Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Travelling with the John McCain presidency

What does not belong to you is often easy to offer. While reading the seminal foreign policy speech by the Republican Party nominee in the United States presidential election, Senator John McCain, at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on February 26, a 45-year-old scene from David Lean’s classic film Lawrence of Arabia stealthily rose from the attic of my memory.

Auda abu Tayi, leader of the Howeitat tribe of Bedouin Arabs during the so-called Great Arab Revolt in the First World War, finds only Turkish paper money while looting the Aqaba prison — and not a “box of gold,” as Lawrence assured — whereupon he becomes furious. Sensing trouble, Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) famously writes a promissory note, pledging on behalf of the Crown of England 5000 gold guineas to the volatile Bedouin chief for his help in wresting control of the Ottoman garrison town.

Even the wily Auda (Anthony Quinn), whom Lawrence in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom describes as the “greatest fighting man in northern Arabia,” is taken in by the Englishman’s pompous pledge. Equally, many in our strategic community (and, indeed, our corporate media) could be perfectly willing to heed the pledge by Senator McCain that if he became President, he would have Russia replaced in the G-8 by India.

With the decline of the U.S. economy, Washington’s capacity to fulfil such a pledge is getting unclear. But then the shrewd politician was only metaphorically speaking. He was labouring the point that the U.S.’ alliance system under his stewardship would have “a new global contract — a League of Democracies.”

This may sound ominously like recycled neoconservatism. But anyone who thought that the neocon dogma would be gone with the George W. Bush presidency will get a surprise on reading Senator McCain’s speech. Neoconservatism forms the centrepiece of his foreign policy agenda. Senator McCain and the neocons go back a long way. In the 2000 elections, neocon flag carriers such as Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard lionised him. The prominent Washington columnist, Jim Lobe, who specialises on the exotic breed of neocons, says they are flocking to Senator McCain, with the elimination of both Rudi Giuliani and Fred Thompson from the presidential race.

Mr. Lobe wrote, “The neocons admire McCain’s generally hawkish — not to say, militarist — views, particularly with respect to Iraq, even as they may disagree with him about trifles like what constitutes torture. And even if he didn’t become a charter member of the Project for the New American Century, he embodies in many ways, whatever it was that Kristol and [Robert] Kagan meant when they were writing about ‘national greatness’ in 1996 … McCain’s little ditty about ‘bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran’ — not to mention his willingness to maintain U.S. troops in Iraq for decades, if not centuries — must also appeal to the neo-cons’ neo-imperial agenda.”

How does Senator McCain’s vision of the U.S. role in the international system look? The LA speech brought out several templates. Quintessentially, it was a paean to America’s mission to “raise the world to a new standard of existence.” Senator McCain passionately compared his role with that of Harry Truman, whose purpose was to contain communism and “build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide a safe passage through the Cold War.” He underlined, “The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman’s day.”

In this messianic journey, he counts on India to travel with him. He names India among the democracies that form the U.S.’ natural allies — along with European countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil. He makes it clear that this alliance will weigh against Russia and China. Of course, an alliance system is a tactical necessity, since in today’s world, “power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed [and] the U.S. cannot lead by virtue of its power alone.”

He pays detailed attention to the Asia-Pacific region, since “power in the world today is moving east.” Unsurprisingly, Japan remains the key country in the U.S.’ Asian strategy, given the reality that “dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American President.” However, the U.S. and China are “not destined to be adversaries,” provided Beijing cooperates — on Washington’s terms, of course — by becoming “transparent” about its military build-up, harmonising with the U.S. on regional problems such as Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe; and not blocking the U.S.’ entry into Asian regional forums.

But whatever strategic adjustments it is willing to make, China will still stand excluded from the U.S.’ alliance system unless it moves towards political liberalisation. In short, he makes it abundantly clear that the U.S. alliance system essentially aims at isolating Russia and China. “If you look at the great arc that extends from the Middle East through Central Asia and the Asian subcontinent all the way to Southeast Asia, you can see those pillars of democracy stretching across the entire expanse, from Turkey and Israel to India and Indonesia,” he pointed out.

