India and Myanmar: Not just neighbours

Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs visit to Myanmar, last month, was not just neighbourly.

Though it was first in over 25 years, it came at a time when the military government in Myanmar is opening up to the idea of democracy, increasing Chinese footprint in the country, obvious Western interest and the countrys critical geostrategic location.

It was significant and timely, though not unexpected, says Dr. K Yhome of Observer Research Foundation, a think- tank based in Delhi. " The visit was a combination of factors…. New Delhi cannot wait and watch as other players take the early bird advantage in a neighbour so strategic to its interests from political, security, economic and strategic fronts," adds Dr. Yhome.

Over the years, Indias Myanmar policy has largely been driven by security and economic considerations.

However, the engagement has at least laid the ground for the two neighbours to take their relationship to a higher level. The President of Myanmar, Thein Sein was received in India last year and there have been numerous visits by our respective Foreign Ministers and other senior officials", says Neelam Deo, Former Indian Ambassador and Director of Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

" Chinas growing footprint in Myanmar was more of a concern especially to the West, which had isolated itself from Myanmar. Access to Myanmars untapped fossil fuel resources is important for India and other oil importers", adds ambassador Deo." From a geostrategic perspective, China is wary of the changes taking place in Myanmar.

For the past two decades or so, Beijing has taken full advantage of the international isolation of Myanmar by establishing a strong footprint in the country, which today is at stake as Myanmar opens up and welcomes other players to play a role in its development", says Dr.

Yhome.

However, Beijing has welcomed the new developments between New Delhi and Naypyidaw, despite the state media defining PM Manmohan Singhs visit as 'Indias delude mindset'. " I think the Chinese media may be reacting to the Indian medias excessive comparing of the relationship of the two countries with Myanmar and need not be taken too seriously," says Deo.

But Beijings hunger for fuel and other natural resources can not be ignored. It has long term strategic interest in Myanmar. The country is a window to East Asia for New Delhis Look East policy. " The lifting of sanctions by Western countries had been counter productive and should have been done much earlier. The move will be very helpful in expanding bilateral trade as in the past the closing of financial channels has hampered payments for our imports from Myanmar.", says Deo.

" China has long- term strategic interests in Myanmar.

Whether it is Beijings desire to reach the Indian Ocean through Myanmar or ensuring its energy security by laying pipelines in Myanmar to take oil and gas to Chinas southern provinces. In this context, India being a major regional power and a close neighbour of Myanmar that also has the potential to provide strategic alternative to Myanmar, China would closely watch Indias policy and relations with Myanmar and see India as a strategic competitor," says Dr. Yhome.

But Chinas presence in the Indian Ocean Region will challenge Indias naval dominance and emerge as a second possible flash point between the two after South China Sea dispute. At the same time, how well American ( Western) engagement with Myanmar develops remains to be seen. It could well keep a check on Beijings military moves in the region, but could well make India uncomfortable.

As the internationally isolated Myanmar opens to the world community, it would bring economic opportunities, but will for sure change political and security dynamics of the region.

Can US role in China Sea help India?

After enjoying a geo- strategic holiday for over two decades that began with the Soviet Unions withdrawal from power politics, America was left unchallenged. There was no one left to fight until Al Qaeda attacked and Washington decided to invade Iraq.

However, during this period of American unilateralism, China by making full use of that countrys engagement in the Middle East has emerged as a parallel financial support system for the global economy.

Beijing, unlike Soviet Union, has emerged as a powerful economy making it a credible military force.

However, the checkered history of East Asia with several territorial disputes involving Beijing and its lust for energy resources has raised several questions over its military intentions.

The recent announcement by American Defence Secretary Leon Panetta is one such example of Washingtons intention to reemerge in the East Asia region.

No, it was never absent in the region in military terms, but two land wars have stretched American military, economic and diplomatic resources.

It is a global paradox that, where America has been the most powerful, the region has seen the maximum instability and wars, and in East Asia, where there has been the traditional power rivalry and balance of power game, the region has been the most peaceful and prosperous in the world.

However, amid peace in East Asia two parallel hegemonies have emerged i. e. American maritime and Chinese control over regions land mass. The latter is the uncontested land power in the region. The US tried to be the land power in East Asia, but failed. It could not defeat Chinese forces in Korean Peninsula in 1950s and lost against Vietnam in 1960s.

However, the military balance in past 15 years has tilted in favour of Beijing.

