Read The Hindu Notes of 01st September 2018 for UPSC Civil Service Examination, State Civil Service Examination and other competitive Examination
India and the U.S. — it’s complicated
Creative thinking will be needed in the 2+2 dialogue to overcome challenges in bilateral ties
The first round of the India-U.S. 2+2 talks at the level of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and their counterparts Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary James Mattis is scheduled for September 6 in Delhi. It is a significant development but one that appears perfectly logical when seen against the two-decade-old trend line of India-U.S. relations. True, the trend line has not been smooth but the trajectory definitively reflects a growing strategic engagement. From estranged democracies, India and U.S. can worst be described today as prickly partners.
Strategic convergence
Three factors have contributed to the emerging strategic convergence. The end of the Cold War provided an opportunity to both countries to review their relationship in the light of changing global and regional realities. Second, with the opening of the Indian economy, the American private sector began to look at India with greater interest. Trade grew and today stands at more than $120 billion a year with an ambitious target of touching $500 billion in five years. If U.S. foreign direct investment in India is more than $20 billion, Indian companies too have invested $15 billion in the U.S., reflecting a sustained mutual interest. The third factor is the political coming of age of the three-million-strong Indian diaspora. Its influence can be seen in the bipartisan composition of the India Caucus in the U.S. Congress and the Senate Friends of India group.
Yet, the engagement has not been smooth sailing. The U.S. is used to dealing with allies (invariably junior partners in a U.S.-dominated alliance structure) and adversaries. India is neither, and is also determined to safeguard its strategic autonomy. Developing a habit of talking to each other as equal partners has been a learning experience for India and the U.S.
Both countries also consider themselves to be ‘exceptional’, the U.S. as among the oldest democracies and India as the largest! Both have a habit of preaching and problems arise when they preach to each other. Indians become wary of the U.S.’s attempts to drive unequal bargains, and Americans find the Indian approach rigid and sanctimonious. Despite this, significant progress has been registered over the years resulting in the 60-plus bilateral dialogues, to which the 2+2 is now being added.
Growing defence cooperation
Two parallel tracks of dialogue began in the 1990s. The strategic dialogue covering nuclear issues shifted gears following the nuclear tests of 1998 and imposition of sanctions by the U.S. The over a dozen rounds of talks between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott during 1998-2000 marked the most intense dialogue between the two countries. It helped change perceptions leading to the gradual lifting of sanctions. The next phase was the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership steered by the then National Security Advisers, Brajesh Mishra and Condoleezza Rice. The momentum received a new impulse, thanks to the warmth between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush, eventually leading to the conclusion of the India-U.S. bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008.
The defence dialogue began in 1995 with the setting up of the Defence Policy Group at the level of the Defence Secretary and his Pentagon counterpart and three Steering Groups to develop exchanges between the Services. A decade later, this was formalised and enlarged into the India-U.S. Defence Framework Agreement which was renewed for 10 years in 2015. Today, the U.S. is the country with which India undertakes the largest number of military exercises which have gradually evolved in scale and complexity.
During the Cold War, more than three-fourths of India’s defence equipment was of Soviet origin. This gradually began to change, and in recent years, the U.S. and Israel emerged as major suppliers. The Indian Air Force went in for C-130J Hercules and the C-17 Globemaster aircraft, along with Apache attack helicopters and Chinook heavy lift helicopters. The Indian Navy acquired a troop carrier ship and the P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. An agreement for 24 multi-role helicopters for the Indian Navy is expected soon. The Indian Army went in for the M-777 howitzers and artillery radars. From a total of less than $400 million of defence acquisitions during 1947-2005, the U.S. has signed defence contracts of over $15 billion since.
During the Obama administration, Defence Secretary Ashton Carter became a strong votary of closer defence cooperation between the two countries. He soon understood that a defence supply relationship needed to be backed by technology sharing and joint development and came up with the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTII). Pathfinder projects have been identified under this banner. To get around export control licensing and other bureaucratic hurdles, an India Rapid Reaction Cell in the Pentagon was set up. In 2016, India was designated as a ‘Major Defence Partner’ country. Another step forward in the middle of this year was the inclusion of India in the Strategic Trade Authorisation-1 (STA-1) category, putting it on a par with allies in terms of technology access. This should enable the DTII to graduate to more ambitious projects.
Obligations and challenges
Acquiring U.S. high technology comes with its own set of obligations in terms of ensuring its security. These take the form of various undertakings often described as foundational agreements. The first of these was GSOMIA (General Security of Military Information Agreement) which India signed in 2002. The other three related to logistics support, communications compatibility and security, and exchanges of geospatial information. The U.S. proposed its standard logistics support agreement text in 2003 which was finally concluded in 2016, after it was made into an India-specific text. It facilitates logistics supplies during port visits and joint exercises and does not contain any obligations for joint activity or any basing arrangements. Realising Indian reservations, the U.S. was more flexible, and now the India-specific Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) is likely to be signed. It makes it possible to install high-end secure communication equipment on U.S. platforms that we have been acquiring. With the possibility of acquiring armed Sea Guardian drones, COMCASA was necessary to ensure optimal use. The lessons learnt should help in expediting negotiations on the third.
