Modi’s Diplomacy: A New Dimension in Indian Foreign Policy

(written on 12th Oct. 2014)

In the discourses of foreign policy there is always an ample scope for new phrases and proverbs. After coming in power the BJP government at Delhi under the Prime Minister Narender Modi is on toes to inscribe Hindu cultural-cum-religious attributes to the Indian foreign engagements. One of the visible dimensions of Modi’s foreign engagements is introduction of the Hindu cultural ethos in its different modes to the Indian foreign policy.

In his first speech to the joint session of Indian parliament, after recent election of its lower house, President Pranab Mukharji while introducing the Modi’s agenda used the phrase déjà vu which implies the ‘Enlightened National Interest’ that per se is assemblage of new priorities of Modi’s government. The highlighted feature of this new phrase is India’s soft power interms of 5Ts (tradition, talent. tourism, trade and technology), that to be prioritized while dealing with the external sphere of the Indian state.

Since coming in power Modi has visited three countries- Bhutan, Nepal, Japan and his recent concluded visit of United States. One of the discernible aspects of his visits are Modi’s fluent Hindi and Temple diplomacy. Modi’s extempore Hindi speeches and his preference to Hindi language over English is sui-generis in the recent history of India’s external engagements. The one more dimension of Modi’s external engagements is ‘Vasudharia Kutumbakam’, the entire world is a family, is a spiritual and moral dimension of Modi’s foreign policy. In Japan Modi quoted that “in 21^st century knowledge is more attractive than weapons”. This ‘Modi Fied’ diplomacy is an endeavor towards a universal relevance of India’s Hindu culture and its subsequent soft power dimension in the world.      

His visit to Pashopatrinath Temple in Nepal was nicely maneuvered inorder to accentuate the Indo-Nepal cultural-cum-religious affinity. Other than some bilateral issues related to the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, more focus was on substantiating of India’s soft power in Nepal. Modi while addressing the maiden address to the constituent assembly of Nepal introduced the phrase HIT (Highways, infoways and Transmission), that shall be the priority of India while dealing with the Nepal. Moreover, Modi announced a loan of US $1 billion credit to the development of Nepal and a scholarship for Nepali students studying in India. He also talks about establishing the Aeurvedic University in the Nepal. 

 The Japan visit by Modi was full of soft power skills. He gifted his Japanese counterpart Swami Veveknanda’s book and a copy of Bhagavad Gita, which per se is quite unusual in the recent history of Indian foreign engagements. In Japan Modi while visiting the Toji Temple, UNESCO world heritage site, and Togi, eight century Buddhist pagoda said that “Buddhism reminds deep ties between Japan and India”. He while interacting with the school children at Tokyo narrated them a story of Lord Krishna. Even he played Japanese drummers. These all acts are obvious steps towards accentuating of India’s soft power and to introduce India’s cultural legacy in the domain of external dealings. The address of Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit to USA to the “rock star” gatherings in Central Park and at Madison Square Garden was per se a sue generous in the history of Indian diplomacy. Before meeting the US President he fully played his soft power cards and skills in the US. The address to the Indian American Community and his announcement about the life time visa to the NRIs    

There is no harm in building the soft power and its export to the other countries, after all, in the twenty first century soft power is more relevant and effective than traditional hard power. Joseph Nye, Howard professor, in his book ‘Future of Power’ argued that United States will dominate the world not because it has world’s largest military power but because of the fact that it is a home of facebook, google, IPod, amazon etc. what he called a smart power (a new dimension of hard power + soft power). In that direction Modi’s soft power skill is in a right direction. But there is a worrying aspect of this policy not in the external sphere but in the internal domain of the Indian state. India is world’s one of the largest diverse countries interms of religious and cultural identities. There are some visible intentions of some sections in the Modi’s government who have assimilative designs in terms of making India a Hindu Rashtra. This kind of policy can prove very divisive keeping in view the India’s plural society. Therefore, it is advisable that exporting India’s Hindu cultural dimension to its foreign policy is good but it can prove counterproductive if imposed in the internal sphere of Indian state.

Israeli’s war on Gaza: An Unabated Process

The ongoing aggression by Israel in Gaza is pure genocide, crime. Killing innocent children and women is not permitted by any religion or law. What Israel is doing in Gaza is a criminal offence, untenable and unjustifiable from any standards of ethics or law. The Israel’s government legitimizes its bombardment on Gaza on account of self defense, notwithstanding, the fact that the doctrine of self defense is permissible in situations when a sovereign state is attacked by another state. The doctrine of self defense does not arise in Israel-Palestine conflict as former illegally controls the latter. Therefore the question of self defense does not arise in this situation. What Gazans are doing is simply a resistance against the Zionist occupation. 