It has made rapid economic progress influencing the regional economy and developing credible military that can delay an American military response in case Washington decided to change the course of action.

Former American president Henry Kissinger once said, " Once China becomes strong enough to stand alone, it might discard us.

A little later it may even turn against as….". Today it has grown from aloof posture of a spectator sizing up the game to active participation and a lively and astute promotion of its national interests. It was an economic opportunity that has grown into a military challenge for its immediate neighbours.

Maybe, America is reading through the 'China Threat'theory. What remains to be seen is whether Washington is trying to prevent any future conflict with Beijing or contain China before it becomes too big to handle. However, a second cold war cannot be ruled out. Last month Chinese military once again dismissed an American role in South China Sea saying, " The South China Sea is not Americas business…. it is between China and its neighbours." This is in complete contravention of America and India wanting to explore the regions natural resources. The sea is believed to have 130 billion barrels of oil and 25 trillion cubic meters of gas.

Beijing has already issued warnings to New Delhi against the latters planned exploration of oil off Vietnams coast in South China Sea. New Delhi is watching the situation closely after the US proposed to move 60% of its navy to region. One group may say, yes, why not, after all we are democracies.

We have common interests. And, this could be the opportunity for India to play the balance of power politics in the region with Washingtons help. We can fix both Pakistan and China. However, the questions arise are: Will America in the region be any better? Will India become Washingtons client state? However, America will be better than Beijings increasing prominence in the Indian Ocean Region that is supported by Islamabad.

The region is likely to entertain Washington keeping Beijings desire for land and energy resources.

Not all neighbours of China prefer her influence in the region. New Delhi is already wary of Chinas interest in Indias North- East. New Delhi cannot let Beijing jeopardise its national interests by allowing Beijings monopoly both on the international sea lines and border areas.

As Indian economy expands and engages both China and America, and the international community New Delhis bargaining power is sure to increase.

Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, US

What we know about Irans nuclear programme is not encouraging, but is it enough to judge Tehrans intentions? No clear leads have emerged to link attacks on New Delhi, Bangkok and foiled terror plot in Georgia.

So the question arises, do America and Israel have a strong case to attack Tehran and scuttle its nuclear ambitions? The answer could be in affirmative for many in Washington and its close allies.

However, unless Iran commits an unpardonable act, nothing qualifies Tehran for military action.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejads recent flaunting of nuclear card leaves no doubt about Tehrans ambition to possess nuclear technology. But unleashing American and Israeli military strength would throw the region into chaos. Tehran would be forced to accelerate its nuclear programme and may even take recourse to clandestine means, making it difficult to detect, inspect and attack, if need be.

The present Iranian nuclear ambitions do not pose any existential threat to America, nor to Israel. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuke China and a clandestine nuclear Pakistan, then it can live with a nuclear Iran. If Jews could survive the Nazi Holocaust, have a separate nation carved out in West Asia and survive the Arab animosity, it would for sure survive any military misadventure of Iran, as Tehran would face decisive American military action.

But what remains to be ascertained is Tehrans nuclear status - that is, whether it is nuclear or near nuclear and how afraid is Israel.

The deliberate conviction of Iraq for possession of weapons of mass destruction should caution both America and Israel, when trying to ascertain how close Tehran might be to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Washington in 2003 insisted that we could not wait for nuclear inspectors to finish their job in Iraq. The then British Prime Minister Tony Blair joined a US- led coalition force in an illegal war against Iraq to ferret out Saddams WMDs that never existed. Iraq was depicted as a closing window.

The Iraq Survey Group, a 1400 strong member organisation set up by the CIA and the Pentagon, made every attempt to prove otherwise, but only came back empty handed. It its final Duelfer Report released in September 2004, the group found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the nuclear programme.

How could Iraq, a country economically besieged, politically isolated and war torn, have produced nuclear weapons to attack America or pose a threat to Israel? Yet the country was ruined with military ferocity. However, the Iraq war invasion plot has started to play again in Iran. The drums of war beat louder as Iran and Israel step up rhetoric. Once again, leading the rhetoric is the American media.

A recent article, titled 'Al Qaeda in Iran,'published in a foreign policy journal, Foreign Affairs, elaborates that several of al Qaedas most senior leaders are being held in Iran under house arrest and that " evidence of the Iranian- al Qaeda partnership abounds," despite the fact that the Sunni terrorist group despises Shias.

