SASF – Blogs

By Mohan Guruswamy

Ironically enough the downslide in India-China relations began in just days before November 2006 visit of Hu Jintao, supposedly intended to showcase an upswing in the relations. It began when the then Chinese Ambassador to India, Sun Yuxi, made a rather indiscreet and untimely comment to a TV news channel that the status of Arunachal Pradesh was still an unresolved issue between the two countries. Whether Sun Yuxi made this comment as mere restatement of the old Chinese position for the record or to deliberately stir the pot will be debated for a long time. Sun Yuxi himself told me that he did not intend it to stir things up and that the partly American owned TV channel deliberately played it up to blight the improving ties. Sun Yuxi also, quite significantly, added that while he might have been indiscreet, his statement won him a great deal of support from groups in China who favor a hard-line with India, ever since it began to draw closer to the USA. Many in China believe that India is now part of an US attempt to encircle it and even Prakash Karat of our CPM has echoed this view. The result of the Sun Yuxi statement was that what had become a mere border alignment issue was once again transformed into a territorial issue.

The thaw in our ties was initiated when Deng Xiaoping made an offer to Rajiv Gandhi in December 1988 to settle the border dispute on an as is where is basis. The politically beleaguered Rajiv Gandhi felt that he did have the political capital for a deal to essentially forego claims on Aksai Chin in exchange for an alignment generally corresponding McMahon Line. The two leaders then agreed to keep the issue frozen for settlement “at some future time”.

Following this and the agreements consequent to the visits of Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee, it was generally believed in India that the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh was now in the past. While releasing my book “India China Relations: The Border Issue and Beyond” earlier this year, in response to a pointed question from a journalist, the then Foreign Secretary strongly hinted that a settlement along the status quo might now be more acceptable to the Indian leadership.

As if the border row wasn’t enough to heat up relations, other issues too have cropped up. There is the question of the Dalai Lama’s continued residence in India which surfaced even as the waters of distrust began receding. China’s inability to deal with the increasing Tibetan restiveness also makes it angrily point a finger at India. When in India the Dalai Lama is restricted to just performing his ecclesiastical duties which include tending to the spiritual needs of a large Indian flock adhering to the Tibetan school of Mahayana Buddhism. The Chinese have now taken umbrage over his visit to the ancient monastery at Tawang. Let alone the Dalai Lama’s visit, they were even critical of Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to the state last month. In the recent days the situation has been further vitiated by stories, many of them false, in the Indian media.

The global economic crisis has exacerbated problems within China’s rapidly growing economy. With US markets’ rapidly shrinking it needs to find markets elsewhere to sustain its export led growth model. The rapidly growing Sino-Indian trade, but increasingly tilted in China’s favor mostly due to an undervalued Yuan, is yet another festering issue. China derives much of its export prowess due to its undervalued Yuan and exploitative labor practices. The economic profligacy of the USA and China’s somewhat naïve hoarding of trillions of dollars as reserves makes it the USA’s co-equal in causing the global economic mayhem. There is no sign that China has derived lessons from this and will revalue the Yuan.

The misuse of business visas by Chinese construction companies to bring in tens of thousands of workers into India is now another issue. On the other hand the issue of visas on a separate sheet of paper to Indian residents of J&K and Arunachal Pradesh in a bid to highlight their disputed status is seen as deliberately provocative by India. Providing a backdrop to all this is the China’s rather duplicitous role at the Vienna conference to ratify the IAEA’s exemption for India from the stringent provisions instituted after our 1974 nuclear test; and its opposition to the expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership and by extension India’s entry into it.

In the recent days several new publications and books have exposed how extensively China assisted in the development of Pakistan’s nuclear program and their delivery systems. Since Pakistan’s nuclear program is entirely India centric, this is in itself is quite revealing about the intensity of Chinese hostility then towards India. The Chinese have been insisting that it was in the past and China is now committed to improving ties with India. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and China, despite its much vaunted policy culinary abilities, has not yet put it on the table!

