Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India The South Asian Maldives Nepal Pakistan Srilanka

February 11, 2006
US, India, Energy Policy, Foreign Policy

Ghulam Muhammed presents a perspective of US influence on India’s foreign and energy policy, even its internal policies, saying why we should beware of this influence and how it might come to bite us.

Unless Manmohan Singh Government can come out with some outlandish explanations to suit the occasion, people in India and abroad, will be forced to believe that the stripping of Petroleum portfolio from his petroleum minister was the handiwork of US administration manipulators, out to thwart India's attempts to diversify its energy sources and bring in Iran as one of its major suppliers of gas.

It is no secret that Bush and his neo-con Jewish supporters, have been ganging on Iran and are out to isolate Iran as one of the 'axis of evil' in the Middle East, with a view to cripple Iran's Islamic government and bring it down to impose its own puppet government as it has managed to impose the Shah as King of Iran in years past. It cannot stomach an independent and democratically governed Iran which challenges American dictats right, center and left.

India's now erstwhile Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, had not reckoned with the clout of US Administration on his own government and had gone on a limb to finalize the IRAN-PAKISTAN-INDIA gas pipeline, with some vigor that was treated as open defiance by the Bush Administration's policy handlers. A very hardworking, intelligent and incidentally a man of some old communist/Marxist background, had burnt midnight oil to see that he could manage long term energy security for India's burgeoning economy from independent and diverse sources, without succumbing to US over-lordship or paying overriding commission or cut to US oil industry corporates, who want to monopolize on India's oil supplies and like parasites reap unearned profits in decades to come.

At every step of the way, Mani Shankar Aiyar was hampered in his efforts to put final touches to Iran gas supplies. US took the matter so seriously, that it sent its States Department Secretary Condoleezza Rice at a crucial point of time, to warn India, not to go through with its deal with Iran.

Manmohan Singh Government had no spine to assert that Iran gas pipeline arrangement was in the 'best interest of the nation'. As TOI reports, Aiyar has apparently displeased the PM ---- by his "foreign trips". Those trips were to Tehran and Islamabad in full pursuit of his mission in the best interest of his nation. Apparently that displeased the Prime Minister, who is honour bound to make things smoother for US administration to sew up India into its own tapestry.

On the another hand, appointment of old Congress hand from Mumbai, Murli Deora, as the new Petroleum minister, shows up, how his 'frequent foreign trips' to the US to court Jewish community leaders and Jewish lobby organisations, corporate heads and Congress bigwig, was the crucial difference that tilted the balance in his favour.

It will appear that from now on, all clearances for high offices in New Delhi will have to be first vetted in Washington and New York. The far-sighted Murli Deora has fully understood which way the wind is blowing and had fully covered his flanks by courting key Jewish political and financial figures in the US, to lobby for a choice cabinet post, that will now on be at the beck and call of the Americans in making all moves over India's energy needs and investments, without any references to 'the best interest of India', as long as it abides by the dictats of American Jewish lobby.

Both people and media have to be ever vigilant and articulate about the moves made by the US to subjugate India as its puppet in this part of the world. And its moves in the country's internal affairs will be the test of its apparent success or failure in buying up India for its own national interest --- regardless of how Indian people are impacted by the exploitative inroads made by a hegemonical super power.

C. Raja Mohan’s critique (IE, February 7, 2006 - "Under a Mushroom cloud") of DAE's extra cautious approach to the politically weighted arrangements with the US over the its offer of nuclear cooperation with India, very conveniently leaves out the real cost to India, in terms to India's freedom and independence in shaping her foreign policy and the open ended commitment by the PM to bow to all manner of US arm twisting, not merely in nuclear and energy field, but even entailing serious erosion of India's sovereignty itself.

India is being forced to change all its third country relationships, to suit the whims and changing priorities of the US hegemony. Nobody should forget that India's nuclear progress had been entirely a home-grown phenomenon and any attempt to dilute DAE's mandate or authority, be it in security or energy field, will present some very unpalatable choices.

India can ill afford to put all its eggs in the American basket.

On the subject of Iran, India is unnecessarily being dragged into big power games, without the usual trappings of leverages available to the big league being earned by it.

Another matter of concern is, that India is being asked to junk its old identification with the 3rd world, without any clear mandate to the rulers from their own people to do so.

At the moment, India appears to be like a novice trapeze artist, asked to jump and grab another perch which is swung towards her by dubious 'partners'. There is no net on the ground if this novice trapeze artist falls for any reason whatsoever.