The war between Israel and Hamas is a war between two asymmetrical entities as there is no compatibility and comparison between the two. Israel is a nuclear power (unrecognized and illegal under international law), Israel has huge military arsenal, technology, huge navy and aerial power and full of missiles and war jets (all subsidized by US special aid) while as Palestine lack all these capabilities. Israel by their Iron Dome system neutralizes rackets (the only weapon they possess) of Hamas but Hamas has no such system at their disposal. Therefore, the Israel aggression with the latest weaponry is untenable.   

The basic issue which the Israel deliberately avoids since it came into existence as modern state is its illegal occupation of the Palestine land. Since then it has forced millions of Palestinians from their lands and has made construction for residences for Jew communities migrating from different places of world. This settlement issue is one of the basic issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict and this does also violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, a core principle of international humanitarian law, established in 1949.  The issue of settlement expansion is simply a diversion. The real issue is the existence of the settlements and related infrastructure developments. These have been carefully designed as Israel has already taken over more than 40 percent of the occupied West Bank, including suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; the arable land; and the primary water sources of the region, all on the Israeli side of the Separation Wall -- in reality an annexation wall. Since 1967, Israel has vastly expanded the borders of Jerusalem in violation of Security Council orders and despite universal international objection.

The other sensitive issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict are Israel’s withdrawal to pre 1967 borders, return of displaced people by the conflict and their rehabilitation in the occupied land and east Jerusalem as future capital of Palestine are some issues which need immediate attention. To resolve these disputes the United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 accepted Israel’s withdrawal to Pre 1967 borders, return of refugees and East Jerusalem as Palestine capital are prerequisite for the final settlement of the conflict. But on all these issues Israel has over the period of time nurtured negative perception in the world inorder to justify the status quo it has maintained in the region. It is also because of these reasons that Israel is not even ready to accept two state solution which seems viable solution to the conflict.

Other than Israel there are other factors responsible for the current atrocities on the Palestinians. The geopolitical rivalry between Iran one side and Saudi and Egypt another side has provided more leverage to the Israel occupation in the region and consequently has helped Israel to nurture and substantiate its Zionistic designs in the region. There is one narrative of present situation that Israel has a tacit understanding with Saudis and Egypt on current war on Gaza. The major powers of Europe and United States of America have different reasons to accept Israel hegemony in the region. Other than strong Jew lobby the policy of US in the region has always dominated by the oil factor. A strong Zionist regime in the West Asia is a powerful tool to dominate the richest oil region in the world.   

The greater paradox is that international community and institutions particularly UNO is just behaving as spectators of Israel aggression. One side US brought the doctrine of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Labiya, Iraq, Syria (though in all these states it was purely illegitimate intervention in a sovereign states) but other side where it is tenable it is not being used. What Palestinians are facing is biggest moral/humanitarian causality; therefore, it requires humanitarian intervention. Israel backed by US is doing as per their whims and fancies without taking consideration of any morality and international law.

In recent history the doctrine of R2P (responsibility to protect) has highly been used by the US and its western allies particularly in the west Asia and Africa. Again this doctrine has been misused by the western powers. This doctrine is premised upon three pillars: the responsibility to prevent atrocity, the responsibility to protect and intervene when atrocities are committed, and a responsibility to rebuild in the wake of intervention. In 2005 R2P was accepted to be evolved under four specific circumstances: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Israel is doing it all; therefore, on both legal and moral grounds international community has responsibility to protect the Palestinians from the Israel aggression.

The Israel’s aggression on Palestine is not new. They are doing it again and again since 1948. The recent times they bombarded Palestine in 2008-09 and again in 2012. All the time they justified it from self defense point of view. All the times there were ceasefire with promise of genuine dialogue and resolution of all the issues, on the part of West and UNO but all the times nothing yielded accept more horrific deaths of innocent Palestinians. Therefore, one should not expect that something new will happen this time as there is no one who are ready to address the basic questions on Israel-Palestine conflict neither Israeli’s nor Western dominated international organizations. Until the basic issues would not be addressed the wars in this region will happen again and again.        

