Articles

India Rejects Linchpin Role in U.S. Strategy to 'Rebalance' Asia

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Credit: MEA IndiaBy Shastri Ramachandran*
IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

NEW DELHI (IDN) - The road to the third round of the India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue under way in Washington has been far from smooth.

In January, when the Obama administration came out with its ambition of a military "pivot" to Asia, it caused confusion and unease in the region. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore June 1-3, 2012, which was attended by most Asian defence ministers, U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta avoided the term "pivot" and referred to a "rebalancing" toward Asia.

That cleared the confusion, but added anxiety to the unease when Panetta unveiled a U.S. plan to boost its military presence in Asia with 60 percent of the warships to be deployed in the Pacific.

Although Panetta said that the renewed U.S. interest in the Asia-Pacific region was not aimed at China, "few in the audience said they believed it," as the New York Times noted.

The stepped-up military emphasis, the Times report observed, "appears intended to force a confrontation with China, a situation feared by many countries in the region, all of which enjoy strong trade ties with China."

Panetta, who was scheduled to visit India three days later on June 5, said his visit to New Delhi would focus on "building a strong security relationship with the country I believe will play a decisive role in shaping the security and prosperity of the 21st century."

Asian capitals, particularly Beijing and New Delhi, and Washington were agog with speculation that, at last, India would be forced to show its hand. Many expected India to proclaim itself a strategic ally of the U.S. Others felt that India would make it plain that there is no basis for a strategic alliance regardless of the all-round, including defence, cooperation with the U.S.

Although China was not alone in being wary about the U.S. boosting its military presence in Asia, it had reasons to be irritated with Panetta stirring up feeling against China during his eight-day tour of Asia.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same in 2010, when she landed in Hanoi and, more recently, when she visited Myanmar.

India is very much interested in U.S. military technology and, therefore, keen to upscale defence cooperation. Consequently, when India did not come out cheering the new U.S. Asia strategy and Panetta's pitch in Singapore, it was assumed that India's restraint was to avoid raising China's hackles.

But when Panetta spoke in Delhi, that assumption was proved wrong. Worse for Washington was New Delhi pointedly, but politely, asserting its strategic autonomy and aversion to being taken for granted as a U.S. ally.

For this, the U.S. has itself and Panetta's overblown rhetoric to blame. By describing India as the "linchpin" in the U.S. strategy of "rebalancing" toward Asia-Pacific, Panetta forced his hosts to clarify that India could never be locked in as an integral part of someone else's strategy.

At that time, with the third India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue set to begin a week later, Washington expected India to not only march in step, but also bask in the glory of being appreciated for it.

As Panetta said in New Delhi on June 6 "America is at a turning point. After a decade of war, we are developing a new defence strategy - a central feature of which is 'rebalancing' toward the Asia-Pacific region. [...] Cooperation with India is a linchpin in this strategy."

The same day, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang assured India's External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna of working together to maintain strategic communication, improve mutual political trust and appropriately address disputes and safeguard the peace and tranquillity in border areas to advance bilateral relationship to a new phase.

Krishna's fulsome reciprocation underscored Sino-Indian relations as "one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world."

The Indian media's focus on both the U.S. and China wooing India with such fervour could not have been flattering to Washington and Panetta's high-power delegation.

Besides, Li and Krishna putting Panetta in the shade, both Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defence Minister A.K. Antony conveyed their reservations on the "rebalancing" strategy to the visiting U.S. defence secretary.

In fact, reports are that Manmohan Singh sent a firm and unmistakable message to the U.S. that Washington needs to recalibrate its new defence strategy.

Antony, too, impressed on Panetta that the U.S. needed to recalibrate or rethink its defence policy. He underscored the need "to strengthen the multilateral security architecture" in the Asia Pacific and that it must "move at a pace comfortable to all countries concerned."

With everything spelled out in no uncertain terms, Washington would do well to go into this latest meeting after shedding any illusions it still harbours of India being a linchpin in the U.S. strategy to further militarize the Indian Ocean region. China has every reason to be pleased at the outcome, for now.

*Shastri Ramachandaran is an independent political and foreign affairs commentator, had worked as Senior Editor & Writer with the Global Times and China Daily in Beijing. A version of this article first appeared in Global Times and is being published by arrangement with the writer. [IDN-InDepthNews – June 13, 2012]

2012 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

The writer's previous articles in IDN:
http://www.indepthnews.info/index.php/search?searchword=shastri%20ramachndran&ordering=newest&searchphrase=any

Picture: India's External Affairs Minister | Credit: MEA India
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook:
http://twitter.com/InDepthNews
http://www.facebook.com/pages/IDN-InDepthNews/207395499271390?sk=wall