US military bases in India: Emergence of New Strategic Order in Asia

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US President Obama has begun his 3 days official visit to India today. The visit is considered a significant one as  President Obama will be the first ever US president invited as chief guest on annual Indian Republican Day parade in Delhi on 26th January. It is expected that growing strategic partnership between the two states would enter in next phase through a series  of strategic agreements in field of defense, nuclear cooperation, security, diplomacy and trade. President Obama has already declared India as a strategic partner in his Asian Pivot strategy.

It is being reported that,during this visit,in response to a US proposal, India is to throw open its military,air and naval bases to the US which means that the US will have permanent military footstep in India as well. This deal is certainly going to change the strategic equation in Asia. It is believed that in return to this offer India would be able to use the US military communication setup in Indian Ocean along with other . But, the most significant clause, being reported, is related to joint security pact between the two states where India would also get US to fight alongside it in case of a war. Considering the Indian doctrine of "Two Front War" (a response to threat which stems from strategic partnership between Islamabad and Beijing), this deal is ought to be the counter-balance strategic equation among the Asian nuclear states where two out of three, are perceived to have an undeclared alliance against the third (India). Now after the inclusion of world's only super power in this equation, the strategic balance of power hangs in middle.

This is not the first time when such a proposal has been moved by the US. Last such attempt was made during the previous Indian regime of congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), and it was shot down by allies then. Defence Minister Antony too had vetoed it saying that it would compromise security of India. These clauses would come under the renewal of Defence pact signed in 2005. Under this pact, US had supplied India around $10 billion worth of arms. Now as the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has replaced the government in Delhi, officials of both the states are hopeful that this new agreement would be reached eventually during the current visit of President Obama.

Apart from giving the US military access to bases of Indian forces, this proposed agreement would enable the US to have direct access to India's secured communication network. This access will enable the pentagon and other US bodies to have eyes and ears within India as well. In return, India would have access to the high-tech military hardware and active military  support of the US in event of war. 

The advantage, the NDA defence ministry argues, is that in turn Indian ships can get real time information through the US networks which is not possible today. According to the NDA's defense ministry, these agreements -known as "Foundational Agreements", are just the formal announcement for the cooperation which is already there and an arrangement that is already 'operational'. These agreements include the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, the Logistics Support Agreement and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for geo-spatial cooperation.It points out that Indian ships in Gulf waters do refuel from US ships in sea and neither countries have objected. Now that US has shifted base to Asia, India is seen as a partner by US.

Indian response was promising for the US as Prime Minister Modi had instructed his defence minister to finalize the paperwork before Obama’s visit indicating Delhi's willingness for opening new vistas of strategic bilateral cooperation with the US.

ANALYSIS:

This new proposed strategic cooperation deal is a significant development in the region and is going to change the strategic scenario in Asia. But the implications of this agreement would be global.

1. This agreement would be perceived by Islamabad as a new strategic partnership against national security interests of Pakistan. Pakistan already has grave concerns over Indian presence in Afghanistan. 
2. This agreement would be a key development against Chinese strategic interests as well. Though it is not clear yet which bases India would allow the US to utilize, but to Beijing, it would be part of existing US encirclement strategy against China. 
3. US already has massive military presence in the East and South East of China (i.e. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) now with this strategic partnership would establish the US military footprint in South of China as well. It is worth-noticing fact that the US forces are already there in Afghanistan which border China from West.
4. It would be interesting to see how Moscow reacts over this new development. But one fact is certain that this strategic partnership would put India's so-called Non-Alignment stance to an end.
5. The ongoing strategic maritime competition for dominance over Indian Ocean between China and US led alliance of India,Japan and Australia  would intensify further. Smaller players like Pakistan and Sri Lanka are bound to play significant role due to their geographical proximity to India.   
6. As for as Pakistan is concerned, this partnership between India and the US necessitates a similar long term strategic arrangement between China and Pakistan. Pakistan foreign policy must seek overtures to bring about a balance in Islamabad's relations with the US and Russia as well.
7. Political change in Sri Lanka is also a significant development in context of overall emerging strategic order in the region. Sir Lanka has expelled RAW's station chief in Colombo for alleged involvement in ouster of pro-China Rajapaksa regime in recent election. Against Indian wishes, new Sri Lankan government has not changed pro-China policy of previous government due to which India felt that it was time to seek the US military support to counter Chinese maritime strategy around India. In this backdrop, Sri Lankan geography would continue to hold a significant strategic value in the region.
8. Sri Lanka is also vital for the native American interests as well. Chinese naval out reach in Indian Ocean has raised eyebrows in Pentagon and the US Navy which consider the Chinese moves to build naval bases in Sri Lanka as a hostile move. The strategic Naval base of the US in Deago Garcia is located South of Sri Lanka.

