Translated material
Indian imperative
Today, US-India relations are undergoing a major transformation. As the President of the United States said, “After years of mutual cooling, India and the United States have come to terms with reality and accepted the irrefutable fact that our relationship is destined to change and improve.” Of all our bilateral ties, it was our relationship with India that underwent the most significant changes for the better during George W. Bush's first term.
Origins of transformation
Some observers link this warming to the events of September 11, 2001, but they are wrong. Unlike Bill Clinton, President Bush from the very beginning saw India as an ally in resolving a number of major geopolitical problems, and not at all as a nonproliferation factor requiring American influence. Since George W. Bush came to power, the White House has set about developing a strategy to strengthen US-India ties and has decided to stop reproaching New Delhi for its “nuclear choice.” We started talking about restructuring relations between both countries.
However, during Bush's first presidential term, this process did not move as quickly or efficiently. Supporters of the new strategy had to spend most of this period in a continuous struggle with two powerful forces within the government apparatus. The first were those in government who view India only through the prism of Pakistan-India relations. The second camp is the so-called “nonproliferation ayatollahs,” who, despite Washington’s firm intention to reconsider relations with Delhi, sought to prevent a fundamental change in all approaches of the Clinton administration to nonproliferation in India. These figures never seemed to realize that a new president had come to power. Intrusive advisers from earlier times lurked in the labyrinths of the State Department and continued to give orders.
So although the transformation already had a conceptual basis in the first presidential term, it was sometimes slowed down due to constant bureaucratic struggle. The implementation of the plan is the weak point of state policy, and it was not for nothing that Harry Truman, preparing to hand over affairs to Dwight Eisenhower, remarked: “Poor fellow, this is not his army! Here he will give instructions all day long, and all to no avail. I'm afraid he will be greatly disappointed."
What has changed today?
The visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Delhi in March this year was evidence of the rapid development of US-Indian relations.
Firstly, today America is ready to assist India in obtaining peaceful nuclear energy. This is a big breakthrough, since the “ayatollahs” actively opposed this during the first term. I believe that at this stage the US should integrate India into the growing global non-proliferation system as a friendly nuclear power. Restrictions on assistance to and cooperation with India in the peaceful nuclear industry, as well as on trade in high technology, must be lifted, changing existing laws and practices if necessary. We must sell peaceful nuclear reactors to India both to reduce its need for electricity supplies from the Gulf countries and to mitigate the negative environmental consequences of its rapid economic growth.
It is also necessary to develop a long-term program of active space cooperation with India. Such a joint project will make a great impression on the residents of both countries. By limiting cooperation in the peaceful uses of space out of fear that American technology and know-how will trickle down to the developers of the Indian missile program, we are ignoring today's reality. Why curb Delhi's missile capabilities if it could result in China's continued nuclear superiority over democratic India?
Secondly, America is ready to sell F-16 and F-18 fighter jets to India, and also consider the possibility of joint production of both these aircraft and other American weapons systems and signing licensing agreements in this regard. The administration is openly abandoning the long-standing paradigm in which Delhi's military capabilities were assessed only in the context of Indo-Pakistani relations. Thus, she recognizes that her attitude towards India as a friendly great power consolidating its position will significantly affect the state of affairs in the military sphere. The very idea of a military balance in the South Asian region is losing meaning, and the administration, led by the new leadership of the State Department, has unequivocally abandoned it.
We should, of course, trade our advanced weapons with India. In light of upcoming strategic challenges, America benefits from the Indian military having the most effective weapons systems, which often means purchasing weapons from the United States. In this case, the United States should become a reliable and long-term supplier through co-production and licensing agreements, and abandon its previous “habit” of stopping the supply of defensive weapons to India during a crisis.
The third breakthrough achieved at the Delhi talks was Condoleezza Rice's statement that India should take a more influential position in international organizations.
Powerful economic growth, the expansion of India's geopolitical influence and the rapid development of its democratic institutions require the inclusion of this state among the key actors in international politics.
Officials, of course, will continue to obstruct the new course presented by Condoleezza Rice on behalf of the president. The opposition within the State Department and in government-related structures remained undefeated; The bureaucrats of old do not give up - they take up defensive positions. But they already understand that they cannot prevail over either Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Why is India a natural ally of the US?
