People's Daily: Washington draws India in against China(dismissive tone)

When cries grow louder in the US political circle for construction of an Asian allies network to guard against China, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed his visiting Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee an eye-catching defense cooperation agreement in the Pentagon on June 28.

The ten-year agreement focuses on cooperation in weaponry manufacturing and missile defense. The United States has recently made several moves in its Asian strategy, and the hand-shaking of the two defense ministers this time is regarded as another important step it made in Asia, which is partly intended to diminish China's influence in this region and to safeguard and expand US strategic interest in Asia.

Indian defense minister Mukherjee paid a nine-day visit to the United States this time, leading a huge delegation consisting of government officials and leaders in military industry. The visit reached its climax upon the signing of the agreement.

In this agreement entitled "New Framework for the US-India Defence Relationship", the United States grants India a series of "ally" treatments: joint weaponry production, cooperation on missile defense to be strengthened and a promise to lift soon US ban on export of sensitive military technologies to India. The United States pledged to conduct strategic talks with India, help India develop missile defense and other security facilities and cooperate with India in multiple fields such as science and technology, economy and energy. Many of such offers were once cancelled due to India's nuclear test in 1998.

In the statement afterward, the United States adopted a warm rhetoric it never used on this region, saying the US-India relations have "entered a new era". "We are transforming our relationship to reflect the principles and national interests we share." The statement says, the cooperation between the two countries has reached "an unprecedented level" and the two sides agree to set up a "defense procurement and production group" , which will be responsible for national defense cooperation such as joint military research, development and test, as well as the training of naval navigator. It is reported that the group will focus on joint production of F-16 or F-18 fighter jets, a cooperation only reserved for US allies. What should be noted is that according to the agreement, the United States will recommend to India the "Patriot III" anti-missile system to fight back short-range ballistic missiles.

Analysts say, although the agreement is just a sketch of intent, and details need further discussion and approval, it is an event marking the two sides' enhancing their military ties so its significance should not be underestimated.

The defense agreement immediately attracted high attention from world media who commented it as "historic" and "unprecedented". Some Indian media hailed the agreement as a landmark document in the history of India-US relations. Indian Express ran a front-page article on June 30 with a title "India and US New Brothers in Arms". This agreement, the article says, lifted the India-US ties, which had long been fluctuating, to a stable defense cooperative partnership. It is of special significance given the fact that the United States on the one hand presses the EU to keep arms embargo on China and urges Israel to cancel arms sales to China while on the other hand signs a wide-ranging defense agreement with India.

The agreement indicates a new step towards a strategic partnership, since the two countries have more common interests than 10 years earlier and now we can discuss joint weaponry production, a former Indian ambassador to the United States observes. Although both sides say the agreement has nothing to do with China, he says, the China factor is only too obvious. Both of them felt keenly uneasy about China's development, though neither of them mentioned it. US neo-cons have long been insisting that long-term threat is from China, while India apparently senses that China is a neighbor stronger than itself in both economic and military strength.

Analysts say it is obvious that the United States intends to draw India into its global strategic framework. Three months ago, a high-ranking official from the Bush administration said that the United States had mapped out a plan to enhance US-India relation in an all-round way ¨C a "new step of strategic partnership", which is aimed to "help India become a world major power in the 21st century". On June 24, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns told media in New Delhi that India was an "ideal candidate" for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, implying US support. Any Indian who is concerned with international issues sensed the change in US attitude, and media commented that the recent US moves went beyond "showing good will" to the extent of "ingratiating itself with India".

India, however, remains the weakest link among the Asian allies the United States is trying to win. US-based International Herald Tribune quotes an Indian scholar that India's DNA doesn't allow it to become a subordinate ally like Japan or Britain. As a matter of fact, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao just paid a successful visit to India over two months before Rumsfeld and China and India agreed to construct a strategic cooperative partnership looking forward to peace and prosperity. In early June, after foreign ministers of China, Russia and India held talks in Vladivostok, western media even talked about the possibility of the three countries "entering into alliance". As Japanese paper Mainichi Shimbun puts it, China, Russia and India may develop into a "new polar" which has an equal say with the United States and the European Union.

