Posted on 03/31/2005 2:37:47 AM PST by Gengis Khan
US tells India, drop dead
March 28, 2005
A friend, usually upbeat about India-US relations, sent me an angry mail over the weekend after President George Bush called up Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the evening of March 25 to inform him that the US had decided to supply F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview to The Washington Post, "dismissed concerns" about the fallout of the American decision. The mail reads:
"lovely easter gift to india from the us.
moral: proliferate nukes, threaten us interests everywhere, be terror hub, and get rewarded for it. this has been north korea's experience, china's experience, saudi arabia's experience, and pakistan's experience.
suck up to the us, desperately crave its goodwill, allow its odious conversion machine to dictate terms to you, and get slapped on the face. this is india's experience.
simple solution for india: proliferate nuke and missile technology to anybody who wants it, especially taiwan and japan. this will immediately get american respect, much as pokhran-ii did."
The issues that arise from USA's decision to strengthen Pakistan's strike power, I feel, are much larger than merely seeking or getting "American respect." A nation whose civilisational history stretches back to 5,000 years, that is more than Americans can count without a Texas Instruments TI-83, and whose billion-plus population is not dependent on American wheat surplus of the PL 480 variety, can do without "American respect." Thank you very much, but America is welcome to stuff its "respect" in a hot dog.
The larger concerns are two-fold. First, Washington's mollycoddling of Pakistan, a rogue state that has not only proliferated cross-border jihadi terrorism but also spawned an underground bazaar where it has been hawking weapons of mass destruction to other rogue states. Second, the arms race that will follow America's dubious deal, with both India and Pakistan upping their defence expenditure at the cost of social welfare spending.
A third aspect that merits comment is the glib manner in which Rice, during the joint press conference she addressed along with Minister for External Affairs Natwar Singh during her brief stopover in New Delhi earlier this month, waved away any 'announcement' of an American deal on F-16s for Pakistan in the immediate future. Perhaps time and space are extremely elastic for those who wax eloquent on "absent morals" of others.
It is immaterial whether or not Pakistan has been assisting the US in pursuing its "war against terror" -- ask those who are involved in the war, including intelligence operatives, and they will tell you Islamabad has been leading Washington down the garden path -- what is material is that India must protect its own national interest. There is little evidence to show that Pakistan has given up the path of terror; nor is there reason to believe that Islamabad is genuinely interested in peace.
If you have any doubts, look at the daily acts of terror in Jammu and Kashmir; the insidious growth of ISI modules in the Northeast; and, the export of jehadi fundamentalism to India via Nepal. Nothing has changed in the last one year, never mind peaceniks who are making silly asses of themselves.
The absurd claim put out by unnamed sources in the US State Department that the F-16s form part of American assistance to Pakistan to wage war on terrorism is as laughable as the lollypop of advanced fighter jets (F-18s, no less) and nuclear power reactors that has been offered to India. "What the Americans have announced is the actual, physical delivery of F-16s to Pakistan and a bunch of nice promises for India," a foreign office official in New Delhi has said underscoring the absurdity.
No less absurd is the claim made by "senior administration officials" at a background briefing for "select journalists" that the military assistance to Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf was aimed at ensuring "a fully democratic, economically promising Pakistan, that feels secure and is thus at peace with its neighbours."
The officials might as well have added that it is inconsequential the US's favourite tin pot dictator is to blame for the runaway basement bomb programmes in North Korea, Iran and Libya, among others. Boys will be boys, you see, naughty and mischievous; what's a component here and a blueprint there?
Those nations that have committed the mistake of trusting the US have come to grief, and how. It will be disastrous if India makes a similar mistake. If the UPA government believes in what it says, that India is a sovereign nation free to make its own choices, then it should not touch the American promise with a bargepole.
The Pakistanis can seek satisfaction in saving 5,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin Corp, Indians need not lose sleep over the plight of unemployed workers in Texas. In fact, it will be fun to watch Bush and Rice squirm, which they shall, if Manmohan Singh and his team look through their alleged offer and go ahead with selecting the next generation, multi-purpose jets from what has been offered by the French, the Swedes and the Russians.