US-Iran Thaw: A New Geopolitics in the Middle-East

US-Iran Thaw: A New Geopolitics in the Middle-East

In the international politics there is no permanent friend or enemy, what is permanent is national interest. The same can be ascertained from the United States’ policies in the Middle East particularly vis-a-viz Iran. Washington has always wrongly meddled in the Tehran’s internal affairs and in its surroundings. But from last few months, particularly after rise of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) in Iraq, Tehran-Washington have found new identical grounds for mutual cooperation.

After the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, which changed the Washington nurtured status quo in the Persian Gulf, the baseline of US foreign policy in the oil rich Middle East has been evolved   around anti Iranian policies and amity with Saudi Arabia. The Washington-Tehran animosity has deep roots and the events in the post second world war viz. CIA with British intelligence move that toppled the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and latter US reinstalled the Shah-Reza Pahlavi as Iranian head of state have laid basis of present animosity. Mr. Mossadegh had earlier intended to nationalize the Iranian oil which was against western oil interests in the Middle East. This made west to think about the toppling of his government in Tehran.

 Iraq which was backed by US invaded Iran in 1980 that casted about one million deaths. Iran has supported the militant muslim groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and has tacit understanding with the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East region. These militant groups are fundamentally anti Israel and anti US in the region. Iran’s support to these groups caused ex US president Bush to label Iran as ‘axis of evil’ in 2002. The former president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made certain rough policies against Israel and some severe statements against the Bush administration in Washington by calling Bush as ‘great satan on earth’ made significant strains in the Iran-US bilateral relations. The settlement of Arab-Israel conflict also largely depends on Iran, which has a supportive understanding with the anti Israel groups in the region. The main objective of US strategies in the region was to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region for which Saudi’s alignment was necessary. 

Nuclear issue is the latest irritant in Iran-US relations. Iran is signatory to NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) and as per the provisions of the treaty Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear programme. That is what Tehran is adamant on its perusal of peaceful nuclear     programme which she is rightly to do as per the provisions of NPT treaty. But the western states headed by the US do not agree on what Iran says about its nuclear programme. The US blame Iran that Tehran is enriching its uranium production in order to convert it into nuclear bomb which Iran has denied since its inception. The US is apprehensive about the security in the Middle East and particularly about Israel security. They believe that if Iran gets bomb it will be an annihilating threat to Israel existence and it will destabilize the balance of power in the region. But there is counter argument by Kenneth Waltz, an eminent scholar of international relations, that if Iran gets bomb it will stabilize the middle east region than destabilize, he made this argument in his article ‘why Iran wants to get bomb’ published in foreign Affairs. There is a paradoxical situation in the region. Israel is not signatory to NPT and it is a nuclear weaponry state while as Iran is signatory to this treaty but it is being denied even to pursue peaceful nuclear programme.

The nuclear negotiation of P+5 (five permanent members of Security Council and Germany) with Iran on the nuclear issue is likely to get breakthrough by 20^th of this month at Vienna. The prospects of the breakthrough have recently been much visible as the problems in Iraq and Syria exacerbated. The annexation of Crimea by Russia have turned the US geopolitical policies in different direction in the Middle East and in its beyond. Iran can be very prospective alley in handling the ongoing crisis in the Afghanistan and Iraq-Syria region.

The crisis in the Iraq poses a critical challenge to the present geopolitical landscape of the Middle East region. The resurgence of ISIL is not only because of Noor-Al-Maliki’s sectarian policies in the Iraq but it is an intended exercise to change the modern structure of the region on pre Sykes-Picot agreement. The Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 divided the Arab world into French and British domain which was earlier the domain of Ottoman Empire and laid the basis of modern geopolitical landscape of the Middle East region.

The present Iraqi president Maliki has not been able to accommodate the Sunni sects in the Iraq after taking the charge of Iraqi government in Baghdad. But there is another side of the coin that the tribal groups in the region are not familiar and accommodative to the principles of the modern western democracy. The American project to democratize the region is backfiring as it is in principle against the basic code of Islam. It is not new to the region that ISIL is trying to bring caliphate in the region it has roots in the activism of Syed Qutub and Jalalu-Din-Afghani who were vehement critiques to the western liberal democracy in the early decades of twentieth century.

The Saudi-Iran competition in the region is one more reason of the present situation in the Middle East. The relation between Saudi and Iran has gone through many phases from strategic alliance in pre Iranian revolution to cold war in the post Iranian revolution. The Saudi represents Arab world while as Iran represents Persian and both accuse each other for nurturing their dominance in the region. Saudi which represents the sunni sect believe that Iran is trying to export its revolution in the other parts of the region which goes against its core interest as it may lead towards Shiite dominance in the region. The United States is using this sectarian and ethnic card to maneuver its interest in the oil rich region which the Arab and Persian world have failed to understand.