India could face tremendous flak from its erstwhile friends if it takes up a new belligerent foreign policy initiative that translate into more power to the hegemonists and less room for adjustments with the fellow victims of the hegemonists aggression. Historically, India is not cut out to be a imperialist power, unless it makes peace with the Islamic world surrounding this island nation. It may end up being another US plant like Israel, fighting endless battles on all fronts. It will unleash a very debilitating future for the poor huddling masses of this nation that is being asked to fight other people's unjustified wars.

After all, India has to be on good terms for the rest of the world as well as its neighbours, if it has to reach out to them for its own requirements of markets and resources.

The US is projecting Iran to the world as an ideological foe that is not amenable to play by the rules of the game they have devised for weaker nations. In fact, US interest in Iran, is primarily to completely take it over as a puppet nation. India by going along with the big power bidding will only make it easier for the hegamonist US to gobble other countries one after another. Even India, as Bush clearly mentioned in his State of Union, is a more like a competitor and as such not deserving of any special quarters as far as the 'US national interest' is concerned.

Within India, if the Left has decided to put on hold its considered response to India's objection to the US cornering of Iran, as a danger to world peace and paving the way for a armed invasion of Iran, whether justified or not, there is no way, the people of India can keep the nation free and sovereign in real terms. In effect, Indians will be repeating their own past history, when they invited foreign invaders, to come in to 'help' settle their internal problems.

India, in fact, should identify with Iran, being at one time at the same stage of finding itself surrounded by difficult choices and forced to decide to go nuclear to buy some semblance of effective defense. India's policy makers should not take the US at face value and not be mesmerized by its false propaganda against Iran as an imminent danger to world peace.

If the US is prepared to use force to change regimes around the world; India, by helping the US in its armed invasions, will make permanent enemies of its neighbours, who are till now on neutral ground, as far as mutual relations are concerned. In the final analysis, India's professed religious identification will be great handicap in ever coming to real friendly terms with all its neighbours.
India must keep its options open and give priority to be at peace with its neighbours and its own people in the long run.

Ghulam Muhammed, is based in Mumbai and can be contacted at ghulam_muhammed2@yahoo.co.in

Related Articles:
South Asia: Dumping Grounds for Technologies
SC: Waste To Energy Policy Perverts Waste Management
US Government Mounts Arbitration against India over Failed Power Plant Project
Waste Management Company Gets a Taste of Democracy

Posted by collective at February 11, 2006 05:22 PM
Comments

There are various strategic, commercial, and foreign policy rationales behind Chinese missile exports and assistance to Pakistan. China and Pakistan have enjoyed a solid strategic relationship since the 1960s.1 Over the years China has provided Pakistan with a wide range of major conventional weapons systems and the two countries have also developed a close partnership in various defense cooperation programs. While this strategic relationship initially grew out of the mutual needs of China and Pakistan in countering the Soviet and Indian security threats, respectively, it continues to serve the two countries' national security interests in the post-Cold War era. Pakistan relies on China as a trusted ally in dealing with India from a position of military weakness; Beijing values its close ties with Islamabad both to extend its influence to South Asia and to balance against India. Commercially, as China began its economic reform and opening up in the early 1980s, defense industries and arms exporting companies were under tremendous pressure to tap into the lucrative international arms market. Pakistan became a valued customer for Chinese arms. Finally, given US concern about and emphasis on missile proliferation issues, Beijing has also found it useful to exploit them as bargaining leverage in dealing with Washington on issues important to China: US arms sales to Taiwan, TMD deployment in East Asia, among others.

China reportedly began discussing possible sales to Pakistan of M-11 missiles and related technology in the late 1980s. The contract for the M-11 sale was reportedly signed in 1988. In April 1991, the United States announced that it had discovered the transfer of an M-11 missile even though China insisted it had never shipped the system to Pakistan.2 In May 1991, the US imposed sanctions against China. In November 1991, Secretary of State James Baker reached an agreement with then Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in which Beijing verbally agreed to abide by "the guidelines and parameters of the MTCR" in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions imposed earlier that year. (However, China's pledge said nothing about adhering to the MTCR's annex.) After China sent Washington a letter in February 1992 affirming its earlier MTCR assurance in writing, the sanctions were lifted in March 1992.3

However, this commitment did not end the controversy. The September 1992 US decision to sell 150 F-16 fighters to Taiwan led China to withdraw from P-5 talks on conventional arms transfers. In December 1992 reports surfaced that China had transferred 34 complete M-11 systems to Pakistan, in apparent violation of its earlier [1991] pledge.4 China and Pakistan both denied that the transfer had taken place. In August 1993, the Clinton Administration imposed MTCR related sanctions on China after determining that China had again engaged in missile trade with Pakistan.5 China denounced the sanctions, calling the US decision "a wrong judgment based on inaccurate intelligence" and threatened to scrap its promise to abide by the MTCR.