If they choose to be charmed by the Americans, then India might as well say goodbye to its sovereign identity and become another client state of the US like Pakistan has become.
PS: At the launch of journalist Wilson John's book Pakistan's Nuclear Underworld: An Investigation, a devastating expose of how A Q Khan and his bosses in khaki went around hawking nuclear know-how for a fistful of dollars, in New Delhi last week, a former foreign secretary, mindful of the presence of two diplomats from the US mission in the audience, charged the Americans with "doubletalk and duplicity" on illicit nuclear proliferation by the Pakistanis.
Later, one of the American diplomats, fuming over being shown up so bluntly, accosted him and told him that he had been "offensive and insulting to my country" and "you could have been more nuanced without being inaccurate." Retorted the former diplomat: "We are a free country. We can say what we want… I couldn't care less for pretensions of the American empire."
Let's order a second hot dog!
This is global strategy; it breaks down to checking the real monster... CHINA. Don't forget what they (Chicoms) said a couple weeks ago about Taiwan see [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1516755,00.html ]. Paki's are 'tough' and threatening versus the vegan 'outsourcing' Indians. This is a tough game, but Bush decided the complaints from the Indians are less then the heat he wants to put on the Chicoms.
Those videos that you see on CNN, etc. where the taliban is seen jumping through hoops, etc. were all courtesy of the Indian intel agencies. The first country to offer the US assistance right after 9/11 was India. India does not need F-18s to strike Pakistan. Pakistan needs F-16s to drop nukes in India. Do you get it? Do you understand the gravity of this blunder by Bush and Condi? Watch for a India-China axis by the time Bush is out of office.
We'll just set up a dozen more call centers in Calcutta in exchange. Not to worry.
"In fact, what has India provided to the US for the war against Afghanistan and Iraq? "
India (you now conveniently forget in the light of new found friendship with Pakistan) was the first country to declare "unconditional" support in you war in Afganistan. Your country chose Pakistan. And thereafter supporting your country in Iraq was out of question.
"US is giving more options to India with F-16s, F-18E/Fs and a lip service to suggesting to make India another Super Power."
Everybody in India takes this "US wanting to make India a superpower" thing with buckets of salt. I seriously doubt it could be politically wise for the government to buy F-16s after all this fiasco.
Important ping !!!
"...simple solution for india: proliferate nuke and missile technology to anybody who wants it, especially taiwan and japan. this will immediately get american respect, much as pokhran-ii did."
If Indian had big enough cajones give nukes to Taiwan and Japan then I'd probably consider asking for Indian citizenship. ;-) It seems that U.S. is very effective in getting responsible states to back down from acquiring nukes but doesn't have a very good track record with rogue states.
Joe, where do you get your world view from? Do you ever intend on updating to the 21st century or do you intend on propogating the 20th century cold war for ever. Pakistan as a nation HATES the very existance of the US. In India, every indian wants to be like an American. Get the truth man, and get out of the cold war...
The Pakis are finally China's big time ally. And will remain so F-16s or no F-16s.
And anyway whats the difference, both China and US are arming the Pakis. Not much to choose from there.
If Indian and American politicians had any balls, they would have bombed Pakistan right after 9/11, and then jointly invaded Afganistan. But, alas...here we are bribing a rouge state with F-16s to "patrol the afgan border" (snicker, snicker).
I can only hope and pray that Israel and India get their act together and clean house in Pakistan, and then carpet bomb the entire mid-east.
Refile under "Editorial"
The important thing to note is that the US also arms all of Israel's arch enemies with all the latest toys. Syria might be an exception. So, nothing to get all worked up about...it's all business.
India support One China policy
If there is one nation that despises America (and the west in general) it is Pakistan.