Now the reapproachment between Tehran and Washington is threatening Saudi as they have been very close to the latter for last many decades. The current ongoing negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme is likely to get breakthrough is not good for Riyadh as it may end the sanctions on the Iran and also boost the US-Iran bilateral relations whose signs are already emerging after great Britain has announced to reopen its embassy in the Tehran.

This new phase in the Iran-US relation may bring more destabilization in the region as Saudis may not be fit in the Iranian based geopolitical presentation. There is possibility of joint Iran-US action in Iraq against the ISIS and may deepen their cooperation beyond the Iraq border or US may use only Iran militarily to stop the resurgence of ISIL as President Obama in his recent address on foreign policy at West Point Military Academy did pointed out that US itself will not indulge in any unilateral military strike beyond its borders.

The US will now use Tehran to bring some kind of stability as Tehran is more relevant than Saudi in the present situation in the Middle East region and in its beyond. But the point which perhaps Riyadh and Tehran do not comprehend that US is doing things for the sake of its own national interest not for the sake of the region. Therefore, one should not expect that the current situation in the Middle east region will be normal after realignment of Iran and US but, the situation may get more worsened if US does not end its interference in the region and Tehran-Riyadh do not accommodate each other.            

         

Modern Conflicts: The Question of Contesting Values

Modern Conflicts: The Question of Contesting Values

The prevalent dominance of the West and its associated oppression will only lead to resistance

DOMINANCE

SmallerDefaultLarger

There are many narratives of modern conflicts prevalent in today’s world. A book “A Century of War: Anglo-American oil politics and the new world order” by William Engdahl, first published in 1992, does speak about the Anglo-American policies and strategies in the world and how natural resources like oil dominates in that domain. While laying the foundation for the creation of Jewish Zionist state (Modern Israel) in the lands of Palestinians, Arthur Balfour convinced the Anglo strategist about the fact that to substantiate the project of the ‘British Great Games’, it is essential to create the Zionist state as its geographical location is strategically imperative and it will secure and ensure grip on the ‘Arab petroleum lands of Ottoman Turkey’.
To understand the larger picture of conflicts in the West Asia, the ‘resource based wars’ narrative can provide better comprehension. The Gulf War, the war in Iraq, Libya and in Afghanistan are basically the projections of military-industrial landlords who by such kind of tactics are able to access the resources available in these regions without any kind of counter resistance. There might have been some problem with the Saddam Hussain in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya vis-à-vis their approach towards the people in their respective states, but to the West and the USA their elimination had different reasons as they were becoming obstacles in their perusal of national interest in the region. The problem with Afghanistan is its geographical location as it can provide easy access to world’s two largest resource rich regions of West Asia and the Central Asia. This is the reason that every big power now and then has wished to control it.
One of the highlighting points in the Philippe Le Billion’s book “Wars of plunder: conflicts, profits and the politics of resources” published in 2012 is about why conflicts are so prevalent in resources abundant areas in the world? The resource wars on oil, timber, hydrocarbons, minerals, water so on and so forth are dominant forces in the genesis of modern conflicts in the world. The conflict in Colombia, a state in South America and Sudan in Africa, are better exemplifications to understand the nature of modern conflicts in the world. The USA government supported its counterpart in Colombia against FARC rebels, guerilla fighters, just to maneuver its strategies on the Colombian resources. The conflict in Sudan between its north and south is also based on the sharing and controlling the oil assets and regions.
