There was a time when the United States was riding so high that the
White House looked down on foreign heads of state using their presence
in the annual United Nations General Assembly session to seek an
audience with the leader of the free world. With its diminished status
in today’s multi-polar world, it is Washington that finds it expedient
to use the event for some old-fashioned diplomacy. On the list for this
year’s summits, or “working visits,” are Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, Palestinian Authority Chairman
Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. They could
all be upstaged by a possible summit between Barack Obama and Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani.
Dealing with Israel
For Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu, the context is domestic politics.
Anything to do with Israel is local politics, as far as the U.S. is
concerned. And the real problem with Israel is the intractable issue of
Palestine. Having put his foot in it by clearly defining the emerging
Palestinian state, Mr. Obama is now in a bind because of Israel’s
customary intransigence. The meeting with the Nigerian is a patch-up
effort aimed at soothing sentiments of black Africa’s most populous
nation, which was left out of Mr. Obama’s itinerary in his June tour of
Africa.
An Obama-Rouhani meeting though could put everything in the shade, even
the UNGA. The estrangement between Iran and the U.S. has poisoned
international politics for the past three decades. In the past year or
so, they seem to be headed for an even more serious clash over Iran’s
nuclear programme and the tightening of American sanctions. So any
development toward resolving that situation would be good news,
especially for countries such as India which have important geopolitical
stakes in good relations with Teheran.
Where does the Manmohan-Obama summit fit in all this?
The relationship between India and the U.S. has been described in many
ways: estranged democracies; natural allies; strategic partners; the
defining partnership of the twentieth century; and so on. Today, if
anything, there is one word to describe them, “dysfunctional,” which
they both are, as putative allies and democracies. It is this reality
upon which their efforts to put the mojo back in their relationship is
foundering.
The real explanation for the stasis that has gripped India-U.S.
relations since 2008 is largely economic, but there are also domestic
causes on both sides. In June, leading U.S. business groups wrote to
President Obama protesting what they called “unacceptable” Indian
practices targeting U.S. business interests in India. Later that month,
as many as 40 U.S. Senators signed on to a letter to Secretary of State
John Kerry repeating the complaints.
Then, there are the political trends in the U.S. that make it seem
increasingly inward looking and divided. The obsession of the Republican
Party in undoing the healthcare law promoted by President Obama is a
case in point. There are a hundred and one problems confronting the U.S.
— degrading infrastructure, mounting deficits, a widening rich-poor
divide, a deepening social divide between conservatives and liberals —
but all that the U.S. Congress is obsessed with is undermining the Obama
presidency. It is difficult not to believe there is an element of
racism in it considering the efforts being made by Republican
politicians to marginalise black voters.
The U.S. is uniquely gifted in its geographical location and natural
resources, and upon these advantages it has constructed the richest and
most powerful nation on earth. But it seems determined to expend its
natural capital at a furious rate. Battered in Iraq, not quite rid of
its military commitments in Afghanistan, it nearly stumbled into another
one in Syria a month ago.
The lost decade
As for India, it now seems certain that we are in the midst of our lost
decade. The Indian economy is sagging and the complaints of Indian
businessmen against the Byzantine ways of New Delhi echo those of their
American counterparts. No matter who wins or loses the coming election,
in 2020 India will not be the global player it was hoping to be. Indeed,
it will be lucky just to put the Indian growth story back on the rails
by then. While the world economic crisis is one cause, poor political
management and poorer policy choices are also responsible.
Even so, Washington and New Delhi believe, the show must go on. There
have been several speeches and statements on the eve of the Prime
Minister’s visit to Washington — U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton
Carter spoke in New Delhi of the importance of the Defense Trade and
Technology Initiative aimed at upping India’s defence capabilities. In
his remarks to the Aspen Institute India last week, National Security
Adviser Shivshankar Menon emphasised the durability of the ties that
have developed in the last decade.
But it was a somewhat lowly official — a Deputy Press Secretary — Josh
Earnest, who drew the bottom line. Briefing journalists on Air Force One
last week, he said Prime Minister Singh’s visit would “highlight
India’s role in regional security and stability, and provide an
opportunity for the two leaders to chart a course towards enhanced
trade, investment, and development cooperation between the U.S. and
India.”
Parsing his words — India is increasingly important to U.S. calculations
of stability in Afghanistan and South-east Asia. All other issues —
increased trade, investment, development cooperation — are aimed at
raising India’s capacity to meet these challenges. This is not the first
time that India is playing this role. In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S.
played a significant role in propping up India as a model democratic
developing country. In geopolitical terms, it would seem that India and
the United States are destined to be “natural allies,” though always in
the future rather than the present.
Today, the U.S. is aware that India is unlikely to become its ally in
the way that Japan, Australia or Britain and Germany are. But it is
conscious of the fact that enhanced Indian economic and military
capacities are to the benefit of the U.S. and its allies which are aimed
at “balancing” China. That is because recent history and geography pit
India against China. It is not just a matter of the disputed border,
though this is not an unimportant issue. It is also China’s geopolitical
compulsions to “build capacity” in the same manner in smaller South
Asian countries, much to the discomfiture of New Delhi, which lacks the
resources to take on Beijing. Unwittingly, though not entirely
unwillingly, India is playing a role in American geopolitical
calculations in Asia. In other words, there is a convergence of
interests though New Delhi shies away from exploring where that leads.
At the end of the day, U.S.-India ties will rest on a community of
shared interests, rather than shared values. That is where they will get
their principal sustenance, but that is where we could find the biggest
problems when their interests diverge, say, in the matter of the U.S.
pivot to Pakistan as a prelude to its withdrawal from Afghanistan or in
the matter of Iran.
In this larger scheme of things, Prime Minister Singh’s visit, his sixth
bilateral summit with the U.S. leader in nine years in office, will not
be of great significance because the circumstances of what go into a
successful summit do not exist. That has to do with the paralysis of
governance in New Delhi, but equally the distemper that afflicts
Washington.
The Hindu September 25, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment