& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Defence agreement or Charter of Dependence?

Scrap the 'framework' pact with US

Praful Bidwai writes from New Delhi
***The "New Framework" is unbalanced. It spells India's co-optation as a junior partner or US client, and will erode india's autonomy, dignity, even security. india will make enemies out of its neighbours. The "framework" mocks the uPA's promise to promote global multi-polarity, and maintain India's foreign policy independence "on all regional and global issues." The "framework" negates this. It must be scrapped.***
IN the 1980s, the British peace movement delightfully highlighted the skewed, unequal
Anglo-American defence relation-
ship. For the US, it said, Britain was just an "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier." The campaign showed how the "security partnership" exposed Britain to greater insecurity.
Churchill was an ultraconservative. But even he had warned in 1950: "[By] creating [an] American atomic base we have made ourselves perhaps the bull's eye of a Soviet attack." Thirty years later, British Defence Secretary Pym admitted: "The Russians, let everyone understand, can annihilate Britain easily, ten times over."
Yet, 53 years later, Britain repeated its mistake -- by joining the US in invading Iraq. Last week, it paid a horrible price for this. The bombings are attributable to Britain's participation in Iraq's US-led occupation.
India may be about to replicate Britain's blunder. So it seems, given
the controversial "New Framework" signed by Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee late last month. This has created unease in the ruling UPA.
Mr Mukherjee strenuously claims that the "framework" isn't a treaty or agreement. But that won't wash. As Prime Minister Singh visits Washington, uncomfortable questions will arise about the Indo-US "strategic partnership."
The "framework" is deeply skewed. It fetters India from inde-
pendent action in international affairs. One needn't be a nationalchauvinist or rabid anti-American to say this.
The agreement's objectives include "defeating terrorism," "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)," and "protecting the free flow of commerce."
India of course has an interest in "defeating terrorism." But the US is often part of the problem, not the solution. Washington's recklessness aggravates grievances which feed terrorism. Besides, Washington relies on that ultimate form of terrorism, WMDs, for "security."
The US alone arrogantly defines where the "spread of WMDs"
occurs. Yesterday, this happened in Iraq; tomorrow, equally falsely, it might be in Iran. India has never advocated promotion of "free commerce" by military means, or subordinated trade to sovereign rights.
India will undermine its policy independence by agreeing to this.
The "framework" prescribes collaborative "multinational operations," without reference to the United Nations, which alone can authorise them. This reflects Amer-
ica's unilateralism, but goes against India's long-standing multilateralism.
Clauses 4C, D, and E say the US and India will strengthen military capabilities "to promote security," and "combat [WMD] proliferation." They will also have a "defence strategy" dialogue and intelligence exchanges.
This spells joint expeditions. But the US always demands total control over joint operations: there's only one finger on the trigger!
A US official recently explained the joint operations' rationale in a closed-door briefing in Delhi: "The worst outcome" for Washington is "an Asia from which we are excluded." The key challenge for the
US, he said, is to prevent any other power "from dominating a given region. If I were China, I'd be working on kicking the US out of Asia. Right now, we have a lot of alliances but no architecture embedding us in Asia."
India is the anchor through which Washington wants to embed itself, and counter China. It also wants to control the Malacca Straits through India. But India will court the hostility of Indonesia and Malaysia, which
oppose external forces in Malacca.
Jointly preventing the "spread of WMDs" will mean Indian participation in the Western-dominated Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept WMD-related shipments at sea. India's participation will produce conflicts with many Asian states, including China, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia. High-seas interdiction is illegal.
Even worse is Clause 4J, under which the two states "assist in building worldwide capacity to conduct successful peacekeeping operations, [and enable] other countries to field forces for these."
It takes no intelligence to understand where these "operations" might occur (without UN
authorisation, of course). This is obviously Iraq, from where the UN and Britain are reportedly planning to withdraw half their troops. Indian solders can become cannon-fodder, besides training Iraq's army.
The US has long eyed India's military manpower. Washington wants to recruit it as pawns in its global operations -- the way the British-Indian army was exploited to expand the Empire into the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Empire's apologists like Niall Ferguson make that very comparison. Britain needed 130,000 troops to subdue Iraq in 1920. Then, Iraq's population was three million. To "stabilise" today's 24 million-strong Iraq, the US minimally needs one million troops. (It has only 138,000.)
So Ferguson pleads: recruit more US troops, accelerate citizenship for soldier-immigrants, or send Condoleezza Rice to Delhi!
As reward for a mercenary force, the US offers India carrots: support for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council; armaments sales; collaboration on missile defence.
However, the new Council members won't have the veto. It's also unclear if the G-4 will win the UN
vote. So even a second-rate seat may remain illusory!
The only concrete US offer is the 1970s-generation F-16 warplane. Its appropriateness for India is doubtful. It doesn't dovetail into existing weapons platforms and will entail huge maintenance expenses.
The only beneficiary will be the manufacturer, Lockheed-Martin, which, absent F-16 orders, would have closed down its factory.
Co-production is only a promise. The US is extremely reluctant to transfer technology. Its 1986 coproduction offer proved sterile.
India's stated position rightly opposes ballistic missile defence because this will undermine nuclear deterrence and make the world more insecure. It will also militarise space.
Defence Minister Jaswant Singh welcomed Washington's BMD plans in 2001 -- without a mandate. The UPA must reject that misconceived approach.
The "New Framework" is unbalanced. It spells India's co-optation as a junior partner or US client, and will erode India's autonomy, dignity, even security. India will make enemies out of its neighbours.
The "framework" mocks the UPA's promise to promote global multi-polarity, and maintain India's foreign policy independence "on all regional and global issues." The "framework" negates this. It must be scrapped.