The wars in former Yugoslav, Ukraine, and Bosnia are fundamentally resource based. The Caspian oil and its transportation via Black Sea to the mainland Europe was a broader imperative of Clinton Administration in the US to intervene in the Bosnian conflict. The US-Russia ‘New Cold War’ in the Eastern Europe can also be looked from the point of ‘resources based wars’. Even when we look at the South Asia, particularly India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka for that matter of fact, one gets the impression that resources unevenly distributed in the region, not only is the reason of inter-state conflicts but also a fundamental cause of intra-state conflicts. The problem in the North-East of India is about the extraction of resources and its subsequent distribution in the form of its related benefits, as has been beautifully articulated in the book ‘Broken Republic’ by Arundhati Roy. The problem in the Baluchistan of Pakistan can also be put in the same context.
Contesting Values
Once we look at the conflicts, whether in the West Asia, Africa or Afghanistan, other than the resources ‘values’, are also one of the reasons of these conflicts. The Western dominated world particularly in the post world war 2nd period tried to export its values such as democracy, pluralism, freedom and liberal economy to the different parts of the world particularly in the rich resource regions. The ‘Project for the New American Century’, a policy paper issued by influential American think tank in the year 2000, dealt with the policies and strategies to be perused in order to shape the future world as per the American principles and interests (William Engdahl). This policy paper remains the guiding principle to the Bush administration post 9/11 in the United States. It was a dream about the Americanization of the world.
The values were not easily acceptable to different civilizations, particularly to the Muslim world, as there is an inherent contradiction in these values vis-à-vis the values of Muslims, which per se is based on single unified code of Islamic shariat. Pankaj Mishra in his book “From the Ruins of Empire: the revolt against west and the remaking of Asia” published in 2012 has beautifully quoted three eminent intellectuals – Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Liang Qichao and Rabindranath Tagore, who were not pleased to the western ideals and had vehemently criticized their designs in the world. The intellectuals believe that the ‘poison that Europe had pushed down in the other parts of the world has severely impaired its own forever, and Western states were not meant for showing light, which they claim, but to set fire’. This is what US and Europe has done or doing in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and in many parts of the world.
The resistance to the western values, which now is seeming becoming larger, be it Al-Qaida or ISIL or guerilla fighters in South America and Africa or the Confucianism in the China, though can be contextualized in different senses, but the prevalent dominance of west over the rest and its associated oppression is an immediate reason d’être of this resistance. The current radicalism in the West Asia is not a new phenomenon; its roots can be ascertained from the intellectualism of Sayyid Qutb. Sayyid Qutub, an ideologue of ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ and writer of influential book ‘Milestones’, had been a severe critique of western liberalism and its associated values. The Qutb believe that ‘democracy made human beings the final source of sovereignty, rather than god’. He believes that American individualism is basically nurtures ‘sexual freedom’ and ‘animal hunger’. Therefore, the premise of modern antagonism against the west is fundamentally against the western values. The book “World at War: the 2500 Year struggle between East and West” by Anthony Pagden published in 2008 does also reflect the historical discourse and the narratives of ‘value based disagreements and conflicts’ in the world.
Therefore the conflicts prevalent in the modern world cannot be resolved until and unless US-West dominated world does not stop to intervene in other societies and stops its propaganda of emancipation of the non-liberal and non-democratic societies in the world.