The impasse was finally in October 1994 when the two countries issued a joint statement on missile proliferation. In the joint statement, the United States agreed to lift sanctions and in return China promised to ban all exports of ground-to-ground missiles exceeding the primary parameters of the MTCR.6 (The MTCR only calls for a "strong presumption of denial" for such exports.) China also agreed to accept the concept of "inherent capability" which binds China from exporting any missile that is inherently capable of delivering a 500 kg payload over 300 km. This standard would prohibit future exports of the M-11 missile. The US waived the sanctions in November 1994.

Persistent US diplomatic efforts since 1994 have also led China to clarify its MTCR commitment. Beijing has both reaffirmed its obligations to permanently curtail its missile cooperation with Pakistan and indicated that it is actively studying joining the MTCR as a full member. However, serious questions about China's missile export controls remain. Although China promulgated regulations on conventional arms transfers in 1997, it is not clear if they cover missiles and missile-related technology transfers. While an internal control list restricting missile exports exists, Beijing has not revealed its scope, contents, and the extent to which it approximates that contained in the MTCR annex. Developments of the last few months have again derailed the meager progress that had been made between the two Sino-US summits. The release of the Cox Report, the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and US intentions with regard to national missile defense (NMD) and theater missile defense (TMD) have effectively put any prospect of China's joining the MTCR on hold. Increasingly, Beijing is demanding a linkage between its MTCR membership and broader issues of US arms sales to Taiwan, and the development, and future deployment of TMD in Northeast Asia. China's continuing transfers of missile technology to Pakistan and Iran may be a means of gaining leverage over the US. However, if China concludes that its fundamental security interests are threatened, it might step up these activities.

Sino-US disagreements over Chinese missile-related activities and missile nonproliferation continue. China has not accepted the MTCR annex and US efforts to get China to adopt legally binding export controls on MTCR items have yet to lead to the publication of regulations on missile exports (although Chinese officials insist they have an internal control list). In addition, suspicion of continued Chinese assistance to the Pakistani missile production facility at Rawalpindi persists and this raises serious questions of Beijing's sincerity in abiding by its pledges. During and immediately after the Sino-US summit of June 1998, Beijing indicated that it was "actively studying" MTCR membership and renewed once more its missile nonproliferation pledge on curbing its missile technology transfers and assistance to South Asia in the Jiang-Clinton Joint Statement. However, given the recent negative developments in bilateral relations (e.g., the Cox Report, the embassy bombing, TMD), it is not clear that these disagreements will get resolved any time soon.7

Policy Issues
Chinese missile transfers to Pakistan raise a number of issues for US nonproliferation policy and Sino-US relations. First, China's missile exports and assistance can undermine international missile nonproliferation efforts, in particular the objectives of the MTCR. China's most serious confrontations with the United States over ballistic missile proliferation have involved Chinese transfers of complete M-11 missiles and missile-related technology to Pakistan. The M-11 is a single stage, solid fueled missile with a reported range of 290 km and a payload of 800 kg. While technically the M-11 missiles do not fall within the MTCR parameter, they have the inherent capability of being able to deliver a 500 kg payload over 300 km. The fact that China has resisted joining the MTCR as a formal member, coupled with its ambiguous interpretation and implementation of its bilateral commitments, raises questions as to the seriousness of Chinese commitment to arms control and nonproliferation.

US concerns over Chinese missile exports to Pakistan focus mainly on regional stability and the potential of further proliferation to other regions where the US has important strategic interests, including the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The introduction and improvement of ballistic missiles into South Asia could result in a fierce arms race between India and Pakistan, which in turn could be highly destabilizing given the perennial animosity between the two countries; the recent conflicts in Kargil only heightens such concerns. Given the short distances between major population centers of the two countries, poor intelligence, and short warning time, there would be great temptation to launch preemptive strikes in crisis situations. A more serious concern is the mating of nuclear warheads and other WMD with missiles. The further proliferation of ballistic (and cruise) missiles to countries such as Iran, Syria, and Libya could enable these countries to seriously threaten US interests in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

Furthermore, China's missile exports and assistance to Pakistan represent a major bone of contention in Sino-US bilateral relations and has the potential to limit and undermine bilateral cooperation in other areas. Over the last decade, Chinese proliferation behavior, bilateral trade issues, Taiwan and human rights controversies have been the four key obstacles to better US-China relations. US efforts to change Chinese behavior through both economic incentives and sanctions have achieved noticeable but limited results. While the US has made strong efforts to persuade China to join the MTCR, China continues to resist and remains critical of the regime, in particular its charge that the regime is discriminatory in nature and its exclusion of high-performance aircraft. Continued controversy over Chinese missile-related transfers and assistance to Pakistan points to serious differences between Washington and Beijing with regard to regional security. While the US tends to compartmentalize nonproliferation issues on their own merits, the Chinese have insisted that proliferation issues cannot be separated from underlying security causes.