Let us list the most important national interests of the United States. This is a global war on terror and jihadists; preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their falling into the hands of terrorists; solving problems associated with the rise of China; ensuring uninterrupted energy supplies from the Persian Gulf region and maintaining the right course of the global economy.
Now let's see which of the leading world powers has long and openly - and based on its own motives - shared with us both these interests and the desire to protect them from existing threats. The list of such countries will most likely be opened by India. Henry Kissinger states: “Cooperation with India is predetermined by its geopolitical goals, which Delhi pursues very persistently and which, by and large, correspond to our own goals.”
When it comes to terrorism, more people have died at the hands of jihadists in India over the past 15 years than in any other country in the world. Although cross-border terrorism activity in Kashmir has decreased significantly, India remains a constant target both for terrorists themselves and for their government supporters, who accuse it of oppressing the Muslim population, especially in Kashmir. Therefore, New Delhi will not back down from its commitment to eliminate this threat by any means necessary. Moreover, Indians, long before the Americans, understood the danger of Islamic extremism. As Stephen Call brilliantly points out in Ghost Wars (2004), America effectively handed over its Afghan policy to Pakistani intelligence agencies, which contributed to the rise of Islamic fanaticism in Afghanistan and, consequently, the rise of the Taliban. While we were busy with other things, the Indians recognized the future threat. All these years, Delhi has desperately but in vain tried to warn us that the Taliban and social reform are not exactly the same thing. Therefore, Washington will not have long to persuade India to join the United States and take an effective part in the global fight against Islamic extremism until the victorious end. But how long our European allies, some of which have significant unassimilated Muslim minorities, will maintain such determination is unknown.
WMD also poses a pressing common concern. Let's say that a group of terrorists has acquired a nuclear bomb and is now deciding where to detonate it. The number one target, of course, will be the United States. Where is the second most likely target? Perhaps in Israel. Perhaps in England, although interest in it from terrorists will decline as peace is established in Iraq. But Delhi and Mumbai, the financial capital of the Republic of India, will forever remain among the main potential targets for these mass murderers, since the ideology of jihad sees India as a mortal enemy. This will undoubtedly guarantee our cooperation with Delhi in the future.
Like some Washington politicians, Indian leaders are keeping a close eye on China's rise. But this fact will not lead to joint actions to contain China - after all, not a single influential Indian leader will support such a policy. This means that Indians, more than anyone, understand that under the influence of China's growing economic power and its skillful diplomatic moves, the situation in Asia is changing dramatically.
In the short term, Indian military circles are not concerned about the growth of Beijing's military capabilities, since the latter's attention is focused on the Taiwan Strait region. At the same time, it has not escaped their notice that China is building military airfields in Tibet, located quite far from Taiwan. China is also involved in the construction of a large port in Pakistan and shows great interest in Myanmar (until 1989 Burma - Ed. ).
On the other hand, when analyzing the strategic perspective, Indian military leaders focus primarily on China. In light of the Chinese factor, as well as taking into account energy security problems, India plans to strengthen its navy with four aircraft carriers at once. Over time, Delhi will have military aircraft with greater range; Work is underway to increase the missiles' flight range. Apart from Japan, which other US allies are so wary of Beijing? In the European Union, on the contrary, the idea of lifting the embargo on arms sales to China is now very popular. As one Chinese general told me a couple of years ago, European policy in the Chinese direction is defined by one word - “Airbus” (meaning the desire of the European aerospace concern EADS, in particular its aircraft manufacturing division Airbus, to win the competition with the American company Boeing and use Chinese market for the sale of their airbuses - Ed .
Both the US and India are highly dependent on external suppliers for energy security. Thus, approximately a quarter of crude oil comes to America from the Middle East. India is 75% dependent on imported oil, much of which comes from the same region.
At the moment, trade between our countries is small, but even so, America is India's largest trading partner. In 2004, the share of American exports to this country increased by 25%. America also holds first place in terms of total investment, both foreign direct and portfolio. More than half of the 500 largest US companies outsource some of their information technology to Indian companies. Over the next six years, 15% of US information technology jobs will move to India.