(Mohan Guruswamy is a well known commentator and is the author of the recently published “Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch-up with China?”)

By Ramtanu Maitra Jul 23, 2005

Fresh from its perceived success in Kyrgyzstan, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an American non-governmental organization, has a new mission in Nepal, where King Gyanendra has assumed autocratic powers.
According to reports from South Asia, this was disclosed to Nepalese politicians by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca during her recent visit to Nepal. Although the entry of the Washington-based NED is officially to help stabilize and promote democracy in Nepal, its past record makes some in India wonder what the consequences will be for India’s turbulent northeast and for India’s relations with China.

Beijing has even more reason to concern itself with the NED’s presence in Nepal, next door to sensitive Tibet. The NED makes no bones of its concerns about Uighur Chinese, and is known to have earlier funded anti-China forces in Tibet.

India is by no means wholly ill-disposed toward the NED. In fact, the American outfit has some strong promoters there. During the 2000 visit to India by president Bill Clinton, a proposal was made to jointly set up an Asian center for democracy. The Asian Center for Democratic Governance is to be based in New Delhi, and jointly set up by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the NED. continue reading…

By Ramtanu Maitra February 24, 2005

New Delhi is in the process of drafting a proposal to the United Nations seeking a global ban on small-arms sales to non-state actors. India is being swamped with small arms from all directions, but the most dangerous developments are taking place in the country’s restless northeast. There, small arms are streaming in from Southeast Asia by the boatload and via jungle trails through Myanmar.

The worsening security situations in neighboring Bangladesh and Nepal, where violence and arms are proliferating at an exponential rate, add urgency to Delhi’s concern. There is no indication that the leadership in either Dhaka or Kathmandu can control the threat.

In the present South Asian regional context, New Delhi considers the strengthening of its economic and political relations with Southeast Asia of vital importance. Besides the economic factor, which is of driving importance, India’s emergence as a major economic and military power in recent years makes it incumbent on leadership in New Delhi to cultivate a regional presence.

Essential security issue

The proposal for an international ban on small-arms trafficking is being developed jointly by the Indian Home Ministry and External Affairs Ministry. According to reports from a senior Home Ministry official who recently toured the northeast to evaluate the scope of operations and extent of control exerted by insurgents: “If a global ban is achieved, it would help to improve the security situation in the country.”

Indeed, a host of poorly governed nations adjacent to India in the east along with subversion by various anti-India guerrilla forces in the northeast have combined to put India’s security situation under extreme stress. Secessionists, Indian Maoists (also known as Naxalites) and the mafia are the primary purchasers of small weapons, ranging from Kalashnikov assault rifles to sophisticated M-16s. A few Western European countries and collapsed communist regimes of Eastern Europe, some Indian officials point out, have been selling arms to these violent groups, overtly or covertly, and earning huge profits. The arms sales channels are well established and serve ever-widening conflict zones in India’s northeast. It is also common knowledge by now that insurgents and armed opposition groups in South Asia and Southeast Asia have access to top arms smuggling kingpins in Thailand, Hong Kong and Singapore. continue reading…

By Ramtanu Maitra October 19, 2005

But India’s strengthening of its presence in the Andaman Sea is not just derived from negative developments in the region. New Delhi’s interest in and involvement with Southeast Asia has been growing steadily over the past decade, and its concern for development of the Andaman basin has grown accordingly.

After years of hesitancy, India has now firmly acknowledged the strategic importance of the Andaman Sea. The Indian Navy is setting up a Far Eastern Naval Command (FENC) off Port Blair on the Andaman Islands — also known as the Bay Islands — located midway between the Bay of Bengal and the Malacca Strait — to give it “blue-water” status.

It is evident New Delhi believes that the new strategic command will remain vulnerable unless the entire Andaman Sea is brought under the full control of the Indian Navy.

A variety of factors led to New Delhi’s full realization of the Andaman Sea’s importance for overall regional security.

To begin with, the US’s recent invitation to the Indian Navy to help patrol the Malacca Strait must have been viewed as an open US affirmation of its intent to bring India into the naval big league.

The Malacca Strait, thanks to the weakness of the Indonesian and Malaysian navies, has become a hunting ground of pirates. Bringing the Indian Navy to help patrol the strait would mean, according to some analysts, Washington’s tacit approval of India’s assertion of naval control over the Andaman Sea, the eastern mouth of the Indian Ocean and the waters that surround Sri Lanka.

Although India is not party to any security arrangement for the Malacca Strait, the immediate purpose of any joint patrols would be to prevent smuggling, piracy, drug and gun trafficking, poaching and illegal immigration in the region.

Oil-tanker traffic through the narrow strait, which already carries most of North Asia’s oil imports, is projected to grow from 10 million barrels a day in 2002 to 20 million barrels a day in 2020 — much of that oil will be destined for the fast-growing market of China.

Even if it is true that it was Washington’s wink and nudge that emboldened Indian authorities to stake control over the Andaman Sea, other reasons often debated in New Delhi’s South Bloc were no less critical.

As one Indian analyst points out, in recent years, in addition to the US, whose navy has long had a presence in the Indian Ocean and has been stealthily sailing the waters of the Bay of Bengal, China has also shown a considerable interest in utilizing the Andaman Sea as an outlet to the Indian Ocean in the near future.

New command

There is little doubt that the FENC is a well thought out development. Indian naval officers have said that FENC, when fully developed by 2012, will have a chain of small anchor stations and three main bases.

As for models, Russia has a similar base in the Black Sea, and the US naval base at Hawaii comes close. FENC will be larger than the former US base in the Philippines at Subic Bay, spreading from Narcondam to Indira Point. Car Nicobar will serve as the vital link for various FENC stations. continue reading…

Ramtanu Maitra  Oct 27, 2005

Drug traffickers loaded with Afghan opium and heroin have virtually overrun and pulverized internal security in Tajikistan, particularly since the Taliban came to power in 1996. As most of the Afghan drug output finds its way to European nations (in addition to Russia), it might be expected that the European Union, and the United States, would make concrete efforts to help secure the Afghanistan -Tajikistan border.

There is no dearth of lamentation by Western political leaders about how the opiates have endangered security and about the damage caused to the youth. But, so far, no plan to address the problem has been put forward.

After the Taliban were ousted from Kabul in late 2001, opium production skyrocketed again, breaking all-time production records in 2004. Hundreds of tons of Afghan heroin are now transported annually to Europe, corrupting the continent’s systems further – and much of it passes through Tajikistan.

Afghanistan is estimated to produce 87% of the world’s supply of opium (4,519 tons this season, down 2% from 2004), with nearly half of the country’s US$4.5 billion economy coming from opium cultivation and trafficking. continue reading…

This article appears in the February 18, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

by Ramtanu Maitra

The first-ever strategic talks between India and China, which took place in New Delhi on Jan. 24-25, were the outcome of years of efforts by these two largest Asian nations “to take bilateral engagements into a long-term and strategic relationship.” Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Wu Dawei, who is also involved in the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran raised hopes that the two would begin to position their bilateral relations in the context of broader regional and global perspectives.

One of the most important outcomes which emerged from the dialogue is the expressed concern of China about deteriorating U.S.-Iranian relations, triggered by U.S. insistence that Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment program is a cover for developing weapons of mass destruction. Wu Dawei made clear that Beijing is pressing Moscow, Paris, and Berlin to take steps to prevent any U.S. hostility against Iran, saying that China is willing to mediate with the United States and the West about Iran’s nuclear program. New Delhi urged the Chinese Vice-Minister to impress upon Pakistan not to open its air space to the U.S. Air Force, in case Washington plans air strikes on Iran. continue reading…

Ramtanu Maitra Feb 2005

On February 1, Lieutenant General J J Singh took over as India’s new Army chief. He is expected to direct the Indian Army for three years, a tenure that is anticipated to be a period of great significance for the Indian Army. India’s army is in the process of developing and adopting a new generation of military technology, based on precision and speed.

