The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : A damage-control exercise

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jul 07, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

A damage-control exercise

Amit Baruah

Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee tries to address fears about the implications of the June 28 defence deal with the U.S.

DEFENCE MINISTER Pranab Mukherjee has taken a welcome step back. Following public criticism of the "defence framework" signed by India and the United States, he told presspersons on Tuesday that the framework was not a "pact" or "treaty."

And, in one stroke, Mr. Mukherjee repudiated one of the central elements of the "defence framework" he signed with U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on June 28 in Arlington, Virginia.

Mr. Mukherjee declared that India was not about to accept a missile defence shield from anyone when asked what kind of "briefings" and "discussions" the Americans were providing in an area which has the capability of fundamentally shifting India's strategic equations.

However, the framework (4 H) itself holds that India and the U.S. will expand collaboration relating to missile defence. Interestingly, Mr. Mukherjee spoke about the need to fill critical gaps in India's missile programme.

No accident

It is not an accident that the defence framework was signed weeks ahead of the scheduled meeting of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington on July 18.

With the Americans indicating that a decision on extending support for India's case for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat was to be taken by Mr. Bush, the defence framework appears to be part of the quid pro quo offered by the Government of India. It has long been known that the U.S. has its eyes on the capabilities and personnel of the Indian Army. Undeterred by the final "no" from New Delhi to sending troops to Iraq in 2003, Washington believes that in the long term India can play the role of regional policeman.

The framework only reveals again the American interest in collaborating in "multinational operations" (4 B) when it is in the common interest of the two sides. Also, it commits the two sides to assist in building worldwide capacity (4 J) to conduct successful peacekeeping operations.

Nowhere is there a reference to the U.N. in the defence framework or the fact that India is already one of the largest troop contributors to U.N. peacekeeping operations along with countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. What is the multinational operation that India wants to participate in outside the mandate of the U.N.?

If at all there is to be any capacity building, India can and must do it under the auspices of the U.N. The American definition of "multinational", as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq, does not necessarily include sanction from the U.N. Security Council.

Given the continuing unilateralist trends in American foreign policy, it is very much in the realm of the possible that its next "multinational" operation would again be without the sanction of the Security Council. By committing to the June 28 framework, the U.S. can now legitimately point to India's promise contained in the defence framework.

For instance, one of the key focus areas of the "neocons" in the U.S. remains Iran and its nuclear programme. If the U.S. assembles an Iraq-type coalition of the willing for Iran, will India take a position against a friendly country that has been central to tackling the Taliban and is a key energy partner for India?

At his press interaction, Mr. Mukherjee was at pains to emphasise that documents signed between two countries could only deal with points of agreement, not points of disagreement.

However, there is a need to be realistic when it comes to building good relations with the U.S. India has no reason to turn away from having good relations with the U.S., but at the same time, it has no reason to subscribe to the American agenda without reservation.

The Congress, the leading element of the United Progressive Alliance, also needs to appreciate that it is, finally, only the largest party in the UPA — it has no absolute majority that permits it to run a foreign policy only of its own choice.

The UPA's common minimum programme commits the Government to pursue an independent foreign policy keeping in mind past traditions. "The policy will seek to promote multipolarity in world relations and oppose all attempts at unilateralism."

Guideline for ties with U.S.

And, most important, the CMP has a guideline for building good relations with the U.S. "Even as it pursues closer engagement and relations with the USA, the UPA Government will maintain the independence of India's foreign policy position on all regional and global issues." Does the June 28 defence framework conform to this paradigm? Clearly, it does not. Such a framework also goes against the grain of foreign policy initiatives such as the Russia-China-India trilateral initiative as well as the India-Brazil-South Africa forum. In the long term, lip service to multilateralism will be exposed for what it is: lip service.

Mr. Mukherjee has tried to limit some of the damage caused by the fallout of the June 28 framework. As the time approaches for Dr. Singh's Washington visit, India needs to be cautious about its overall approach to the U.S.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

No time for partisan calculations

The real challenge for Mr. Karunakaran

Conscience, the defence against corruption

A befitting reply to the Ayodhya outrage

A damage-control exercise

To contain the spread of bird flu virus

Bal Thackeray plays a familiar tune

The challenge of saving India's tigers