To fulfill their domestic political objectives and promote national interests, both countries need high and sustainable economic growth rates. Consequently, there is every reason to hope for a rapid expansion of US-Indian trade. In 2004, GDP growth in India exceeded 8%. Today, Bangalore has more IT engineers than Silicon Valley. However, about 30% of software engineers working in this valley are specialists from India or Indian-Americans, and 774 companies are owned by “Indian” Americans. Moreover, 41% of all temporary work visas issued by the State Department to skilled professionals (H1-B visas) annually are to Indian citizens.
We not only have common national interests, but also common values. The policies of the United States and India are based on the same strong moral foundation. India, with a population of over a billion people, is a democratic country, which is not such a common occurrence in this part of the world. The local democratic regime manages to maintain the existence of a heterogeneous, multilingual secular society.
Although India ranks second in the world in terms of Muslim population (130 million people) after Indonesia, Islamic extremism has hardly been able to take root here. For example, there is not a single known case of a young Indian joining the ranks of al-Qaeda; There were no Indian citizens among the prisoners of war in Afghanistan, just as there are no Muslims of Indian origin at the Guantanamo Bay base. This is a serious argument in favor of democratic processes as a safety valve that protects society from the emergence of extremist sentiments within it.
This does not mean that the opinions of Washington and New Delhi on specific strategic and tactical issues will always coincide. This is impossible. Indian apparatchiks can be as slow and stubborn as our own. Because of its colonial past, India is particularly wary of perceived attempts to impose political policies on it from abroad. Some members of the Indian government still support the ideas of the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War. India has its own strategic vision, largely due to its geographical location. At times, domestic policy requirements will constrain Delhi's actions. But despite this, the commonality of basic interests and values will bring our countries closer together again and again.
India's role in the fate of the Greater Middle East
The vital interests of the United States are mainly concentrated in the region that stretches from the Persian Gulf to Pakistan. It is the center of the world's energy resources and weapons of mass destruction, the center of Islamic extremism. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the region was called the “arc of crisis.” Today, however, it can be seen as an "arc of opportunity". India's influence here will grow steadily.
We sometimes use the term "Greater Middle East" when talking about this area, but where is its eastern border? Given the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship, I would guess in the Punjab or perhaps even in the Bay of Bengal. India borders the Greater Middle East on one side, its other neighbor is China, and the third is Southeast Asia.
Few people realize the level of India's interest in the Greater Middle East and the depth of its ties to the region. As mentioned above, the situation in this region affects many important areas for India, such as energy supplies, the fight against Islamic terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In addition, about three million Indians live and work in the Gulf region today. Let us not forget that India's energy dependence on this region will grow over time. India's cultural and religious ties with Iran and Pakistan should also be taken into account. India ranks second in the world in terms of Shia population after Iran.
The Indian military contingent did not participate in the Iraqi operation, since it was fraught with serious political problems. But Indian business circles have been in contact with Iraq for several centuries. Long-term partnerships connect India with many other countries in the region. Even those in India who did not agree with US policy (most Indians did not support the invasion of Iraq and remain so to this day) certainly do not want us to fail. They understand what a US defeat in Iraq will mean for them - a serious and long-term increase in Islamic terrorism around the world, and India may especially suffer from this. As a result, the already difficult situation in the Middle Eastern region, with which the vital national interests of India, are closely associated, is destabilized.
Iran is a more serious problem for Delhi. When Washington expresses dissatisfaction with the construction of the pipeline between Iran and India, Delivee politely replies that, they say, Americans have the right to their opinion, but this project is strategically important for the republic. Consensus is impossible in this matter. As for the Iranian nuclear program, many Indians doubt whether Washington should believe the gloomy forecasts of Washington, mindful of his critical mistake regarding the Iraqi OU. Simply put, the Indians are not sure that Tehran seeks to get nuclear weapons, and Washington did not manage to convince them of this.
Nevertheless, the nuclear Iran of India is not needed, and therefore, probably, the American administration will be able, without attracting universal attention, to enlist the support of Delhi in order to convince Tehran to refuse to develop and implement the nuclear program. In any case, it would be a serious mistake on our part to put India before the alternative: either the nascent strategic partnership with the United States, or good relations with Iran. Delhi will not go to such a choice.
Pakistani factor
Pakistan's behavior is still concerned both in the USA and India. Over the past four years, the relations of Washington and Islamabad have noticeably changed for the better, which, however, causes discontent from India.