Assertive BRICS: Will they be able to establish New World Order? Assertive BRICS: Will they be able to establish New World Order?

Younes Bhat
The sixth BRICS (Grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit at Fortaleza, Brazil unveiled its New Development Bank, which sue generis is an important landmark in the evolution of ‘New World Order’ as this new development may lead towards the culmination of current world order based on ‘Washington Consensus’ which per se is based on US hegemony and dominance in the political and economic landscape of the world.
The sixth BRICS summit from 14th to 16th July 2014 produced ‘Fortaleza Declaration’ that announced the agreement to establish the New Development Bank for infrastructure and sustainable development in BRICS and other developing economies in the world. The initial capital of the bank shall be of US$100 billion with initial subscribed capital of US$50 billion to be equally shared by its founding members. The declaration also announced to put in place BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with initial size of US$ 100 billion to forestall liquidity pressures in the near future. It was also announced that headquarter of the bank shall be at Shanghai, China and it first president shall be from India. The noteworthy point about the new bank is that voting share shall be equal irrespective of contribution to the bank which will differentiate it from the Britton Woods Institutes. It is also declared that the business shall be in domestic currencies rather in US dollar.
The BRICS which was earlier BRIC as South Africa joined lately in 2011 to this grouping is an acronym invented by Jim O’Neill, chief global economist at Goldman Sachs in 2001 to describe the most emerging economies in the world. The first official summit of this grouping was held at Yekaterinburg, Russia in 2009. The main raison d’être of its formation was to promote a fairer world order and to influence international economic and financial policies.
The world in post Second World War era is predominantly dominated by the western countries headed by the United States of America not only in the political sphere but in economic sphere as well. The modern International Political Economy established by the Britton Woods Conferences in 1944 has been structured and evolved in the interest of western countries as it were these countries who laid its foundation. After the recent recession of world economy in 2008 which originated in the US banking sector (the recession first started in two US banks Marylinch and Lehman brothers because of their faulty premises in their prime lending policies), engulfed the highly connected global economy particularly European countries, since then the Britton Woods based world political economy has been questioned particularly from BRICS countries.
The questioning on modern structure of political (United Nations Organization) and Financial (IMF &WB) institutions by the BRICS countries is justifiable on many accounts and indices which does reflect the contemporary realities. The BRICS countries represent worlds 43 percent population, 18 percent of global trade and attract 53 percent of global financial capital. There is one forecast that BRICS countries aggregate GDP will exceed that of G7 (group of seven industrialist developed countries) countries, which currently dominate the world order, by 2027. Therefore, the new development bank unfolded by the sixth BRICS summit is in right direction as it will provide the right place to the countries that deserve to be at higher echelons of international decision making.
The prospects of the BRICS New Development Bank shall be determined by more intra BRICS cooperation rather than political-cum-financial architecture of the world. There is no doubt that the G7 will not be pleased by this new development as no one like to see that someone else will take its chair which it has occupied since long. The problem with BRICS is that it is more heterogeneous than homogeneous on many accounts as compared to G7. Unlike G7 all BRICS countries are not democracies as China and Russia are communist states, BRICS states are not close allies as the G7 are and unlike G7 all BRICS states are not symmetrically economic developed as there is an asymmetry in their economies. China is more vibrant and powerful among all within BRICS both in political as well as in economic domain. Therefore, there is an apprehension that this new initiative shall be China centered. Moreover, within the BRICS there are two permanent members of UN Security Council viz China and Russia and the rest three in the grouping are aspirants of the same.
One more irritant in the grouping is bilateral relations particularly of India and China. One narrative believes that the Sino-India bilateral relations shall be having veto over the success of the BRICS new initiative. The bilateral disputes between China and India will definitely play its role in the future prospects of the BRICS cooperation. There are already some circles within Indian state who are unhappy about NEW Development Bank headquarter at Shanghai. But one should not be too pessimistic about their bilateral relations. The problem with developing countries is that we least theorize about the future world. We more believe or accept what west propagates. There are some positive signs emerging from Indo-China bilateral meeting on the sidelines of sixth BRICS summit at Brazil. The Chinese President has invited Indian Prime Minister to attend the upcoming meeting of APEC. Therefore, both India and China should not be trapped in the western conspiracies and should look forward for their prospective bilateral relations.
The bigger question is now that will BRICS succeed to replace the western dominated world order? Will they be able to make this new initiative successful and lead the foundation of New World Order based on equity and sustainable development? All this depend on how BRICS countries will play the new initiatives and how they will overcome asymmetries lying within the grouping.

       