At the same time, cursed with the border situation in its west and the neverending insurgency activities, supported externally by anti-India elements operating from within Bangladesh and Nepal, in the northeast part of India, Singh will have to formulate more effective counterterrorism measures that have increasingly become regular military interventions. It is almost a certainty that Singh will find the Indian army’s counterterrorism operations in need of modernisation and adoption of new tactical measures. An army press release on the adoption of a new counterterrorism doctrine states that it would prioritise “winning hearts and minds” in such situations.

In other words, the army will have to institutionalise an approach, which has to be spread from the top officerlevel to the foot soldiers, calling for less ruthless and more personal relations with the people among whom it operates. It is a difficult task,  particularly in Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern India, where terrorists and secessionists enjoy the support of some of the locals.

On the other hand, the frequency of Indo-Pakistani talks at the official level to build confidence, and the growing opposition within Pakistan to the anti-India campaign of the Pakistani army, may provide some break to the new chief on India’s western borders. With infiltration levels down and talks on with both Pakistan and dissidents in Kashmir, no Indian army chief has perhaps ever had the chance to look at the Jammu and Kashmir situation as positively as the new Army chief. However, such a break for the army chief will be hard to come by in India’s north-eastern sector.

The new doctrine

Interestingly reports indicate that the Indian military has framed a new military doctrine keeping in mind the duration of future wars, which are likely to be short and intense. The doctrine highlights more roles for the special forces, capable of quick movement and swift strikes, rather than having large armies.

Outgoing Army Chief N C Vij pointed out recently that Indian defence forces were being trained to mobilise troops quickly should there be a war in the future. This fits in pretty much with the military-think of today’s Pentagon, which is involved in intense discussions with the Indian military on a strategic alliance, particularly since the events of September 11, 2001.

There is no question that a large number of analysts within the Indian defence establishment have been seduced by this  Pentagon-think. The US Army’s messy handling of the Iraq situation further confirms their belief that slow, conventional warfare is a  loser in the present context of achieving specific objectives.

At the same time, a study by the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) says that some important features of the doctrine are poorly matched to the concept of limited war. The Indo- Asian News Service quoted General Vij as saying, “The new military doctrine envisages training and finetuning of our armed forces to gear up for such eventualities.” continue reading…

July 30, 2003

Ramtanu Maitra

Since Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf made his much-acclaimed visit to Camp David and met US President George W Bush on June 24, new elements have begun to emerge in the Afghan theater. US troops in Afghanistan are now encountering more enemy attacks than ever before, and clashes between Pakistani and Afghan troops along the tribal borders have been reported regularly.

On July 16, speaking to Electronic Telegraph of the United Kingdom, US troop commander General Frank “Buster” Hagenbeck, based at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, reported increased attacks over recent weeks on US and Afghan forces by the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other anti-US groups that have joined hands. He also revealed some other very interesting information: the Taliban and its allies have regrouped in Pakistan and are recruiting fighters from religious schools in Quetta in a campaign funded by drug trafficking. Hagenbeck also said that these enemies of US and Afghan forces have been joined by Al-Qaeda commanders who are establishing new cells and sponsoring the attempted capture of American troops. One other piece of news of import from Hagenbeck is that the Taliban have seized whole swathes of the country.

Reliable intelligence

Hagenbeck’s statements were virtually ignored in Washington. Also ignored were a number of similar statements issued from Kabul by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his cabinet colleagues. On July 17, presidential spokesman Jawed Ludin spoke to the Pakistani newspaper The News of the Afghan government’s concern over the volatile situation on its border with Pakistan. Ludin urged Pakistan to “take steps” to prevent the Taliban fighters from crossing over to launch terrorist attacks against Kabul. “We will take it seriously to confront it,” he warned. “So our expectation is for all those involved in the war against terror to take serious steps,” Ludin added, clearly addressing the Bush administration.