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we needed Pakistan as a military base for sending weapons to the Mujahideen. But even throughout this time, and then, already in the 1990s, Islamabad systematically misinformed us regarding his nuclear weapons program and the support that he provided to the Taliban. By the beginning of the second period of the presidency, Bill Clinton, the relationship was again spoiled, and the coup, organized by the Musharraf Peresa in 1999, played a special role.
The events of September 11 fundamentally changed the situation. We again needed the assistance of Pakistan to wage war in Afghanistan. Today, our relations with Islamabad have warmed significantly. We managed to detain and destroy hundreds of al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan, and we continue to pursue Osam Ben Laden in the Pakistano-Afghan border. Pakistan is the main ally of the United States in the global fight against terror.
It is not so easy to convince the Indians of the rationality and effectiveness of this policy. Many in India are sure that American-Pakistani relations are built on flagrant double standards. In their opinion, stating that the states supporting terrorism will be equated with terrorists, the administration closes its eyes on the behavior of the state - the main sponsor of terror, which may spread to India, penetrating its territory through the Kashmir section of the border. I personally can certify that it is not easy to dissuade the Indians. But here there are changes. The April visit of President Musharraf to India demonstrated that the relations between India and Pakistan have reached the highest level in recent decades. "How long?" - the Indians ask themselves ...
The situation in Pakistan-both in society and at the government level-is unstable, which is generally characteristic of dictatorial regimes, especially when the dictator is trying to eliminate serious people like the Alcaidians and their allies within the country. Over the past year, several major attempts have occurred for the life of Musharraf, and one of them almost led to his death. We add to this the presence of thousands of madrassas in the country, as well as hundreds of thousands of potential jihadists and supporters of the Taliban movement, crossing the Afghan-Pakistani border in both directions. No less problems are created by the unwillingness of Musharraf to develop genuine democracy in the country, despite the fact that pluralism and democracy are the only long -term remedy for permanent destabilization.
For more than half a century, students of the Pakistani military academies, like Musharraf himself at one time, say that their holy mission is to free the entire Kashmir, and the main goal of the state is to contribute to this process. The attempts of Islamabad to solve the Kashmir problem by military means began in 1947 and every time ended in nothing. After these failures, Pakistan has been using terror in the struggle for Jammu and Kashmir for fifteen years, but still did not succeed.
When the government sees that his strategy is barren, he has three ways: to continue the old line, to develop a new one or to outline other goals. In my opinion, Pakistan has not yet implemented a strategic departure from his long -standing seizure policy and border terror. Although today Islamabad does not so stubbornly transport the killers across the Kashmir border, Musharraf openly considers the opportunity to resume terror against India.
Nevertheless, Islamabad is doomed to lose. Delhi will not give a naad of the territories controlled by him, including Jamma and Kashmir. Judging by official statements, India, as before, intends to regain part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. But the Indian ruling elite, I think, would be satisfied with the implementation of a constant interstate border through the control line. Therefore, if the Pakistani government and the army do not abandon their goals and do not accept the current scheme of the section of the territory, the dispute about Kashmir will be delayed for a very long time. And this, in turn, can lead to the renewal of terror by Pakistan.
A possible crisis in Pakistan - a country that has dozens of nuclear warheads, is able to affect India and the USA especially hard. The policy of the Bush administration regarding Islamabad to this day has been quite adequate and effective, but everything can change if Musharraf is killed tomorrow. Therefore, both countries are so interested in the formation of democracy, in the creation of stability and prosperity in Pakistan. Washington and Delhi must constantly maintain an unspoken dialogue about the ways to achieve this historical goal.
How to move on?
After the events of September 11, the Bush administration radically changed its policy regarding the Great Middle East. The former cabinets tried to control existing conflicts, simultaneously supporting autocratic regimes. This approach was not brought to the region or the planet as a whole for prolonged stability and peace. George Bush believes that the promotion of democracy and freedom is our main strategy, which is a long -term alternative to Islamic extremism. And, in my opinion, the president is right. In the current decade, India will be increasingly participating in our noble business, and this will become the central aspect of the ongoing transformation of American-Indian relations, based, among other things, on the coincidence of many vital interests of both countries.