Indo-US relations: It is estrangement again

Katherine Mayo, one of the influential American writers, wrote a scathing criticism to the Indian society and state in her book ‘Mother India’. The book nurtured a negative approach in United States and on its policies towards India in its early post-independent era. The book underlines a pathetic situation of Indian society and its state politics. It further underlined that India is caste ridden society which is ruled by poverty and ignorance. One of the fundamental arguments which the book proposes was that India should focus on its survival than to dream about great power.
Indo-US relations in early years of Indian independence was mostly shadowed by (other than ‘Mother India’), the cold war obsession, Nehru’s socialist approach and its inclination towards former Soviet Union, the NAM ideology and US’s geostrategic designs, in which Pakistan was more significant over India as the former was rightly situated between the worlds two inevitable regions viz. Middle east and the Central Asia.
On naming the US Ambassador to India, President Harry Truman had said ‘I thought India was pretty jammed with poor people and cows round streets, with doctors and people sitting on hot coals and bathing in the Ganges” (Shashi Tharoor: Pax Indica). This was the earlier attitude of US towards India. India was not on cards viz-a-viz US strategies in the Asia were concerned. The India was defined as a great power in civilizational terms (beautifully narrated by Jaswant Singh in his book Defending India) which was looking for achieving that status.
It is a well known fact that before colonial period it does contribute 23 percent of world’s GDP. Therefore, what India was looking to achieve was not irrational. India since its independence was looking to be recognized as a great power which is oftenly defined from civilizational terms. But it has never been able to make that. Some analysts believe that one of the reasons of India’s nuclear bomb was to make that recognition.
After the fall of Soviet Union things dramatically changed in the bilateral Indo-US relations. One of the reasons why US changed its policies in post Cold War period was India’s economic liberalization. It is a well known fact that US is good with business as the policies in Washington are mainly constructed from the prism of liberal neocons.  The Indo-US bilateral engagements from last two decades are highly accelerated which are least identifiable in other bilateral relation in the world. The elephant started dancing for US only after India started its economic liberalization. The LPG (liberalization, privatization and globalization) approach pleased the American’s as business is always prominent attraction to please US. Since then things have gone quickly in the bilateral relation.
The Kargil War gave a last flip to the Indo-US relations. The US condemned the Pakistan on Kargil issue and this lead subsequent successful visit of US then President Bill Clinton to India in 2000. This visit of US president opened the closed gates in the bilateral relations.
After the Bill Clinton the Indo-US relations heralded during the tenure of G. Bush presidency.  Mr. Bush resolved in 2001, after assuming the office, that the character of Indo-US bilateral relationship will be altered in most fundamental manner. He made a lofty point that India and US are two ‘natural allies’. The main attributes of ‘natural allies’ were shared values of pluralism, democracy and toleration.
In 2001 Bush-Atal Bihari Vajpayee meeting signed Next Step in Strategic Partnership on four important areas viz. civil nuclear energy, space programme, missile defense and trade. The strategic partnership gave a new direction to the bilateral relations. The next biggest milestone in the bilateral relations was Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement signed by Indian Prime Minister Dr. Singh and US President George Bush in 2005.
The Bush-Singh period was golden era in the Indo-US relations. The chemistry between the US president and Indian prime minister was one of the reasons of accentuated bilateral developments from strategic partnership to nuclear agreement in 2005. During the Presidency of Mr. Bush, the Indo-US bilateral relation was one of the basic priorities of Bush administration. “India needs to realize great power status”, was main argument lurking in the bilateral negotiations.
In 21st century the Indo-US relation has been defined by two popular American strategic analysts-George Perkovich and Ashley Tellis, both are associated with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington. George Perkovich, author of India’s Nuclear Bomb, while contemplating on the issue that why Washington should help India to be a great power? What India can reciprocate? He argued that India is least capable to help US for its strategic designs in the 21st century. Therefore, there are fewer prospects for bilateral engagements. On the other side Ashley Tellis, author of India: As A New Global Power, believe that it is in the interest of US to help India in becoming a global power. The fundamental reason to Tellis is that India is capable to balance the other powers in the Asia Pacific region. India is leading state in the Indian Ocean Rim and with US they can ensure the security of worlds main sea routes like Palk Street, Gulf of Mannar and broadly a Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean and as balancer Chinese Middle kingdom.
After the Bush era a honeymoon period in the bilateral relations has gone. The incumbent President of US Barak Hussain Obama has begun his Priorities with nuclear non-proliferation. He gave a famous speech at Prague which won Noble Prize for him; instead of this fact that it was all rhetoric and nothing substantial has been achieved on that account. There have been least developments in the bilateral relations during the incumbent Obama administration.
The Asia pivot-a new grand strategy of US in Asia pacific region commenced in 2008 and was seriously propagated by the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. There are many dimensions of this new strategic US policy but in its perusal India is lynchpin. One of the main targets of this US policy is dragon-the China. John Mearsheimer, the prominent scholar of realist school in international relation, underlined that ‘china rise will not be peaceful’. China’s territorial ambitions in the South and East China seas are nothing but a sort of camouflage to realize the Chinese middle kingdom. China is a prominent threat to US unilateral power in the immediate future. To balance this threat US can rely on India as it is prospective and capable in that domain.
Some recent episodes have made bilateral relation quite miserable. It was actually the Indian Nuclear Liability Bill which infuriated US policy makers as they were expecting big business deals from the bilateral nuclear agreement. We have seen how India succumbed to US pressure on earlier occasions particularly on Iranian nuclear issue. But, after the Devyani Khobragade strip search affair in US (a pure racist behavior and this is how they feel about the ‘orient’), things have substantially changed. India has not supported recent resolution brought by US and its European allies in United Nations Human Rights Council on Tamil issue in Srilanka. The next refusal to US policy was India’s silent move to favor its all weather friend Russia on annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. It remains to be seen that how the Indo-US bilateral relations will move in the coming days. But one thing is clear that dance between the Elephant and the Eagle won’t be so easy.

Crimea’s secession A New Dawn or Soviet Reemergence? HORIZONS

Crimea’s secession

A New Dawn or Soviet Reemergence?

