POLITICS <http://www.strategic-culture.org/rubrics/politics.html> No,
India Cannot Be the US’ Poodle  *Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR* | 20.05.2012 |
00:00
http://www.strategic-culture.org/
Asia's Mad Arms Race

The Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's warning about the possibility
of outbreak of "full-blown wars" with the use of nuclear weapons in the
current global security scenario can be seen as a timely interjection on
the eve of the G8 and North Atlantic Treaty Organization summits taking
place in the United States.
Russia<http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/12/18/india-russia-partnership-continuity-in-the-midst-of-change.html>has
already put the American hosts on prior notice that it will dissociate
from any attempt at the G8 to impose views on
Syria<http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/03/06/a-brics-initiative-on-syria.html>or
Iran.

Speaking at an international conference on international law at St.
Petersburg, Medvedev said on Thursday, “The introduction of all sorts of
collective sanctions bypassing international institutions does not improve
the situation in the world while reckless military operations in foreign
states usually end up with radicals coming to power. At some point such
actions, which undermine state sovereignty, may well end in a full-blown
regional war and even - I’m not trying to spook anyone - the use of nuclear
weapons.”

Who could Medvedev have had in mind as the madcap to use nuclear weapons in
the 21st century? His remarks pertained to the trend in international life
to use "all sorts of collective sanctions bypassing international
institutions." Conceivably, Syria and Iran sail into view as the potential
arena of conflict.

Consider the following. The US finally decides to shed its ambivalence and
intervenes in Syria. Of course, the US would overpower Syria - eventually.
Equally, Syria will likely resist, because for Damascus, it is an
existential crisis. Large sections of the Syrian nation also militate
against foreign intervention. In short, western interventionist forces will
have to take some beating as they wade into the Syrian cauldron. This is
one context where the temptation may arise to use tactical nuclear weapons
to assert the military superiority. The NATO did commit war crimes in Libya
to break the stalemate.

*Reckless military adventures *

A similar scenario is possible also over Iran. In fact, the probability is
higher since Iran will resist a US attack like nobody's business. It may
seem horrific that the US may contemplate - after a gap of so many decades
since Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the use of nuclear weapons to conclusively
register victory in a bloody war, but then, there is also a "sleeping
partner" to consider – Israel.

Clearly, Israel lacks the military superiority to defeat Iran. And if Iran
sets out to teach Israel a harsh lesson or two, US will find itself
protecting its ward from annihilation. Moreover, at what point would Israel
decide to unleash its own nuclear weapons? And Israel has a consistent
track record of using overpowering military might. By the way, Israel is
highly likely to be drawn into any conflict over Syria as well.

Now, who says Medvedev had Syria and Iran mind? A US intervention in
Pakistan is also an eventuality that cannot be ruled out at some stage if
the defeat in Afghanistan turns out to be terribly humiliating to American
prestige. Also, factor in that NATO's destiny as a military alliance and a
potential global security organization is at stake in Afghanistan. A
hard-hitting blow at Pakistan could be just the characteristic US response
if the US military bites the dust in Afghanistan. Simply put, the Cambodia
analogy repeats.

Of course, it will be an unequal battle since the US is far more powerful
than Pakistan. But then, Pakistan also has nuclear weapons. This is where
trouble begins. As Medvedev put it, US’ reckless military adventures
“usually end up with radicals coming to power.” The observation holds
relevance for Syria and Iran, where almost certainly, any “regime change”
will result in the ascendancy of radical forces in Damascus and Tehran. But
it is almost tailor-made for the developing new phase of the Afghan civil
war.