The story is pushed further by Wall Street Journal in an article titled 'US Fears Irans Links to al Qaeda,'stating that US officials believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.

Following the Journal story, Sky News has taken the story even further with an article titled 'Fears Iran is Helping Al Qaeda Plot Atrocity'. The article elaborates on Irans links with al Qaeda and training to latter in advanced explosives 'some funding and a safe haven'. The piece also cites a 'secret intelligence memo'claiming that " Iran has significantly stepped up its investment, maintenance and improvement of operational and intelligence ties with the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan in recent months." The case against Iran is in the making. Defending Israel from some imagined Iraqi threat was used by Bush, his war enthusiast team members and the media.

The option of war against Iran has been tossed back and forth for a very long time, but no sensible reasons are to be found.

The picture has just begun to unfold. Iran is not a closing window. The international community would be profoundly shortsighted to go to war on the basis of recent ( failed attempts to) attack Israel, failure of nuclear talks, some irresponsible statements by Tehran and deliberate construction of fears of Iranian attacks.

If history repeats itself, it does so only when we fail to learn its important lessons.

‘KASHMIR IS LINKED TO PEACE IN SOUTH ASIA’

No territory is more critical than Kashmir for both New Delhi and Islamabad. Wedged between India and Pakistan, it is the most crucial military, territorial and religious issue in South Asia. A renewed phase of trust-building appears to be in the offing. The two countries are talking trade,which could lead to confidence building and fresh start to talks over Kashmir and cross-border terrorism.

However, mixed signals are emerging from Pakistan's government and military establishment. The former talks about possible Taliban push into India and the latter demanding pullout from Siachen.Parjanya Bhatt talks to Sajjad Lone, Chairman of the People's Conference and tries to understand how Kashmir views the new development.

Q) India and Pakistan are talking to develop trade ties unlike Kashmir and cross-border terror. Your first reaction.

A) It is good if trade ties are developed between the two countries. Trade leads to economic interdependence and it is an imperative if you want two countries to sit and resolve issues.

Q) Do you think there is change of heart/approach on both the sides of the border? Can we expect that a sustained and result-oriented peace

process will ensue?

A) It does seem that they are moving in a new spirit.We can only keep our fingers crossed that the statements emanating will result in a decisive moment that we all are hoping for. It all matters on the leaderships in the respective countries. I for one want to believe that, yes it seem to be a stepping stone into a new era.

Q) India and China have put border and territorial disputes on the back burner (not in deep freeze) and trade is the first priority. Do you think New Delhi and Islamabad are following the same model?

A) I have no idea.

Q) Pakistani Army General Ashfaq Kayani has referred to resolving the Siachen, peaceful co-existence and demilitarisation of Siachen. Is this a positive sign? Will prioritising trade with Pakistan work?

A) A very powerful statement from a serving Army chief. It is certainly a positive sign. Demilitarisation of Siachen may not mean a lot in terms of physicality. It means a lot psychologically. It depicts a renewed phase of trust.

Q) Also, Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik has warned India about possible Taliban push into India. In such a situation Kashmir could be the first victim. Do you think Pakistan is raising genuine case for peace with India?

A) Beyond a certain stage continued trouble in Pakistan could mean trouble for the most imminent neighbour, and that is India. Pakistani voices have to be genuine. They are also reeling from the menace.

Q) Hafiz Saeed is free and there is no guarantee that terrorists won't strike the valley or any other part of India, which can derail the little progress the two sides have achieved and the peace in the valley. Your view.

A) Nobody can stand guarantee for the actions of non-state actors, irrespective of the control that the state might have over them. An individual roaming free should not hold two nations hostage. No individual is so strong to derail the peace initiatives of two countries.

Q) What role do you see for the moderate voice and the hardliners from the valley? Do you think New Delhi will/should invite various stakeholders from the valley?

A) New Delhi as well as Pakistan need to understand the contribution of the moderates. They need to be encouraged and involved. Nothing should be done overtly or covertly, which is tantamount to encouraging hardline and extreme tendencies. Keeping moderates out of the process is a pass ice endorsement of extreme views.

Q) Pakistan gave shelter to Osama bin Laden and is now sinking in its self created chaos of state sponsored terrorism. What future do you see for Kashmir?

A) Future of Kashmir by its very political and geographical origins is linked to peace in South Asia.

THE ABOVE INTERVIEW APPEARED ON 26 April, 2012 in FREE PRESS JOURNAL ON THE NATION PAGE AS A LEAD INTERVIEW STORY.

‘No danger of N-skirmish in Asia’

The threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism has become a major cause of concern for the international community. The issue has specific relevance with nuclear China, India and Pakistan in wake of their chequered history of border and territorial disputes. Parjanya Bhatt spoke to former Indian ambassador to Denmark and Ivory Coast, Neelam Deo, on the issue of nuclear optimism and pessimism, and how India’s physical security dynamics have changed over the years.

1) At a recently held Nuclear Summit 2012 in Seoul in South Korea, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh referred to nuclear terrorism. Talking about nuclear terrorism, it clearly refers to groups like Al Qaeda and anti-India terror groups based in Pakistan. Your first reaction.

ANS: This question has to be replied in the context of the turmoil within Pakistan, which has increased the danger that some part of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal may fall into the hands of a group like Lasjker-e-Toiba or other terrorist group or what is even more even worst that someone in the nuclear establishment of Pakistan is himself a fundamentalist. This is something that everyone is worried about. Even Americans have been very keen to train Pakistani nuclear establishment in safety measures.

2) But the nuclear button is in the hands of the Pakistan Army who has very close alliance with terrorist and fundamentalist groups. It is a very dangerous situation for New Delhi.

ANS: Yes, but the concern is not that the Pakistan Army or the civilian government will make use of the nuclear bomb against India or anyone else, but the nuclear technology falling into the hands of the fundamentalist groups or some rogue person with the government or the military establishment. I do not think that the army or the government will use against India.

3) However, the optimistic nuclear observers argue that nuclearisation in South Asia i.e. nuclear Pakistan vis-à-vis India and nuclear India vis-à-vis China stops these government and the armies from waging full scale war over their disputes. It is prohibitively risky. Your view.

ANS: In case of India-China relations, the border has been peaceful for past fifty years with the exception of some small incursions. I do not think that the countries will have any nuclear exchange between them. It is to ensure that such situation does not arise at any point of time. We do not expect Beijing to use the weapons against New Delhi or we using them against Islamabad or Beijing. India in its nuclear doctrine has stated ‘no first use policy’.

It is also about the understanding between two nuclear powers. Both America and the then Soviet Union had great amount of understanding despite their hostilities during the Cold War period. It would be good to have more interaction with both China and Pakistan on this crucial issue.

4) However, the pessimistic argument is that, possession of nuclear bomb actually stops adversary from taking any concrete action. Do you think the nuclear factor in Islamabad is stopping India from taking any action and making India vulnerable to acts like attack on Indian Parliament and Mumbai Terror Attack?

ANS: India’s nuclear doctrine is evidence enough that New Delhi is not interested in nuclear exchange. However, our relation with Pakistan is different from what US and USSR had. Now, should Pakistan be reckless enough to use cross border terrorism as a matter of state policy. Of course not. Yes, we did not act militarily in the after math of Parliament and Mumbai terror attack, but remember Washington was talking to Islamabad in wake of the Kargil war and quick to step in, in the aftermath of 2008 attack.

Big international players are acting to restrain Pakistan in such eventualities. But both the sides should try and find common ground where we can agree rather than disagreeing.

5) Are you saying that diplomacy is working for New Delhi?

ANS: Yes, there have been incremental gains. However, no big gains. Trade ties are expanding. It is a positive sign.

6) But core issues like Kashmir and cross border insurgency remains to be resolved. Do you think nuclear Pakistan is a hurdle?

ANS: The conflict with Pakistan is historical and the issues are made complicated. Islamabad wants to status quo on Kashmir cross border terror and other issues. If we are asking if Islamabad is using its nuclear status, then it is more to do with its friends in the West than with against India. The blackmail comes in the form of lack of financial aid leading to mismanagement and ultimately fundamentalists accessing the nuclear technology.

However, nuclearisation remains a factor for India as well.

7) In the shadow of nuclearisation, the physical security dynamics of India have changed. What does the future hold for India vis-à-vis both China and Pakistan?

ANS: Yes, from non-nuclear states to now declared nuclear states, India’s security dynamics have changed. There have not been any positive development on core issues between countries, but there have not been any negative development as well.

THE ABOVE INTERVIEW APPEARED IN FREE PRESS JOURNAL ON APRIL 3, 2012

Photo Credit: Google