India has no intention to confront with China Washington has put many things on the table, and the key is what India wants to eat, an New Delhi-based observer says, adding that India knows the price to be paid for taking what America offers so it is both pleased and nervous. According to Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, Indian runs into two obstacles to accepting the US strategy, first, it may not want to confront with China and second, the Communist Party of India is opposed to a military alliance with the United States.

India is also suspicious of US intentions, considering that Washington is not helping India out of sincerity, but is using India for its own ends. Once India is useless, Washington can tear up this agreement filled with promises at any time. India's worries can be seen in its talks with Washington, when it repeatedly asked for "producing weapons together" instead of simply purchasing from the United States. An article on Hindustan Times holds that the agreement may constitute a turning point in the history of India-US relations, but this depends on how the "new era" called by the two sides unfold in the next decade, or whether the two sides can build up mutual trust.

India can develop cooperative ties with the United States only under the prerequisite of equal partnership and will not be interested in being ordered about by the United States in its global strategy, a Indian researcher on national defense points out. He believes that India will not damage its friendly ties with China for the sake of US strategic interests and it is all the more impossible for India to sacrifice its foreign policy of independence in exchange for the so-called "US support".

Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee also made clear the above-mentioned stance in his speech in Washington on June 27. He said that in the face of a rising Asia in the 21st century, if the United States still seeks for hegemony, Indian will not serve as its "attach¨¦". It is impossible for a single country, no matter how strong it is in economy, science and technology and army, to single-handedly shoulder the responsibility of ensuring world peace and order, he added. Mukherjee's speech showed that although Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will pay a visit to the United States, India will not seek to please Washington or agree to establish India-US strategic alliance against China, for Indian's foreign policy remains independent. Just as an Indian delegation member puts it, the country's diplomacy is very "India-centered".

This article is carried on the first page of the Global Times, July 1, 2005 and is translated by People's Daily Online

As a country who invaded and took Indian territory, China is expecting a lot from India.

India remaining independent does not necessarily mean that India would not help U.S. to act against China even if it suit Indian interest.

Presumably India will act in its own best interests. Indira Gandhi made the decision to ally India with the Soviet Union, presumably as the surest protection against more Chinese invasions. That didn't work very well, and now Russia is not in a position to help them very much.

China is the immediate, closest danger to India. The U.S. has, over the years, a checkered record of defending its Asian friends. The question is whether India will do better to suck up to China or to make a treaty with us against another Chinese invasion.

I don't know what their best answer is. Consider that Bush is a reliable friend, but he has only three more years in office. Suppose they have to depend on hillary to defend them against the Chinese a few years from now? Hillary is in bed with the Chinese.

Or suppose Jean Kerry, who sold out the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, had been elected last year?

Those who relied on America during the Carter years, such as the Shah of Iran, paid a large price. There is no guarantee that another jimmy carter or bill clinton will never inhabit the White House.

From our point of view, an alliance would be useful. From their point of view, I don't know. Probably India's preference will be to keep their options open, as long as possible, until they get pinned into a corner and must choose.

Indian runs into two obstacles to accepting the US strategy, first, it may not want to confront with China...

You don't only form alliances because you want to confront someone, you form them because someone might want to confront you. China has fought India twice and has occupied territory that India considered her own. "Maoist" rebels operate in Nepal and in some of India's provinces.

India almost certainly doesn't want to confront China. That and a buck, as they say, will get you a cup of coffee.

and second, the Communist Party of India is opposed to a military alliance with the United States.

Will the Communist Party of India back India in a war with China? Does it back India now in a war against Maoist rebels? Why would anyone care what the Communist Party of India wants or thinks?

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.