HORIZONS

SmallerDefaultLarger

The Crimea’s secession from the Ukraine has posed many questions to the international intelligentsia. The immediate question may be that what does it signify and what can be its implications beyond the borders of Ukraine? Does it vindicate one more sign of United States downfall in the geo-strategic domain of the world? Or is it simply a resurgence of Soviet Union in a different paradigm.
The Ukraine had been ruled for long time by the Polish in its western parts and Russia from its eastern parts almost up to the 19th century.  The very existence of Ukraine as a unified state has been contested throughout its modern history, as shown by the treaty of Riga in 1921 dismantling the country, and the prospective united Ukraine was only felt in 19th century.
In 1954 Crimea was gifted by Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev to the Ukraine and up to the breakdown of Soviet Union in 1991 Ukraine per se was also part of Soviet Union. After the collapse of former Soviet Union Ukraine got independence like other states which were part of the Soviet Union. Notwithstanding, the fact that Crimea was earlier gifted but in 1991 it was more because of US involvement and its geo-strategic calculations that Crimea became part of Ukraine. 
The Crimea and the whole eastern side of the Ukraine are ethnically, culturally more Russian than Ukranian. Majority of its people (about 59%) speak Russian language and rely more on Russia for their development. Russia is providing the cheap energy to the Ukraine and has helped it economically as well. That is one of the reasons that eastern Ukraine is accepting the Russian influence in the Ukraine.
On the other side the western Ukraine which is more inclined to the West particularly to the European Union has opposed its pro Russian President Victor Yanukovich. The people in the western Ukraine are ethnically and culturally Europeanized and are supporters of western based liberal economy.
The present crisis in Ukraine started over the issue of free trade agreement with the European  Union. The opposition in Ukraine mainly based in its western part was eager to sign the trade deal with the European Union and were asking closer ties with its western neighbors. But the government of pro Russian leader Victor Yanukovich was not in favour to sign the deal with EU (may be because of Russian pressure), rather it was more inclined towards the Russian Custom Union Deal.
The two opposite fronts were not ready to compromise on their respective stands which ultimately made pro western section to come on Kiev streets and oppose their leader.  This is the intra raison d’être of the present crisis.
The reason without is the new cold war between United States and Russia. Despite the fact that the old cold war cannot be revived simply because of the reason that Russia is no more Soviet Union and is not that much powerful as it used to be during the cold war days. But, there is some sort of emerging scenario which portrays same kind of cold war situation.
The Russian narrative of the Kievian crisis is based on their apprehensions about the people who are actually instigating the present crisis. Moscow believe that people who support the opposition in Kiev are the same who were supporters of Orange Revolution in 2004. The revolution was moving Ukraine in the western camp of NATO. Russia considers any kind of NATO’s movement in Eastern Europe as direct threat to the Russian influence. This is paradox of ‘milean islands” of ancient Greece. Russia believes any kind of US involvement or interference in the Eastern Europe as a threat and encirclement of Russia.
Some commentators in Russia believe that the current battle in the Crimean region of Ukraine is against the unilateralism and uni-polarism of United States. Russia is apprehensive about the policies of United States in the Eastern Europe as it believes that the opposition to pro-Russian leader Victor Yanukovich was actually to squeeze Russia and close its access to Caucasus and Mediterranean region. It is a well known fact that Russia plays its energy card so for its interest and grip on the Eastern Europe is concerned. Russia cannot deliver its energy resources to the European States without the transit or supply routes, for which Black sea is very important. Crimea is the region which can ensure and secure the supply routes for Russia to the rest of Europe.
There is one more Russian narrative of present crisis. Russia believes that US and NATO interference in the Ukraine was actually to come very close to the Russian borders and make Ukraine a launching pad against Russia in the future.
Notwithstanding the fact that Russia has a greater geo-strategic designs in the Eastern Europe. Moscow under the Putin’s administration has started the project of reviving the old Russian controlled zone and earlier we have seen what Russia did in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia after US backed independence of Kosovo in 2008. Moscow under its president Vladimir Putin has accelerated the project of Eurasian Custom Union which United States and its European partners believe is nothing but some kind Eurasian Economic Union.    
Now the million dollar question. Can this be applied/permitted in other areas of the world. We know there are many regions in the world where majority of people are against the status quo and are not happy under the present regimes. We know what is happening in Palestine, Chechenia, Kashmir etc. Can these regions get opportunity to realize their free future or it is simply a big power show which actually sees a light of day. The time will tell us can Russia limit itself to the Crimea or it will move beyond it. What will be its impact on the other regions of the world? Can it leave an example to the regions that are under occupation or it will simply be limited to the influence of big powers.