In the event of an extremist takeover in Afghanistan, regional powers may
get drawn in, especially Pakistan and India, which are of course nuclear
powers. Needless to say, any Pakistan-India
rivalry<http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/03/09/positive-reckoning-of-india-pakistan-relations.html>over
the Afghan situation in the post-2014 period would have dangerous
consequences for regional security. The two countries are engaged in an
incipient dialogue that may appear promising at the moment but there is a
real danger that the debris of the US’ Afghan strategy may fall on the
dialogue and simply emasculate the voices of sanity. It can’t be otherwise,
because for Pakistan, a “friendly” government in Kabul constitutes a
crucial national interest, which is not open to discussion, while for
India, influence in Afghanistan is a key element of its medium and long
term regional strategy toward China, which is increasingly becoming an
obsessive thought in all that it does.

Again, Medvedev’s words have an even greater relevance to the situation
surrounding Pakistan. The point is, with all the aberrations that the US
may today find in the Pakistani policies, there is still an elected
government in Pakistan. The Pakistani military, which controls the nuclear
weapons, also has a tradition of being a cautious player. The mainstream
Pakistan temper is of a moderate Muslim country. However, the “moderate”
pillars of the Pakistani state will be the casualties if the US continues
to humiliate Pakistan at the present rate. Under immense pressure from
Washington, for example, the Pakistani establishment is reportedly about to
cave in and reopen the transit routes for the NATO convoys heading toward
Afghanistan. The US certainly pins hopes on using Pakistan as the gateway
for its “New Silk Road”. But what is being overlooked is that Pakistan is
also a sea of discontent, seething with resentment over the US’ bullying
tactics in the region and in the Muslim world on the whole.

*No such thing as “absolute security” *

It does not need much ingenuity to foresee that Medvedev’s prediction can
come true unless the US exercises great restraint in its Pakistan policy.
Any US attack on Pakistan in the heat of the moment during a catastrophic
setback on the Afghan battlefield (which cannot be ruled out in the
prevailing politico-military conditions) will radicalize Pakistan. And it
is unthinkable that radical forces would gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons. Besides, these radical forces have never hidden the agenda of an
old score to settle with Pakistan's old adversary, India, which also is a
nuclear power.

No doubt, Medvedev's statement quintessentially underscores the critical
importance of all players on the world theatre playing by the rules of the
game, according to international law and the United Nations Charter. This
is where India, which enjoys repute as a responsible nuclear power, needs
to be very careful in formulating its regional policies on Iran, Pakistan
or Afghanistan. The heart of the matter is that the killing of an
Archbishop on a Serajevo street in a morning in June some 98 years ago was
in itself an innocuous event, but eventually it turned the world upside
down. It may seem that the Indian government's decision to cut back on oil
imports from Iran is an obligatory step in tune with the best spirit of
US-Indian strategic partnership.

The Indian decision may be Innocuous in itself, and, arguably, Indian
diplomats may aim to extract reciprocal concessions out of the Obama
administration during the forthcoming meeting of the US-India Strategic
Dialogue in Washington. Again, for argument’s sake, Obama may decide to
oblige his Indian partner – especially if the latter also fulfills his
pledge to award lucrative nuclear commerce to the Westinghouse in the
Indian market worth dozens of billions of dollars – and all that may lead
to a quick membership for India in the international technology control
regimes such as the Nuclear Supply Group.

But given the style of US diplomacy which is always fixated on stringing
its reluctant partners to lead them to seamless vistas from where there is
no turning back easily, where does India ultimately draw the line vis-à-vis
the US-Iran standoff or the US-Pakistan tensions or the failure of the US
strategy in Afghanistan? Besides, it becomes impossible to draw the line if
and when the fire engulfs the neighbor's house. Simply put, these are all
neighboring countries for India – Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – and
India will be stupid to put trust blindly in absolute security when the
region is edging dangerously close to catastrophe.

There are times when India needs to stand up and speak out that the US'
regional policies - toward the Middle East and Central Asia – seriously
endanger India's long-term interests. To meekly behave, instead, like a
poodle, as the Indian government has done on the Iran sanctions, may not
even be the best opportunistic course available.




--

--
കേരള ചര്‍ച്ചാവേദി.
To post to this group, send email to keralaexchange@goog...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to keralaexchange-unsubscribe@goog...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/keralaexchange?hl=ml