In comparison with China, Senator McCain trains his guns on “the dangers posed by revanchist Russia,” which exercises “nuclear blackmail” and should be excluded from the G-8. He dwells on the criticality of an invigorated North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to counter Russian power. He implies that the main goal of a strong NATO “from the Baltic to the Black Sea” will be to weaken Russia. Interestingly, he holds out that for deterring Russia, he would not even hesitate to become friends with Beijing. The bottom line is, under his presidency, Washington will ratchet up tensions with Moscow. This is not fundamentally at variance with the policy pursued by successive U.S. administrations during the post-Soviet period — Russia as a nuclear rival in the immediate term with China figuring as a medium-term challenge to the U.S. global hegemony.

In the Middle East policy, Senator McCain’s empathy with President Bush’s approach becomes strikingly apparent. He harps on “radical Islamic terrorism” as the threat “transcending all others” in the U.S. foreign policy in the contemporary era. Clearly, he regards Israel’s security and regional dominance as the raison d’etre of the U.S. Middle East policy. Senator McCain has adopted Mr. Bush’s democracy project in the Middle East, complete with its doublespeak. “We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocracies is the safest bet … [However] we must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable or in our interests.” He robustly supports Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, stressing that it will be “an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation” to contemplate a “reckless, irresponsible, and premature” U.S. withdrawal. Senator McCain doesn’t show his hand on Iran. Presumably, being a “realistic idealist,” as he calls himself, he leaves the door open for engaging Iran.

A McCain presidency is increasingly seen as a probability. So, what does his foreign policy agenda signify for India? What stands out is his faith in India as the U.S.’ natural ally. He doesn’t doubt for a moment that India may look at the world of tomorrow differently. No doubt, New Delhi could expect great continuity in the U.S. regional policies in a McCain presidency. Senator McCain will be equally devoted to consummating the 123 agreement on nuclear cooperation. He will strive to boost military ties, especially in fostering ‘inter-operability’ between the two armed forces.

In foreign policy, New Delhi will be hard pressed to pursue an independent line. The U.S. will expect India to play an indirect role in its strategy of containing a resurgent Russia. New Delhi will not allow itself to be at odds with Moscow, but beneath that threshold, the atrophying of India’s traditional strategic understanding with Russia itself goes a long way in furthering the U.S. objectives. Similarly, Washington visualises that India can be profoundly helpful in pressuring China. Needless to say, Washington will discourage New Delhi from committing itself to the Russia-China-India trilateral format.

India’s geographical location and growing profile as a maritime power make it a highly attractive partner in the U.S. strategies in the Asian, Persian Gulf and African regions. Most important, the U.S. will be according India the status of a “pivotal state,” comparable to Turkey or Israel. It will continue to encourage strategic coordination amongst the three “pivotal states.” The U.S. alliance system envisages the “pivotal states” working in tandem with the NATO. Thus, a McCain presidency will push for India’s formal links with the NATO and with the U.S. missile defence system in particular.

Senator McCain underscored a possible G-8 membership for India. But he should at the very least have promised us membership of the United Nations Security Council. Lawrence gave Auda something to dream about till he died. He promised Aura that like Moses he would cross the Sinai in 10 days and return from Cairo with 5000 gold guineas.

(The writer is a former ambassador belonging to the Indian Foreign Service.)

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

Stories in this Section

Unity of purpose
Mitigating emissions in cities
Travelling with the John McCain presidency
Post-election crisis: Kenya cannot solve it alone
Warning on drugs for Alzheimer’s patients in nursing homes
Corrections and clarifications
Transition time: the past is over, only the future counts
Bedouin pushed out of Negev desert
On Salwa Judum
Injudicious
Senior citizens
Clarification

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu