With the F-16 Deal Stalled, Are Days of US-Pakistan Bonhomie Over?

According to Sartaj Aziz, Adviser on Foreign Affairs to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, relations with the United States have hit a nadir. There are two reasons for such dire assessment. One, Islamabad has failed to secure appropriate assurance from Washington that it wouldn’t willfully breach Pakistan’s sovereign air space. On May 22, an armed American Predator drone killed Mullah Mansoor, alleged leader of the Haqqani faction of the Pakistan Taliban in North Waziristan.

America had held Mansoor responsible for the relentless attacks by his outfit on the US forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s response was a muted one, owing to the fact that the drone was, perhaps, launched from Jacobabad air force base, part of which has been occupied for many years now by the US military (which is permitted by a logistics support agreement of the sort that India is preparing to sign with the US).

How the Deal Went Sour?

The deal for the F-16 fighter planes that were on the verge of being delivered by the US supplier, Lockheed Martin, to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) was suddenly pulled up short. This development happened because of the last minute US Congressional intervention that required Pakistan to pay up in full the total cost of some $700 million for eight of these aircraft.

A punitive action by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, specifically by one of its members, Senator Bob Corker, who at a stroke of his legislative pen, led to the removal of the US government subsidy of $270 million underpinning this contract. With the subsidy provision gone, Pakistan deemed the aircraft just too expensive for it to buy. Islamabad has indicated it will manage by purchasing used F-16s from Jordan.

Reason Behind the Corker Initiative

The background for the Corker initiative was that Washington wanted to impress the visiting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and assure that the US meant business and was willing to tamp down Pakistan’s role in nursing terrorist groups and deploying them in neighbouring countries, namely India and Afghanistan.

This display of American anger may also have been a means to pressure Islamabad into releasing Dr. Shakil Afridi incarcerated in a Pakistani jail. It was Afridi who had informed American intelligence agents about the presence of the Al-Qaeda supremo Osama bin Laden in a fortified building outside the gates of the Pakistan Military Academy in Abottabad, leading to his elimination (‘Operation Geronimo’) by the US Special Forces in May 2011.

It is, however, important for Washington that Pakistan augments its fleet of F-16s, because doing so reassures Islamabad that the US will continue to ensure maintaining a certain “strategic balance” across the subcontinent – the historical geopolitical game the US has been engaged in since 1947. It is this equation being upset and the supposed “balance” that Aziz is bitterly complaining about.

US Assistance Will Continue

The US has been munificent in its aid and assistance package that in the period 2002-2015 fetched Pakistan $5.4 billion in arms transfers and other military aid and an additional $30 billion in economic assistance (inclusive of reimbursements for the support and services provided by the Pakistani military for the US’ armed presence in that country and for the staging of US military operations in Afghanistan).

The US will ensure that as part of such aid in the next few years, the special equipment for all-weather and night operations and radar/area suppression weapons that the new F-16s were to have on-board will be available for fitment on the ex-Jordanian F-16s once they join PAF.

F-16s by themselves pose no great threat to India. Except, and this is the insidious part of the US game, the Pakistani F-16s have been technically enabled by the US to fire the anti-ship Harpoon missile against ground targets. Meaning that both the F-16s and the maritime use Harpoon missiles on board can be used in any conflict across land borders with India. This is why the Indian government protested vehemently to the US against the sale of this lot of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan.

Snapshot: Denial of F-16s to Pakistan
•Pakistan fails to seal a deal on the sale of eight F-16 fighter jets, as the two countries fail to reach a consensus over financing,

•The $700 million deal was supposed to be financed partially by the US, an offer that was turned down by the US Congress.

•Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee objected to the subsidised sale.

•The U-turn by US is meant to impress India and put pressure on Pakistan in order to release Shakil Afridi, the doctor who had helped CIA track Laden.

•What worries India is incessant supply of arms by the US to Pakistan, which the latter justifies in the name of war against terror.

———-
The above piece was published in online magazine ‘the Quint’, June 18, 2016, and is accessible at http://www.thequint.com/opinion/2016/06/18/with-the-f-16-deal-stalled-are-days-of-us-pakistan-bonhomie-over-sartaj-aziz-abbotabad-osama-bin-laden-bob-corker

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, Asian geopolitics, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, guerilla warfare, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Internal Security, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, Pakistan, Pakistan military, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Terrorism, United States, US., Weapons | 1 Comment

India and NSG Membership

There was a discussion June 14, 2016 on ‘India and NSG Membership’ on Rajya Sabha TV program — India’s World, involving former Ambassador Rakesh Sood, retired Cmde Uday Bhaskar, and myself. Interesting stuff. For those interested in viewing it, it is available at

Posted in Asian geopolitics, China, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, nonproliferation, nuclear industry, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, nuclear power, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistan nuclear forces, SAARC, South Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, United States, US., Weapons | 1 Comment

Modi’s US policy: Embracing Washington comes at a price

In the address to the United States Congress on June 8, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the evolving global situation as a “war of multiple transitions and economic opportunities, growing uncertainties and political complexities, existing threats and new challenges” which, contrary to his advocacy of closer relations with the US, make it imperative India retains its “strategic autonomy”, policy options, and the freedom of manoeuvre.

India and the US do share “interests and concerns” and China is the main worry. Except the US is distanced from China by the Pacific Ocean and inclined, therefore, to accommodate Beijing, while for India it is an immediate and potent threat best kept in check by India joining in a coalition of rimland states — Asean, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, with the US featured as an extra-territorial balancer. Regarding terrorism, the US will pressure Pakistan only about suppressing the Haqqani Taliban active in Afghanistan.

In technology cooperation the reality is starker. In a decade of high-flying rhetoric, not a single R&D project has materialised. But expensive technology extraneous to India’s naval needs — the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) for aircraft carriers is offered in the hope its sale will help amortise US investment in it. But India’s priority — American assistance in designing and developing a combat aircraft jet engine, is made contingent on India first buying 90 1970s-era F-16s/F-18s off the shelf, and producing another 200 aircraft under licence. This is called ‘Open Sesame’ for high-technology trade in the future.

Given the thrust of the US technology cooperation, it is imprudent to even contemplate imperilling ties with Russia, and doing without the leased Akula-II nuclear-powered attack submarine and Russian involvement in strategically sensitive programmes, such as the Arihant SSBN. Besides, given that the bulk of the conventional armaments with the Indian armed forces are of Russian origin, an aggravated Kremlin could shut down Indian capabilities if it chose to. Indeed, Moscow has already given notice it will rethink its role in sensitive Indian defence projects and about leasing a second Akula if New Delhi signs the “foundational” accords formalising a security relationship with Washington.

But India has pressed ahead and finalised the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). It seems to be only a differently worded version of the standard Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement detailed in the US Defense Department’s Directive 2010.9 of April 28, 2003. The reimbursement of costs will require Indian base commanders, as has happened in Pakistan that has a logistics support agreement with the US, periodically to justify to US authorities the quality and costs of the support and services provided. In Enclosure 2 of this directive, Section E2.1.10 spells out the “Logistics Support, Supplies, and Services”, inclusive of “base operations support (and construction incident to base operations support), [and] storage services”. This refers to the pre-positioning of stores and supplies and constitutes a basing provision. Implicit is the fact of the US providing security for its assets and personnel, necessitating parts of Indian military bases coming under US control and violating Indian sovereignty. Should India assume the responsibility for protecting such US military presence in India, the Indian intelligence agencies, armed forces, central and state police, and the paramilitaries will face an internal security nightmare to pre-empt and prevent attacks by domestic and international Islamic terrorist outfits on US personnel. The situation could get politically fraught very fast.

The explanation that the Indian military will be able to access far-flung US bases begs several questions: Whether the Indian military mounts many out-of-area operations and, if they mean to, wouldn’t a more cost-effective long-term solution be Indian bases in the Agalega Islands of Mauritius and on the northern Mozambican coast, an agreement with Sultan Qaboos to stage out of Oman, and independently to use Nha Trang in Vietnam, and Subic Bay and Clark air base in the Philippines — all options available to India?

Americans anticipate that with LEMOA in the bag, the other two “foundational” accords — Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — will follow. Indian officials claim CISMOA’s usefulness in counter-terrorism activity. But it is something Russia is wary of, as it will allow the US to plug into the communications system linking Indian aircraft to submarines, enabling remote spoofing of the communications hardware in the Akula SSNs. This is too risky for Moscow not to consider a pull out, which move could end in firming up a formidable Russia-China-Pakistan triad. With India and US getting together, China will be more determined to deny India entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, leave alone as permanent member into the UN Security Council.

The prime minister’s appeal for US investment in India’s manufacturing sector too may not work out to our advantage just yet. He seems unaware that the Obama administration initiated the “in-sourcing” policy using coercive tax measures to compel American companies to bring back capital invested abroad and to create jobs in the US. So, how did New Delhi get the impression that Obama means to benefit India? Sure, the US would happily continue importing Indian talent, nurtured at the Indian taxpayer’s expense, to do technology work.

The problem is with Modi’s personalised diplomacy wedded to his vision for the country as a subsidiary power. He further believes that India should make friends and that friends mean well. Except, Western leaders will be friendly, but ultimately pocket contracts worth tens of billions of dollars (for six nuclear reactors, in Obama’s case), and otherwise advance their national interests, leaving India to wax eloquent about shared democratic values.
——–
Published in the online Hindustan Times, June 15, 2016 at http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/modi-s-us-policy-embracing-washington-comes-at-a-price/story-bz1lVPJRQEq31RbC3j7XnK.html; and Hindustan Times with title “The perils of a tight embrace” at http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment-newspaper/the-perils-of-a-tight-embrace/story-JMONNEXtA0g0FYhxINtQDI.html

Posted in Africa, arms exports, Asian geopolitics, China, China military, Defence Industry, DRDO, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian democracy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, indian policy -- Israel, Iran and West Asia, Internal Security, Iran and West Asia, Japan, Military Acquisitions, Northeast Asia, nuclear industry, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, nuclear power, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Relations with Russia, Russia, russian assistance, SAARC, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, United States, US., Vietnam, Weapons, West Asia | 2 Comments

Making a great power omelet

A review of my book ‘Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)’ by Sandeep Unnithan, published in India Today dated May 25, 2016 and accessible at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/why-india-is-not-a-great-power-bharat-karnad-books/1/677612.html
———
A security hawk writes a masterful compendium of India’s strategic failings.

Diplomacy without arms, the 19th century Prussian soldier-statesman Frederick the Great once observed, is like music without instruments. India’s foremost national security hawk Bharat Karnad insists that India has stood the Frederickian analogy on its head- its orchestra can make big music, but uses just the piccolo to produce small notes.

In this masterful compendium of the country’s strategic failings, including the inability to field a robust military-industrial complex and, consequently, hard power, Karnad dives deep into military misfires like a 2001 project to provide a ‘simputer’ for infantry soldiers. Failures that have cascaded into a conundrum- a UN Security Council seat aspirant is today also the world’s largest arms importer. He’s quick to identify the problems: a void in strategy, geostrategic vision and other factors like pusillanimity, absence of strong leadership and a stifling bureaucracy.

Karnad was an early advocate of China and not Pakistan being India’s long-term strategic adversary. He harps on the absence of China-specific deterrents like thermonuclear weapons and strategic fortitude to stand up to its northern neighbour.

If India is indeed to become a great power, it needs to discard its please-all policy, become more disruptive in the manner of A-list powers who break eggs to make great power omelets for themselves.

Posted in Asian geopolitics, China, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Army, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, South Asia, UN, Weapons | 9 Comments

How important is it for India to be part of NSG? — Rajya Sabha TV discussion

There was an interesting discussion on the Rajya Sabha TV panel discussion show — ‘The Big Picture’ on the subject of ‘How important is it for India to be part of NSG?’ aired on Saturday, June 10, 2016, involving G. Balachandran of IDSA, former Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar, Nandan Unnikrishnan of ORF, and myself. It is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkoc42v1bsc

Posted in Asian geopolitics, China, China military, Culture, disarmament, domestic politics, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, nonproliferation, nuclear industry, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, nuclear power, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistan nuclear forces, South Asia, Strategic Forces Command, Strategic Relations with the US & West, United States, US. | Leave a comment

Comparing and Rating Modi’s address to the US Congress

Resisted the impulse to react to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address to the joint Houses of the US Congress June 8, until now. It must be said though that it was a mostly dull speech full of banalities and stock sentiments (shared democratic values, etc) and is not worth the trouble analyzing. Except I am prompted by the sheer hyperbolic reception in Indian newspapers and media where reporters counted the standing ovations and applause not realizing that that this is normal polite thing that US legislators do when foreign leaders address them. But I am provoked into commenting by an entrenched member of what I have labelled the collaborationist school of foreign policy heading — what else — Carnegie India, who takes off on Modi’s lines to crow about the “strategic symphony” now supposedly existing in India-US relations.

Have been in the House gallery on Capitol Hill on two occasions in the past when Indian PMs addressed the joint Houses of the US legislature — the first time in 1984, June 13, when Rajiv Gandhi made quite a splash, and in 2000 when I was part of a small team headed by senior BJP leader, Professor ML Sondhi, that interacted with numerous US thinktanks within the Washington Beltway preparatory to the state visit by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which visit was topped off by his address September 14.

Objectively speaking, Rajiv’s address was absolutely scintillating and the best so far of any perorations before American legislators, including by his grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru in October 1949. The secret of Rajiv’s success — besides his youthful good looks that proved an excellent foil for President Ronald Reagan’s practiced, almost cinematic, ease before cameras and the international media — was his speech drafted by then ambassador in Washington, K. Shankar Bajpai. This was important because Shankar Bajpai, who grew up in the city and was a student at the elite St. Albans School during the War years in the 1940s when his father, Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai of the Indian Civil Service was Churchill’s Political Agent to President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, and tasked with arguing against granting immediate independence to India — something that FDR and many in his cabinet were pushing for — a job he carried out entirely to London’s satisfaction, and picked on precisely the sort of things Americans could instantly relate to. (Sir Girija’s success proved very early that in India’s “colonial” administrative system, bureaucrats survive even when elected governments don’t, because from being some one who opposed Indian freedom, he ended up in a free India in the Nehru era as MEA’s first Director-General!)

Anyway, the Shankar Bajpai-drafted speech was studded with stunning nuggets of information historically connecting India and the US. Thus, when Rajiv asserted that he wished Elihu Yale, instead of founding a college in New England had seeded an institution of higher learning in Madras, where he made his wealth as a senior East India Company official, and that Cornwallis instead of surrendering to US forces at Yorktown, had surrendered in Delhi, etc. he was greeted with knowing laughter and such deafening and prolonged and heart-felt bouts of applause and repeated standing ovations that no Indian PM has since been able to match. That was the high point of convivialty in relations manifested in the two urbane and sophisticated leaders — one young Indian, with Western sensibilities, the other a proven crowd pleaser. Rajiv’s address was a spectacular success and instantly turned around the public perception of India from a land reeking of poverty to a modern nation.

Narasimha Rao followed on May 18, 1994 and stood his ground, shrugging off India’s Cold War Soviet tilt saying roundly that “Being transient, term-bound representatives of our peoples, you and I have neither the time nor the need to review what we do not wish to repeat.” Vajpayee followed and famously called India and the US “natural allies”, in the process providing the strategic undergirding for better relations.

Manmohan Singh came and muttered unintelligibly in English on July 19, 2005.The US legislators dutifully stood up and applauded several times even as, by and large, they sat there scratching their heads. Remember, in this respect, that the host US president, George W.Bush, later confessed he couldn’t make head or tail of anything Manmohan Singh said in their numerous one-on-one conversations and claimed he would, ideally, have appreciated the services of an interpreter! It is hardly surprising therefore that Manmohan’s audience in the US Congress was generally left glassy-eyed.

Modi, of course, was far clearer, and made himself understood, which Manmohan could not easily manage to do. This is no small thing considering how hidebound and parochial most US law makers are. Modi’s speech was received correctly with the regulation standing ovations, etc., but no great enthusiasm. What stuck in any Indian nationalist’s throat was his expression of gratitude for what — Washington’standard reaction to any terrorist incident, in this case, the 26/11 strike by Pakistan-based terrorists on Mumbai? Recall, in contrast, the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 address to the US Congress — a no-nonsense speech where he didn’t plead for US understanding or help, merely explained his government’s harsh measures against the violence-prone Palestinians as proper and merited. The context was Obama Admin’s conspicuous cold-shouldering of Tel Aviv for its use of “excessive” force.

The other thing that stuck in my craw at least was his repeated positive references to the US sucking up Indian talent — praising US “innovation” that drew Indian “creativity”, etc. Modi made it sound as if this continuous decanting of prized intellectual resources from India to the US is a good thing, and something his government lays much store by and seeks to promote! In this respect it is best to remind ourselves to see how little the situation has changed from the time when Nehru in his address 67 years ago said: “I realise that self-help is the first condition of success for a nation, no less than for an individual. We are conscious that ours must be the primary effort and we shall seek succour from none to escape from any part of our own responsibility. But though our economic potential is great, its conversion into finished wealth will need much mechanical and technological aid.”

It is sobering and shameful to see India still seeking technological help from the US. What’s worse is Modi taking pride in the country losing its prized youthful engineering, scientific, and managerial talent to America simply because the bureaucratized Indian government over the decades monopolizing the fields of education, industry, and skilling has made such a mess of everything that young Indians are desperate to get the hell out of the country to make their futures anywhere abroad. And Modi, far from minimizing the role of government, has persisted with it, compounding the problems for the country and ensuring India is stuck in a morass of the government’s making.

Posted in Asian geopolitics, Culture, domestic politics, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian democracy, Indian Politics, Israel, Pakistan, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, Terrorism, United States, US. | 11 Comments

IDSA Panel discussion on ‘Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)’

IDSA held a panel discussion on my book — ‘Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)’on May 18 involving RADM Raja Menon (Retd), Shakti Sinha, ex-IAS and former private secretary to prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, V. Siddhartha, former Technology adviser, MOD, and Jayant Prasad, IFS, and currently DG, IDSA. It was a vigorous and interesting discussion and an audio record of it is available at:
http://www.idsa.in/idsanews/panel-discussion-on-bharat-karnad’s-book

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, Asian geopolitics, Bangladesh, Central Asia, China, China military, civil-military relations, corruption, Culture, Defence Industry, domestic politics, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian democracy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, indian policy -- Israel, Iran and West Asia, Indian Politics, Iran and West Asia, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, nonproliferation, Northeast Asia, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Relations with Russia, Russia, russian assistance, SAARC, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, United States, US., Vietnam, Weapons | 3 Comments

Dangers of a tight embrace

I was in Washington DC for a panel discussion on “India’s Asia-Pacific Outreach and Relations with China” at the Heritage Foundation on May 25. In the three days spent in the US capital meeting a number of Beltway thinktankers, what was palpable was the disappointment on several counts with the right-of-centre Bharatiya Janata Party government. The Wall Street Journal (May 26) published an interview-commentary as a curtain raiser to prime minister Narendra Modi’s second visit in two years that highlighted his inability or unwillingness to initiate “big bang” economic liberalization measures. Modi was damned, if not in so many words, as a waffler and only a more bombastic version of his predecessor, Manmohan Singh.

The economic interests in the US will be pacified if Modi signs up for a gigantic and manifestly unaffordable contract for Westinghouse and General Electric light water reactors as power plants under the rubric of controlling carbon emissions and climate change. The danger to India from the deal and from the dependency on imported power plants has been detailed in my writings and those of nuclear stalwarts like the late Dr PK Iyengar, AN Prasad, and A Gopalakrishnan against the nuclear deal — arguments that were convincing enough to fire a public campaign that all but stopped that deal with the US in its tracks in Parliament in 2008 (and available in the 2009 book comprising a voluminous compilation of these writings — ‘Strategic Sellout: Indian-US Nuclear Deal’ [New Delhi: Pentagon Press]).

In the ultimate analysis though, whether India matches the economic pace of the East Asian dragons or remains the perennial laggard matters less to US security enclaves who, with the strategically assertive China in mind, increasingly define the US interest in India. One of the metrics held up to judge the success of the visit is whether Modi will sign the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement. LEMOA, a differently worded version of the standard Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) the US insists on with its treaty allies and partners, is one of the three accords considered as prerequisite for close US military cooperation with India, along with the Communications Inter-operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement concerning geo-spatial information (and the sharing, for instance, of digitized target coordinates). It will allow US armed forces to repair, replenish, refuel at Indian air and naval bases, and to afford its fighting personnel rest & recreation, enabling the US military to pull sustained operations in the Indian Ocean region and to cut a more active profile landward.

Peninsular India as supply-support base perfectly fills the logistics gap in the large oceanic and air expanses between the US bases in Bahrain in the Gulf and Diego Garcia in the southwestern Indian Ocean, and Singapore on the southeastern littoral.

Washington’s perception is that in recent years India has wriggled out of committing forcefully to contain China owing to two factors of Cold War vintage: America’s inhibition about selling and transferring advanced military technology to India, and its worrisome relations with Pakistan. The US is minimizing the basis of these “excuses”. In the past fortnight, the US Congress voted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act placing India in the same league as Japan and South Korea, and removing the legal barriers to its acquiring advanced US military technology.

Islamabad’s policy of asymmetric warfare using terrorist groups to discomfit India has boomeranged because many of these same outfits (the Haqqani Taliban faction, in particular) are fighting the Pakistan army and US forces instead upending, in the process, the peace plan for Afghanistan and raising the human and financial costs of American military intervention. So, US Congress has mandated vetting of Islamabad’s anti-terrorist stance prior to the disbursal of some $450 million in annual aid. Further, the US legislature vetoed the subsidy component in the $750 million deal for the sixteen F-16 combat aircraft on order, requiring Pakistan to ante up the full cost. The bad optics of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that will establish a Chinese Naval presence in Gwadar in the future, haven’t helped Pakistan either.

But such de-hyphenation measures do not preclude US’s continued contributions to critically enhancing Pakistan’s military capabilities. Such as providing technical fixes for the naval Harpoon missile so it can be fired from F-16 aircraft to attack land targets – the reason why the Modi government strongly protested the sale of this fighter plane to Islamabad.

The developments at the US end are motivated by a higher geostrategic purpose, of course, but are being dressed up as uniquely India-friendly actions. The scheduled address to the Joint Houses of the Congress during his June 7-8 visit by Modi is to massage his ego in the hope this will get the Obama Administration what it wants. Lest the Prime Minister be overly impressed by this gesture, he should be alerted to the fact — which MEA surely hasn’t done — that, considering it is election season in America, he’ll find the benches filled mostly by young Congressional pages and petty officials instructed to fill the hall rather than by US legislators who will be in their constituencies.

Because LEMOA is sort of an American litmus test, it is imperative Modi appreciates what is at stake, and the gravity of the situation that will obtain should he make the wrong decision.

The draft-LEMOA has not been made public. But its wording is unlikely to violate the existing LSA parameters, or deviate much from Section E2.1.10 of the US ‘Department of Defense, Directive number 2010.9’ which describes the “Logistics Support, Supplies, and Services” that India is expected to provide. It will formalize the US basing option in India. So, calling LSA by another name will not detract from the reality of the US gaining the right to pre-position stores and set up military base structures and mechanisms in India under its control, and requiring related jurisdictional agreements to protect American military assets and personnel.

As has been detailed in previous posts on this subject, the fallout will include a grounding of the Indian conventional military forces as Russia will retaliate by slowly choking off the spares supply, and begin seriously to explore the sale of sophisticated armaments to Pakistan and, most damagingly for India, possibly consider pulling out of sensitive Indian strategic R&D programmes. And, extremist Islamic groups everywhere will gear up to attack the politically juicy US military targets in India and completely roil the already uncertain conditions of internal security.

To sum up, formally allying with the United States will result in a loss of India’s ‘Russia card’ and its room for diplomatic maneuver and policy freedom, which New Delhi has hitherto prized and jealously guarded. It will gut high-value weapons development projects, militarily strengthen Pakistan, encourage terrorist activity in the country, disturb domestic politics, spawn unmanageable internal security problems, and reduce India to the status of an American camp follower. How does this serve the national interest, especially when China can more effectively be constrained, as repeatedly argued on this blog, by India and the US acting separately but unpredictably to dilute the Chinese footprint in the Indian Ocean region and in Southeast Asia?

The Modi regime, however, is entertaining a slightly different agenda of gaining membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to achieve which aim the PM will go, cap in hand, for support among the extant members of NSG as disparate as Switzerland and Mexico (included in this foreign trip). This is a show of unnecessary desperation that will fetch India nothing. Try as Washington might — and there are serious doubts about how much the Barack Obama Administration will put out for India, its NSG admission depends on China’s not objecting to it. Beijing has made it clear that its contrary hyphenation scheme — India gets in only if Pakistan too is admitted, is what it will stick with. The problem for New Delhi is that it wants to rouse the bulk of the NSG states to separate India and Pakistan and contest China’s position when, quite honestly, no one gives a damn whether India gets in or not. So, it will be, as usual, a futile effort with Obama making the usual promises to push India’s case, which means nothing.

This is what comes of nearly five decades of the Indian government raising Pakistan’s status as this country’s primary military threat — when it is nothing of the kind. Except it has helped, and continues to help, US, China, Russia, and any other country which wants to play the game, to place the two South Asian countries on the same scale — an end-state GHQ Rawlpindi cannot but be overjoyed by.

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, Asian geopolitics, China, China military, Defence Industry, domestic politics, DRDO, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, Internal Security, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, nonproliferation, nuclear industry, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, nuclear power, Pakistan, Russia, russian assistance, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, Terrorism, United States, US., Weapons, West Asia | 23 Comments

Can the Shangri-La Dialogue Fill India’s Defence Diplomacy Void?

It’s a mere coincidence that while Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in Washington from 7-8 June, being pressured by President Barack Obama to sign the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement and formally ally India with the United States, his Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar will be in Singapore at the 15th Shangri-La security summit from June 3-5, trying to explain India’s non-existent defence diplomacy. The concern animating the discussions in both locations will be an assertively expansive China.

The conceit of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) from Jawaharlal Nehru’s days has been the belief that where China is concerned, diplomacy can score over military muscle – a point of view which endured despite the 1962 Himalayan drubbing of the Indian army by Chinese forces. Antipathy towards the hard power of the state unfortunately gets translated into neglect of defence diplomacy in the 21st century.

This means that while Beijing is backed by considerable military heft and outreach, New Delhi, afflicted by geo-strategic myopia, has the Indian armed forces equipped with imported armaments for territorial defence to fall back on.

Given this backdrop, what can Parrikar possibly say in Singapore? Oh, sure, he will mouth the usual inanities about India’s newly confident “Act East” policy. He may point towards the feat of Indian naval flotillas – the latest featuring INS Sahyadri and another missile destroyer, a corvette, and a tanker presently making its foray into the disputed South China Sea.

But he is unlikely to be very convincing, because successive governments have seemed clueless about how Indian military power and its projection can serve the national interest. Thus, the sale/transfer to Vietnam of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile – which can sink the biggest warships with a single shot and frighten China’s powerful South Sea Fleet enough to confine them to the Sanya base on Hainan Island – has still not been implemented, and the BrahMos has still not reached Hanoi.

Perhaps Parrikar can show some courage and make haste to equip the existing Vietnamese coastal batteries with this indomitable cruise missile. Were he keen on leaving a mark and seriously signalling India’s intent, he could arrange to sell, at cost-price to Vietnam, a BrahMos-armed, indigenously produced, Kolkata-class destroyer.

But will the Modi regime be even remotely this strategically venturesome? Nah! Consider this: Hanoi has offered India the Nha Trang port as a military base. Instead of jumping at it, India is going slow, the way it’s lagging behind in building up the Agalega Islands leased by Mauritius as naval and air bases, while entirely ignoring Mozambique’s request to set up a naval base on its northern coast. So much for New Delhi’s appreciating the importance of distant defence and the political value of foreign bases.
Or consider that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe conceived of “the confluence of the two seas” binding India’s and Japan’s national security interests nine years ago, a perfect launch pad for a coalition of Asian “rimland” states to neutralise China.

In September 2014 Modi visited Japan and agreed to upgrade the bilateral relationship to a ‘Special Strategic and Global Partnership’. In the two years since, there has been no great progress – other than the Japanese Navy’s participation in the annual Malabar naval exercise along with the US – in fleshing out this “special partnership”. Nor have the consultations that were mooted in Tokyo for joint weapons development achieved much.

Even the finalisation of the sale of the US-2 amphibious maritime surveillance aircraft is proceeding tardily, despite the Shinmaywa Company’s desire to not only fully transfer technology but establish a production line near Hyderabad for this one-of-a-kind aircraft to meet world-wide demand.

Given the institutionalised habit of mind to waste such opportunities, chances are slim that MEA, and the Indian government generally, will suddenly see the light and be galvanised into strategic action. India’s reticence in owning up to responsibility for the defence of distant neighbours does not mesh well with New Delhi’s great power pretensions. This is something that Singapore’s great statesman, the late Lee Kwan Yew, repeatedly stressed. But, frustratingly, New Delhi has not quite cottoned-on to military power as integral to the conduct of diplomacy.
——-
Projects in the Pipeline
11 March 2015: India signed an MoU with Mauritius to develop infrastructure and build strategic assets in the Agalega islands.
26 May 2015: India and Vietnam sign a five-year defence pact, however lack of clarity still persists on the export of BrahMos missile.
12 December 2015: India and Japan sign a deal on sharing military information but the deal on the sale of US-2 amphibious aircraft couldn’t be concluded.
—–

Published in The Quint, June 3, 2016; at http://www.thequint.com/opinion/2016/06/02/can-the-shangri-la-dialogue-fill-indias-defence-diplomacy-void-shangri-la-dialogue-parrikar-visit-singapore-act-east

Posted in arms exports, Asian geopolitics, China, China military, Defence Industry, DRDO, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, Iran and West Asia, Japan, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, Northeast Asia, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, Vietnam, Weapons | 8 Comments

Too late to make good in Iran?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will betake himself to Iran May 21, there to finally sign the tripartite Chahbahar port agreement, also involving Afghanistan, and to deliver on the $20 billion promised that country as follow-up to Iran’s handing over the Farzad-B gas field to set up a gas cracker unit and a liquefied petroleum gas extraction unit. The more significant thing to see whether Modi will opt for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline to carry the gas, the more expensive undersea pipeline to pump Farzad gas to an Indian port for onward distribution, or whether he’ll have the foresight to approve both these pipelines — there will not be a time in the next Century when India will not need Iranian energy. But if, given meagre resources, GOI has to choose, one hopes he will have the audacity to think strategic for a change — something his advisers have scant talent for — to opt for the IPI pipeline and initiate, at long last, the slow process of weaving the economies of the states of South Asia into a semblance of unitary economic space.

A critical mass of thinking is evolving in Pakistan that sees the futility of terminal enmity and the fact that this path is absolutely not affordable for Pakistan. (See two articles in todays’ Pakistani newspapers — The News, http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/121015-When-will-we-say-no-to-the-arms-race, and Express Tribune, http://tribune.com.pk/story/1106030/talking-peace-with-india/. Truth be told, India — even though limping towards the status of the third largest economy, can afford it even less because its problems are more massive and will require great foresight to tackle.

Iran has always been the energy lynchpin for India, a fact Tehran appreciated early on but New Delhi predictably didn’t, at least not in the decade 2004-2014. The Congress party government of Manmohan Singh regime was too busy trying to please and placate the United States by ensuring Indian policies conformed with Washington’s, to pause and contemplate whether this line helped India’s cause or even its larger security interests. If Washington decreed Iran a grave threat and sought to isolate that country by applying the financial tourniquet to its economic jugular, why, New Delhi was right there with America, in effect, supporting the regime of restraints imposed on Iran. Once the Obama Admin resolved the outstanding issues — in particular the future of Tehran’s Bomb programme — that regime was promptly ended, even as American companies rushed to Tehran to cut deals. The habitual laggard, India, followed but now with lot less leverage in Tehran.

True, the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did say, in the presence of the visiting Indian external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj in April this year, that the India-Iran ties defined a “partnership which has the potential of connecting the entire region”, which’s a truism. (http://www.thehindu.com/news/iran-is-indias-reliable-partner-says-rouhani/article8486686.ece?utm_source=InternalRef&utm_medium=relatedNews&utm_campaign=RelatedNews). But it is nothing as effusive as what Tehran used to say during the long winter of its isolation when it was desperate for friends and, especially India, to help it out, assist in ways for it to transact with the outside world — “a friend in need…”. It was an opportunity Delhi irretrievably lost, because Manmohan Singh was intent on a nuclear deal with the US that, besides freezing India’s strategic capabilities at the level of a failed thermonuclear weapon design — necessitated, as his government saw it, hewing to US policy likes and dislikes. It was during this period that the first substantive offer was made to India of the Chahbahar port as India’s entrepot to Afghanistan and Central Asia and, not to be undervalued, its utility to the Indian navy as base outflanking the Chinese setup in Gwadar, just 70 miles or so down that coast to instantly neutralize any big Chinese naval designs in that area.

Modi’s government is still to figure out the means of transferring $6.5 billion in outstanding dues for Iranian oil and gas imports in the past because the usual international banking channels working out of New York, London and Western Europe were closed off by Washington. But this payments is a microcosm of the problem India faces every time its government loses sight of the national interest. New Delhi, I have long maintained, institutionally lacks what the great theorist and practitioner of geopolitics Halford Mackinder called, “the map reading habit of mind”. One deko at the map would have made it clear why Iran, for various reasons, is central to India’s strategic concerns, again something Tehran recognized before there was a flicker of understanding at the Indian end.

Quite apart from the military importance of Chahbahar, with road and rail grids radiating northwards through Afghanistan to Central Asia to the northeast and to Russia’s Northern Distribution Network to the northeast, India is offered trade lifeline skirting the sea route, connecting Chahbahar directly to St Petersburg or southwards to the ports on the Baltic coast. With the transport and communications lines in flow, Afghanistan can be endlessly supported from landward — to protect India’s centrality in that country, while offering Indian commerce easy access to the Central Asian markets. Not to be forgotten that, as part of this general scheme of things, Tajikistan had offered the Indian Air Force the use of its Farkhor air base in Ainee. Su-30MKIs based there would have been on line of sight target runs to the Chinese nuclear complex at Lop Nor in Xinjiang — a useful stick to have in hand should the situation ever heat up with China. Yes, the Russians are reasserting their presence in Central Asia, and the Farkhor base, that India has remetalled and enabled for launch of air operations and its use is a matter of contention (because Moscow fears India getting too close militarily to the US). But had Delhi shown the resolve and a genuinely independent foreign and security policy, many of these problems wouldn’t have arisen in the first place.

When the geostrategic relevance of Chahbahar was never in doubt, why did Delhi take so long to ink a deal? Once the decade long opportunity to get in close with Tehran was lost, and the occasion to capitalize on Iranian gratitude for befriending it when no other major country would, was wasted, once the Iran marketplace opened up the US eased up on financial and transactional restrictions, instead of being moved to head of the line for every consideration — which would have meant mainlining India’s manufacturing into the Iranian market, Delhi, without money muscle of a China, found itself at the back of the line, with Tehran looking and sounding less and less eager to give any concessions to India, or hand it any advantage whatsoever. Instead of tying up the Iranian domestic market — on pure barter terms because money transactions were difficult, we could have exported masses of automobiles and auto accessories, light industrial and consumer goods, besides traditional exports like Basmati rice, etc and otherwise kicked the Indian industry into a higher gear and solved a part of the unemployment problem — India now has next to no such gains and next to nothing by way of accumulated goodwill and leverage.

The negotiating therefore has descended to the bazaari level, even where Chahbahar was concerned. After all, Indian and Iranian bazaars are notorious for their skills at negotiating a price for any product. Access to Chahbahar is a big thing and Tehran was determined to get the maximum — because there was no great love or gratitude o anything. Being a straightforward, almost commercial, transaction, it became a matter of ego and negotiating tactics carried out with bazaari flair for bargain-hunting. When earlier Chahbahar was available for India with Delhi needing to help construct a south-north railway line, now India is paying dearly not just to refurbish and modernize the seaport itself but also for establishing and paying for the support infrastructure to extract and transport Farzad-B gas.

More and more, my posts on this blog, resemble an overlong lamentation about the Indian government making a hash of every opportunity that has come its way to make India a great power, as Admiral Arun Prakash wrote in describing the contents of my book — ‘Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)’ that he reviewed. But this reality of squandered opportunities cannot be avoided. It is a matter of wonderment how Delhi can get it so wrong so often?

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, Asian geopolitics, Central Asia, China, China military, Culture, domestic politics, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, indian policy -- Israel, Iran and West Asia, Indian Politics, Iran and West Asia, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Relations with Russia, Russia, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, United States, US., Weapons, West Asia | 10 Comments