Nevertheless, two difficult issues loom large and the 2+2 offers an opportunity for addressing these. The first is the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) enacted last year which enables the U.S. government to sanction countries that engage in ‘significant transactions’ with Russian military and intelligence entities. The proposed purchase of the S-400 missile defence system would attract CAATSA sanctions. A waiver provision has now been introduced to cover India, Indonesia and Vietnam. It requires certification by the U.S. that the country concerned is gradually reducing its dependency on Russian equipment and cooperating with the U.S. on critical security issues. Indian concerns on this need to be addressed.
About Chabahar
The second relates to U.S. sanctions on Iran after its unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Iranian crude imports have grown significantly in recent years and India also stepped up its involvement in developing Chabahar port. The port provides connectivity to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (2012) contains a waiver provision in case of activities for reconstruction assistance and economic development for Afghanistan, which is a U.S. priority too.
Creative thinking will be needed in the 2+2 dialogue to overcome these challenges, which should also ensure that there are no nasty surprises and difficult issues are settled through quiet diplomacy. In order to realise the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region (2015), both countries will have to nurture the habit of talking and working together to diminish some of the prickliness in the partnership.
Rakesh Sood is a former diplomat and currently Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. E-mail: [email protected]
Story of a leaking ship
Crucial questions about development in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
In what can only be considered a prophetic coincidence, the online version of the Port Blair-based newspaper Andaman Chronicle, carried, on August 2, two very interesting and instructive news reports related to the Andaman and Nicobar (A&N) Islands.
A big meet
One of the reports was about a development that has been in the making for about a couple of years. This was the announcement that the A&N administration and NITI Aayog would be organising an investors’ meet in New Delhi on August 10 for tourism projects under a plan called ‘holistic development of the islands’. The projects on four islands — Long, Neil, Smith and Aves — are being undertaken as per decisions of the Islands Development Agency (IDA) and the specifics of proposals listed for the investors meet were indeed grand: “Develop 220 rooms Premium Island Resort in 42 hectares land at Long Island, 50 beach tents in 2.75 hectares land at Aves Island, 70 premium tents & tree houses in 25 hectares land at Smith Island and 120 rooms premium beach resort in 9.75 hectares land at Bharatpur, Neil Island.”
The projects also include the “setting up of infrastructure for power, water, floating jetty, adventure sports, banqueting and conferences”. The ambition and scale can be imagined from the fact that the administration is said to be simultaneously working on readying supporting infrastructure that includes “air strips, jetty, helipads, Roll On/Roll Off (RORO) ferry and roads works”. The investors’ meet in Delhi was attended by nearly 150 participants, including 40 entrepreneurs from the islands as well. Amitabh Kant, CEO of NITI Aayog, announced at the August 10 meeting that 100 islands in A&N and in the Lakshadweep could be opened up for tourism in the next 12 months.
These announcements have been received with considerable excitement in a section of the island population, given the possible economic and livelihood opportunities. It also plays up the aspirational dimension whereby one dominant narrative is of the islands as a world-class tourism destination, a potential that has so far remained unrealised. And there can also be no space for opposition because the plan is to “provide world class and sustainable tourism infrastructure with low environmental impact and provision for socio-economic involvement of local population” with the projects also conforming to internationally acknowledged benchmarking standards. How can anyone have a problem with something as perfect as this?
Use of the smart language notwithstanding, however, many key questions remain. It’s all very well to say everything will be executed right, but how can we be sure that the promises will be delivered upon? How, for instance, will ecological and cultural sensitivity be ensured? Does a capacity really exist to ensure the safeguards when the scale and the ambition is so large? How much will it really benefit the local people and the local economy? And: Is it this that the islands really need?
The answer is visible, perhaps obliquely at first glance, in the second of the two reports in the Andaman Chronicle. Titled ‘Hole in the Hull of MV Swarajdweep Panics Islanders’, it related the horrifying details of a huge leak and of water filling up many feet in a key passenger ship with 343 passengers, including staff, on board. The incident happened in the early morning of August 2 when the ship was on its journey from the islands to Chennai, 40 nautical miles from the island of Car Nicobar. The situation was retrieved only following the intervention of the Coast Guard that sent in a ship from Kamorta and flew in a special team of five divers from Port Blair. The passengers had to be all evacuated and alternative arrangements were made to send them home to the Nicobars or to Port Blair. The report said: “It was fortunate that the hole was noticed while it was in the safe zone. Had it been in between Port Blair and Chennai, it would have been a major disaster.”
Putting the two reports together offers a snapshot of a bizarre reality in these islands — an island set-up that is promising everything from air strips and floating jetties to premium resorts, not to mention ecological sensitivity, global bench marking and overall socio-economic development, is unable to ensure that the local community has a safe and reliable, leave alone comfortable, ship to travel on. And that too in an island system where shipping is, or certainly should be, the lifeline. If such a basic and critical element cannot be ensured, what is the guarantee that the grand plans and promises will not meet the same fate?
Cost to local communities
The important point to note here is that the cost is being paid by the local communities and the local environment. In its vision for achieving the grand and the ambitious, foundational and fundamental elements are being given the go-by and one cannot but ask whether the huge effort and the substantial human, planning and financial resources being spent for the tourism projects cannot be invested better and more productively?
A truly holistic development plan for an island system should have a robust shipping system as its first building block. What we have instead is a seriously leaking ship that should lead to serious questions about capacities and about priorities.
Pankaj Sekhsaria is the author of ‘Islands in Flux – the Andaman and Nicobar Story’
0Comments