A week later, on July 24, in an article for The Nation, a Pakistani news daily, Ahmed Rashid, the well known expert on the Taliban and Afghanistan, quoted President Hamid Karzai, during an interview at Kabul, as saying: “As much as we want good relations with Pakistan and other neighbors, we also oppose extremism, terrorism and fundamentalism coming into Afghanistan from outside. We have one page where there is a tremendous desire for friendship and the need for each other. But there is the other page, of the consequences if intervention continues, cross-border terrorism continues, violence and extremism continue. Afghans will have no choice but to stand up and stop it.”

Among Americans, only the special envoy of the US president to Afghanistan and a good friend of President Karzai, Zalmay Khalilzad, has shown any concern about the recent developments. Khalilzad has little choice but to keep up a bold front to the Afghans, telling them how his bosses in Washington are doing their best to rebuild Afghanistan, and attributes the present crisis to the security situation. Like everyone else, Khalilzad has little in reality to offer and, given the opportunity, falls back on what “must be done” and “should be done”. At a July 15 press conference at Kabul, Khalilzad said every effort has to be made by Pakistan not to allow its territory to be used by the Taliban elements. This “should not be allowed”, he said. “We need 100 percent assurances [from Pakistan] on this, not 50 percent assurances, and we know the Taliban are planning in Quetta.”

What is happening? Both Hagenbeck, who boasts to the media about the high quality of his intelligence, and Khalilzad, who is unquestionably in a position to know, have stated that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are being nurtured, not in some inaccessible terrain along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border but in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s Balochistan province where the Pakistan Army and the ISI have a major presence. Yet, President Bush and his neo-conservative henchmen have remained strangely quiet, allowing Pakistan to strengthen the Taliban in Quetta, and, as a consequence, re-energize al-Qaeda — the killers of thousands of Americans in the fall of 2001.

Recall for a moment: Following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, no other terrorist was portrayed by the United States as more dangerous than al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and no other Islamic fundamentalist group was presented to the American people as more despicable than the Taliban. Within a month the United States invaded Afghanistan to “take out” the Taliban, al-Qaeda and bin Laden, while the world lined up behind the new anti-terrorist messiahs from Washington, providing it the necessary moral and vocal support. Why, then, is Washington now weakening President Karzai and allowing the strengthening and re-emergence of the Taliban?

Karzai shared with Ahmed Rashid his belief, like that of the average Afghan today, that the answer to that question lies in an understanding reached between the United States and Pakistan during Musharraf’s visit to Camp David, that Afghanistan could be, in effect, “sub-contracted” to Pakistan. Karzai also told Rashid that Musharraf’s critical remarks about the Karzai regime during his visit to the United States reminded him of the pre-September 11 days when Pakistan was fully backing the Taliban and exercising ever-more-strident control over Afghanistan. Musharraf had said, among other things, that the Afghan president does not have much control over Afghanistan beyond Kabul. But, Karzai added in the interview with Rashid, no matter what the outsiders are planning or plotting, as of now, “I want nobody to be under any illusion that Afghanistan will allow any other country to control it.” Is Karzai overreacting? Most likely, he is not. He has seen the writing on the wall. It is arguable whether the Taliban’s return to power is inevitable, but there is little doubt that under the circumstances it is very convenient for the US.

Bowing to realities

To begin with, it was clear from the outset that the United States never really wanted to be in Afghanistan. It was basically a jumping-off point for the “big enchilada”, the re-shaping of the Middle East’s politics and regimes. The Afghan reconstruction talk was mostly wishful thinking. For anyone familiar with present-day Afghanistan — its security situation, the drug production and trafficking, its destroyed infrastructure, its rampant illiteracy and poverty — its reconstruction by foreigners is either a dream or a string of motivated lies.

continue reading…