say and do every thing against the US, even if it would mean backing theocracy in principle.

Significantly, the Left parties have not made their position on the basis of the economic rationale, such as the gas pipeline project. The statements of Left leaders are clear that they support Iran, because the US and its allies are against Iran. It is wrongly believed that if India would have gone with the microscopic minority vote at the IAEA, it would have bolstered India’s image or served its national interests. Moreover, how can one argue, that supporting Iran would have reflected an independent foreign policy?

Having said that, India’s diplomacy will face more intricate challenges in the weeks and months to come due to its vote at the IAEA.  What is the likely future of Iran’s nuclear issue? First of all, there is still a silver-lining in the dark sky and diplomacy may ultimately triumph. Tehran has not closed all its doors to negotiations. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, said soon after the IAEA meeting that, “Adoption of the policy of resistance doesn’t mean we are on non-speaking terms or non-cooperative. We had two options. One was resistance and the other surrender. We chose resistance.”

India has an option open for playing a role in future negotiations. The Indian Ambassador in Tehran rightly remarked that India was willing to “invite Iran and the negotiation parties to dialogue.” However, this willingness will turn into wishful thinking, unless New Delhi plays a proactive role and succeeds in coordinating a new dialogue process to resolve the Iranian tangle. The challenge would be whether Iran would be willing to listen to India after its vote at the IAEA in favour of the US-backed resolution.

Secondly, there is also a possibility that punitive measures may be adopted at the UN Security Council in the future, if Tehran refuses to budge from its current position. Russia, China, France and even Britain would make it hard for the US to follow a policy of sanctions in view of their ongoing economic and commercial interests in Iran. However, if Iranian intransigence continues, such an outcome cannot be ruled out. India is not a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power. Its role and influence there would be extremely limited and indirect. But a question may arise as to whether India would support the anti-Iranian sanctions? Will not India be bound by a decision to follow the UN verdict?

The third challenge would come, if the UN Security Council fails to have a unanimous view on sanctions policy. Washington may decide to adopt unilateral sanctions against Iran, which would be stronger than the earlier Iran-Libya sanctions Act adopted by the Clinton Administration in 1996. Will India then support the US sanctions policy? If it does, the apprehensions of the Left parties that the Indian Government  is conducting its diplomacy at the behest of the US would be proved. If it does not, what will happen to India’s nuclear deal with the United States for civilian nuclear cooperation? Additionally, the whole Indian approach at the IAEA may be interpreted as a waste and a failure.

The fourth challenge would come if the Bush Administration escalates its confrontation with Iran and seeks some kind of a military solution to the whole issue. Some analysts argue against such an eventuality. They point out that Iran is not Iraq. Iran has a larger population base and deeper strategic depth. When the oil prices are skyrocketing and the Americans appear to have been stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington cannot take military action against Iran. Many Iranians will probably go along with this line of thinking. But you never know Washington, especially the Bush Administration. This Administration is a risk taker. It may not commit US troops and yet take certain military action. What will be India’s position on this? Yes, one clear position will be opposing a military approach to resolve international issues. But this will be only a position on the principle. What will New Delhi do?

There is just a little time for the foreign policy community to deliberate on such possibilities. And the considerations and discussions should begin now. ----- INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)