Finally, differences in interests exist and this may account for the difficulty for a final resolution of the issue. Washington seeks to stem proliferation of WMDs and their delivery systems to the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia out of its interests for secure supplies of oil, the security of Israel, and stability on the subcontinent. Beijing, on the other hand, regards its nuclear and missile exports as an important source of foreign exchange as well as a means of gaining influence in these regions. China's refusal to adopt IAEA full-scope safeguards (FSS) may be due to concerns that such measures would deprive it of potential nuclear markets. Regarding continued missile technology transfers and assistance to Pakistan, Beijing's motive may be more strategic than commercial. Islamabad has remained an important factor in Beijing's strategic calculations regarding South Asia and a useful counterweight to India.

Three issues confront the Clinton administration: the credibility of Chinese commitments to missile nonproliferation; whether the US should impose sanctions on China as required by domestic laws; and balancing the management of bilateral relations and the enforcement of nonproliferation legislation. The charges about renewed Chinese missile technology cooperation with Pakistan occurred at a particularly sensitive moment as Beijing and Washington are resuming both the security and arms control dialogues; as the Senate is to begin debates on PNTR on China, with some senators proposing the "China Nonproliferation Law" bill and seeking to amend the bill with provisions requesting annual review of Chinese missile proliferation activities; and as the deadline of a task force investigation of the 1992 Chinese sale of 34 M-11 missiles is approaching or may have already been passed. While both China and the Clinton administration have the incentives to reach a compromise to avoid sanctions, the room for such an outcome remains limited.

New Developments
Suspicions persist regarding China's continued missile cooperation with Pakistan. It has been speculated that the Shaheen-1 IRBM, which Pakistan tested in April 1999, is actually modeled on Chinese M-9 missiles. A February 1999 CIA report stated that "Chinese and North Korean entities continued to provide assistance to Pakistan's ballistic missile program during the first half of 1998. Such assistance is critical for Islamabad's efforts to produce ballistic missiles...China's involvement with Pakistan will continue to be monitored closely." A September 1999 National Intelligence Council (NIC) report stated that "Pakistan has Chinese supplied M-11 short-range ballistic missiles..." This is the first time that the US government has publicly verified that China actually supplied Pakistan with these missiles. The NIC report referred to the transfer of 34 M-11 missiles delivered in November 1992, but there is no evidence that China has resumed the transfer of complete missile systems to Pakistan. However, an unclassified CIA report to Congress released in February 2000 suggests that "some [Chinese] ballistic missile assistance [to Pakistan] continues."

Following the September 1999 NIC Report Republican Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, threatened to block the appointment of Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Affairs Robert Einhorn to a permanent position unless the Clinton administration formed a task force to impose sanctions on China. A task force was formed and given a six month deadline to make a determination, which is expected to be in late May or June 2000. US and Chinese reportedly have been meeting to reach a compromise to avoid sanctions. China is unlikely to become a full member of the MTCR, but a compromise on strengthening China's nuclear export controls may be possible.8

The recent US intelligence reports suggest that despite Chinese pledges to the contrary, it has continued to provide Pakistan with specialty steels, guidance systems and technical expertise in the latter's effort to develop long-range ballistic missiles. These and other allegations have apparently led to the proposal by Republican Senator Fred Thompson and Democratic Senator Robert G. Torricelli of legislation aimed at monitoring Chinese missile proliferation activities and mandating automatic sanctions should "credible evidence" indicates that specific Chinese exports and transfers have taken place.9 US Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn traveled to Beijing in early June to seek commitment from China not to export missiles and missile technology to Iran and Pakistan. The July meetings in Beijing between Chinese officials and John Holum, Undersecretary of State for Security and Arms Control, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen are expected to focus heavily on China's alleged missile assistance to Pakistan.10

Posted by: Abdul Jabbar Raisani on May 2, 2006 08:28 AM

good article

Posted by: deepika on April 23, 2008 11:03 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?