Where I live there is a reasonably large Pakistani population, and after 9/11 they were extremely happy. One Pakistani shop-owner was so happy he decided to put a portrait of Osama Bin Laden in his shop window.
Needless to say within a few days he had no shop windows left.
Is there not hypocrisy here in giving the semi-failed nuclear state that is Pakistan better weaponry, yet whining that the EU is giving arms to China?
I agree with you. I think that the US has managed to poke itself in the eye again with respect to India. While reading the article though, I couldn't help but notice that it was essentially dripping with anti-American sentiment.
"suck up to the us, desperately crave its goodwill, allow its odious conversion machine to dictate terms to you, and get slapped on the face"
"If they choose to be charmed by the Americans, then India might as well say goodbye to its sovereign identity"
Also, the articles final sentence (before the "hot dog" statement) ended with the words "American Empire". I know that India is not happy about the F-16 deal, but the article's author sounds like any anti-American liberal, trying to whip up hatred of the US. Obviously, his negative sentiments towards the US run deeper than what could have been caused by the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. Do you think that the majority if Indians hold the author's views?
On a lighter note, I just have to ask...what is an "odious conversion machine"?
"So you discount the contention that the limited quantities of F-16's provided are for continuing operations against the Talaban and Al-Queda forces hidden in the mountains?"
---Completely! Tell me how AMRAAMS can be used against the Talaban and Al-Queda forces? Those guys have an airforce?
"Or that the assumption that these aircraft would be deployed against India would require the Pac's to be suicidal? "
---So you dont think those F-16s will be used against us? Buddy, we cant be so stupid as not to see that those F-16s have only one target and that is INDIA. F-16s make a much more effective delivery system for nuclear weapons.
"I'm just asking the question. I believe the Administration is trying to develop a new strategy in the region that incorporates all who share the same interests. I think it's more productive for India and Pakistan to join in the common defense rather than either side expecting the U.S. to favor one over the other. Wouldn't you agree?"
---Cant agree until we agree on one thing and that is : Pakistan is still a terrorist state. Only due to a strong American presence they have so far kept a lid but thats not gonna be permanent. And if your administration chooses to incorporate them, then we are on different sides (although we are fighting the same enemy).
"I would think the interest for India would be to help Pakistan and Musarrif(sp) shed the radicalism of the past and continue to democratize as India has shown so well. Just my opinion."
--Yes but to do that, I wont give them F-16s. F-16 will not help shed radicalism or put them on the path to democratization. BTW your administration has actually strengthened the military regime rather than democratizing them.
I find it hard to disagree with this. Sending F-16's to Pakistan in 1985 fine. Sending f-16's to Pakistan 2005...DEAD wrong and despicable.
A number of commentators have missed the shift in U.S. strategic priorities by drawing an analogy between the administration's policies on arms sales to Pakistan and India, and in the bestowing of "major non-NATO ally" status on Pakistan. And in the minds of others, the practice of strategy invalidates the commitment to democracy--Pakistan being something less than a fully free state. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer denounced the sale of F-16s to Pakistan as "A Con Job by Pakistan's Pal, George Bush." But, as so often, Bush-hatred blinds these sorts to the larger strategic picture.
It would be useful for them to listen to the new voices emerging in New Delhi; Indians see the importance of this change more than many Americans do. "The F-16s don't matter," Raja Menon writes in the March 30 Indian Express. "The March 25 Statement"--it's already taken on an almost-iconic status in India--is creating "opportunities like never before" for India. "If India has the boldness to dump the non-aligned rhetoric of the past," Menon argues, "the country stands to gain in many areas."
Militarily, Menon is quite right; the F-16s are almost a waste of money for Pakistan, whose primary security worries come from the Sunni Islamists inside its borders. A major conventional war with India would be suicidal for the Pakistanis, as, of course, would any nuclear exchange. The guerilla war in Kashmir is a ball and chain that Pakistan cannot seem to lose. Fretting about the F-16s is myopic; as Menon concludes, "If 24 F-16s make Pakistan feel secure, all the better."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.