Dancing to Washington’s tune
Praful Bidwai
The News International, 4 February 2006
In Pakistan, one doesn’t have to be particularly irreverent towards the powers that be to make acerbic remarks about the often overbearing behaviour of the United States mission in Islamabad. My impression is that calling the US ambassador "The Viceroy" is part of the accepted political discourse and social conversation. Years of asymmetrical relations with the US have made many Pakistanis realise that the description isn’t even mildly jocular.
However, the Indian political class would bristle at a similar characterisation of the US ambassador’s status in New Delhi. This is not so much because of a lack of humour or irreverence, as because of a political culture that evolved, rightly or wrongly, under the influence of Non-Alignment and the public’s expectation that its leaders would not compromise India’s independence and sovereign policy-making space under hegemonic pressure. Built into this culture was pride in being independent and autonomous.
Thus, traditionally, Indian ministers would keep the American ambassador at a distance. Bureaucrats would feel embarrassed at being seen to be frequently socialising with foreign diplomats. And although the government might yield ground to the Big Powers on certain issues, it would always claim that that was part of a dignified two-way bargain; there’s no external meddling in India’s affairs.
That was the case until the early 1990s. Then, under the impact of neoliberal policies, and under a leadership disoriented by the collapse of the Soviet Union, things began to change. Under the BJP-led government, US ambassadors got more and more assertive and audacious. Senior ministers were often seen with them. They made bold to offer policy advice in public. The process has now peaked.
Last week, US ambassador David C. Mulford held out a scarcely-concealed threat in an interview: India must vote to report Iran’s nuclear activities to the Security Council. Or the July 18 nuclear deal with Washington will "die" under the "devastating" impact of India’s Iran stance. He also commented on a range of subjects like foreign investment in retail trade, separating civilian nuclear facilities from military ones, and on the Left. Mulford was summoned to the Foreign Office and told India would make its own "independent judgment" on Iran.
Yet, the impression of the US’s interference got further strengthened with a disclosure two days later that it had sent an /aide memoire/ opposing India’s recent decision to buy a Syrian oilfield jointly with China. India was being told whom it should do business with, and whom to shun. At stake was policy independence.
Then, on Sunday, came Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s first major Cabinet reshuffle. Its greatest highlight was the removal of the Petroleum portfolio from Mani Shankar Aiyar’s charge and its transfer to a Right-wing pro-US businessmen-politician called Murli Deora. This signalled that Singh is willing to sacrifice India’s sovereign right to determine her energy policy. Singh is kowtowing to the United States like no other Indian Prime Minister has. This is just when the US is issuing /demarches/ to India. Singh has inflicted grievous damage upon India’s sovereignty.
Aiyar was one of Singh’s most dynamic and highly thought-of Ministers. He dedicatedly pursued two vital agendas: secure India’s oil/gas supplies, and promote energy cooperation within Asia, including a hydrocarbon grid stretching all the way from Turkey to Japan. Aiyar was responsible for launching Sino-Indian energy cooperation, including joint bids for oil exploration in third countries. The story of the agreement grabbed a front-page banner headline in "/The Financial Times"/.
Even Aiyar’s detractors praise his extraordinary dynamism, vision and grasp of his complex subject. He was rated /the best minister/ by "/The Hindustan Times"/ and "/India Today"/ (a magazine hostile to Centre-Left causes).
Above all, Aiyar has been a strong votary of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, which the Americans oppose—"absolutely", in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s words. US policy-makers have linked the Iran issue to the July 18 nuclear deal with India. They want India to join them in isolating Iran. Under their pressure, Singh has been dithering on the pipeline. He has expressed unreasonable doubts about its viability.
In September, India broke ranks with the Non-Aligned Group at the International Atomic Energy Agency and voted for a US-sponsored resolution against Iran. Since then, India has shed all pretence of an independent stand on Iran and tailed Washington.
It’s against this background that Aiyar’s demotion came. The inescapable inference is that the decision was either taken under US pressure, or driven by a desire to please Washington. This diminishes India to the status of a Banana Republic which must dance to Washington’s tune.
Unless India resists Washington’s pressure, the US will interfere in more and more Ministries and decisions, including policies and personnel. Mulford has already commented on varied subjects like FDI in retail trade, the Left parties, and intellectual property rights. Demarches will follow on trade, education, telecom, power, and votes in UN organisations. This would be corrosive of democracy and popular sovereignty.
One needn’t be a fire-breathing nationalist to say this. But all policy decisions must be taken by a country’s own people. This principle was violated in Aiyar’s case. This represents erosion or wilful sacrifice of sovereignty.
Singh evidently calculates that no price is too high to pay for the nuclear deal. On its ratification hinge three things: "normalisation" of India’s nuclear arsenal, her energy security, and the India-US "strategic partnership".
These goals are questionable. As this Column has often argued, India does /not/ need nuclear weapons for security. No one does. In 1998, Singh himself expounded on their irrelevance to security and on the dangers of a nuclear arms race.
Nuclear power is a dubious route to energy security. It bristles with safety problems, including hazardous wastes that remain radioactive for thousands of years. More centralised power generation is not the solution to global warming.
Under the US-India strategic alliance, New Delhi will contribute to making the world a worse place. Globally, the US is not a force for good. It has had a profoundly destabilising influence and has made war, military conflict and social strife endemic. The globe’s—and India’s—interest lies in a multipolar world and a /weaker/ US. That’s the way to expand the space for independent development, fair trade, economic balance, and security. Singh has played his cards badly in acting as if India-US relations were a one-way street.
He has compounded the blunder he made in taking Petroleum away from Aiyar by handing it over to Deora. Deora is known for his proximity to business houses with a stake in petroleum, and to Washington. He’s a provincial politician and fund-collector who cannot be accused of vision. Under him, India can bid goodbye to Asian energy cooperation and the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.
India has never been treated more contemptuously by Washington than now. This is happening not because India is weaker today than under Nehru or Indira Gandhi, but because its rulers have decided to be Washington’s supplicants.
Singh stands warned. He has no mandate to do what he’s doing. The Indian people elected the UPA in protest against the NDA’s communal, neoliberal and pro-US policies. Singh’s party, with its 145 Lok Sabha seats, shouldn’t behave as if it had 345. He must cease and desist—or face withdrawal of support.
Copyright 2006 New Internationalist
|
