By OP Gupta IFS (Retd)
So far as India is concerned Obama has continued to behave as a non-proliferation Ayatollah neglecting outstanding self-imposed restraints and non-proliferation roles of all Indian Governments.
The unemployment rate in US is running high and is expected to keep rising to 10 per cent by 2010. This coupled with continued returning of body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan has adversely affected popularity of Obama in opinion polls.
In article ‘Obama makes a welcome History’ in the Organiser of November 16, 2008 this writer had opined that Democratic US Presidents had in general been less friendly to India than Republican Presidents; and, only time would tell whether Barack Hussein Obama would be able to reverse this trend. Actions taken by Obama so far show that he has continued with the democratic trend of tilting against India though we Indians remain warm hearted towards USA.
So far as India is concerned Obama has continued to behave as a non-proliferation Ayatollah neglecting outstanding self imposed restraints and non-proliferation roles of all Indian Governments.
The G-8 nations at their July 10, 2009 meeting held at L’Aquila, Italy adopted a resolution welcoming (vide Para 8) the progress that continues to be made by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on mechanisms to strengthen controls on transfer of enrichment and reprocessing items and technologies to Non-NPT countries. NPT means Non Proliferation treaty. India is a non-NPT country. No doubt, India was given exemption by NSG but whether this exemption will be applicable to subsequent NSG procedures remains a debatable point.
At its 6191st Meeting held on September 24, 2009 at New York presided over by US President Obama and attended by 14 other Presidents/PMs the Security Council vide Resolution 1887(2009) unanimously decided to end nuclear weapons proliferation and ensure reductions in existing weapons stockpiles as well as control on production of fissile materials for explosion. Para 4 reads: “Calls upon all States that are not parties to NPT to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States” Para 7 of this resolution reads: “calls upon states to refrain from conducting a nuclear test explosion and to sign and ratify CTBT.” Para 8 reads: “calls upon the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a Treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” Among others this SC meeting was attended by Presidents of China, France and Russia and British PM. So pressures on India to sign NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and sign CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) and FMCT (Fissile Material Control Treaty) are going to build up courtesy our ‘strategic partner’ USA. These multilateral irritants in bilateral Indo-US relations have been created by the Obama Administration. India has been called upon to join NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.
India does not find place in the inner financial core of the G-8.
Addressing the Indian-American community in early 2008 Obama had said: “I believe that India is a natural partner for America in the 21st century and that the US should be working with India on a range of critical issues from preventing terrorism to promoting peace and stability in Asia... And that is why I will move forward to build a close strategic partnership between the US and India when I am President of the United States.” Well Obama is seen lacking on his these promises.
Here it is pertinent to recall that Obama has strong views on non-proliferation, which was evidenced by two killer amendments he had moved in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee while approving the infamous Hyde Act. In this Committee he had suggested (Senate Amendment 5169) that supply of nuclear fuel to India should be actual need based of an imported nuclear reactor (Section 103(b) (10) of the Hyde Act) so that India is not able to create its strategic reserves from imported fuel. Obama also suggested ensuring that US should not facilitate nuclear exports by other countries to India if such US exports were terminated. This second Obama amendment is reflected in Section 102(13) of the Hyde Act.
The unemployment rate in US is running high and is expected to keep rising to 10 per cent by 2010. This coupled with continued returning of body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan has adversely affected popularity of Obama in opinion polls.
In his Cairo speech (June 4, 2009) Obama very correctly said that America is not and will never be at war with Islam but will relentlessly confront violent extremists extensively. We did not go (to Afghanistan) by choice; we went because of necessity.
His Pak-Afghan policy has got stalemated with fears of Afghanistan turning into another Vietnam with scenario of exit in disgrace. Re-take of Afghanistan by Taliban secretly supported by Pakistan will weaken India in that part of the world. Pakistan is playing double game with US in war against terror. Obama has followed a wrong policy in Afghanistan which has potential to escalate violence in India sooner than later in case inglorious exit of US and NATO from Afghanistan materialised. Thereafter Taliban and jihadis would be free to deploy all their resources and focus on kafir India. Therefore, it is in long term interest of India to see that USA and NATO are not militarily defeated in Afghanistan. A section of Pakistan establishment wants defeat and exit of US from Afghanistan. Pakistan will not be interested in quick defeat of Al Qaeda as its defeat would dry up flow of US dollars. On Afghanistan, therefore, Obama and India must think out of box solutions.
Obama should not fall in well laid out Pakistani trap of linking Afghanistan with India’s Kashmir as by doing so USA would gain nothing except losing goodwill of Indian people. Merger of J & K into India in 1947 was also supported by its the then local popular leaders. People living in J & K have participated in State Assembly and Indian Parliament elections a number of times since 1947.
Since 2001 about 1442 NATO soldiers have already been killed in Afghanistan including 867 US, 219 British and 131 Canadian casualties with no light in the tunnel. 68 per cent Americans believe war in Afghanistan is a military stalemate. 61 per cent Democrats want to reduce US troops but Republicans want to send more troops. NATO commander US General McCrystal said the war would end in failure without additional troops of 30,000 to 40,000. Vice President Joe Biden is reported to favour narrowing down US role in Afghanistan. There are about 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan.
Obama should explore the possibility of inducting troops from such developing countries where returning body bags do not pose much problem to governments. This option should be explored more vigorously as hilly terrain of Afghanistan demands that for military victory armed strength should be at least four times that of enemy and in this case NATO soldiers in field do not know who is enemy. So even after adding another 40000 US troops the NATO strength would be below this basic military requirement of four times superiority.
The US has approved civilian and economic aid of USD 1.5 billion a year for five years to Pakistan for democratic, economic and social programmes and also such sums as are necessary for military aid. The US claims that aid aims at alleviating poverty and reducing economic allurement of jihadis to unemployed youth. Well attackers of 9/11 were neither poor nor uneducated. Jihad against kafirs is not poverty driven but Qur’an and ideology driven. Senator John Kerry has clarified that there is no conditionality attached to civilian and economic aid. One is not sure whether this Kerry clarification would not further alienate the ethnic groups (Baluch, Pashtuns, and Sindhi) from US as one does not see any US public statement that an equitable part of this aid will be spent in their regions too.
In order to succeed in Afghanistan Obama must make politico-military use of ethnic differences to defeat Al Qaeda as locals know better than NATO soldiers who is their enemy in fields. On one side of Durand line it is Pashtuns vs Hazara etc., and, on the other side, it is Baluch, Pashtuns, Sindhis vs Punjabi elite of Pakistan. Somehow or other USA is seen by respected leaders of these ethnic groups more as friend and protector of Punjabi hegemony.
It may be recalled that Baluchistan and the North West Frontier were merged by force and fraud over ruling local leaders (Nabab of Kalat and Frontier Gandhi) into Pakistan which keeps the pot boiling and is the root cause of unrest in this region.
An assurance by US and the EU to Pashtuns, Baluch and Sindhis that their democratic aspirations shall no more be overlooked by them coupled with stronger military action in Afghanistan as at present may go a long way to decisively defeat Al Qaeda in its den. Victory cannot be achieved only by military divisions of US and NATO as it is not a pure military war. It is two pronged war, military and political.
(The writer retired in the rank of Secretary to the Govt of India in the Indian Foreign Service (1971 batch). He has served as Ambassador to Finland, Estonia, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Tunisia and Tanzania and; as Consul General, Dubai and Birmingham (UK). Contact: www.opgupta.org
No comments:
Post a Comment