All these potential factor establish the fact that a new Asian strategic order is going to take shape in coming months in which the US would assert itself through military partnership and diplomatic outreach to increase the influence in the regional geopolitics. This is what the US envisioned in her Asia-Pivot policy. Indo- US strategic partnership framework is vital prong of this strategy which is primarily designed to encircle and contain China.

Afghan Power Sharing Deal: Would it work?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

A power sharing deal between rival Afghan presidential candidates finally reached after months of tension. Timing of this deal is indeed intriguing as coalition prepares to withdraw. But an even more intriguing aspect of this entire political drama is the secrecy about how this deal was reached and under what conditions. It is worth remembering that earlier both sides had accused each other of fraud during the political standoff. But now suddenly, aides from both sides have confirmed the signing of the deal. 

The "Kings" and Kingmaker!

Irrespective of the fact, how and under what conditions this deal was reached. The real question every political analyst must ask is, Will it work? and if yes then how long this deal would last? Unfortunately, the content of the deal made available in public domain and the political history of Afghanistan both indicate that this deal would be nothing more than a temporary arrangement to bring some kind of political stability so that US can sell this to masses back home as their success in this protracted war before they leave the country by the end of this year.

The twitchy history of political harmony further endorses this assessment. In 1993, when Afghanistan was plunged in a bloody civil war, a similar power sharing deal was signed. It was called Islamabad Accord. In that accord, power was shared between more than 10 varying factions including Mohammad Yunus Khalis' breakaway faction of the Hezb-i-Islami, which has boycotted all past agreements. Afghanistan's minority Shi`ites, allies of Hekmatyar who have been demanding greater representation, were given the finance and health ministries. Major protagonists in that political episode were Tajik Ahmed Shah Masood and Pushtun Hekmatyar. 
 
Earlier that year, a peace deal was reached when after a year of shelling Hekmatyar's forces captured Defense Minister Masood's ministry building in Kabul. Hekmatyar is designated prime minister and a cease-fire is to be imposed. This peace deal, though, fulfilled the political ambitions of Hekmatyar to become Afghan Prime Minister but it never brought any peace in Afghanistan. The peace deal was brokered by foreign states (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran) and was not a native solution reached by varying Afghan factions themselves. Removal of Ahmed Shah Masood from defense ministry also didn’t help. The deal was ended just after two days when, as per archives of Library of Congress, Hekmatyar's allies of Hezb-e Wahdat again began rocketing areas in Kabul. Both the Wahhabi Pashtun Ittehad-i Islami of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf backed by Saudi Arabia and the Shia Hazara Hezb-e Wahdat supported by Iran remained involved in heavy fighting against each other. The envisioned peace could never be achieved as the peace accord miserably failed to address the far deeper fault lines of tribal society like ethnic, linguistic, tribal rifts.

But the failure of 1993 Afghan peace accord is not without precedent. A more recent example of similar political failure can be seen in Iraq, where the US invasion created an environment of frenzied sectarian strife fueled by both Saudi Arabia and Iran. And these history of failed peace making adopting non-inclusive approaches and ignoring the social realities are the reason behind the caveats for this recent power share deal signed between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani. Evidently, the country is heading towards a similar political log jam witnessed in 1990s.

Apart from its inability to address these existing ethnic, sectarian and tribal fault lines this new deal have its intrinsic vulnerabilities as well. The provision of creating a new administrative position called Chief Executive Officer (CEO), which will be held by Abdullah Abdullah or one of his nominee, is going to create serious constitutional crisis in Afghanistan as it is certainly not clear at this point in time that how administrative powers would be balanced between these two power centers.  With this political delicacy, new Afghan government would also have to face the threats from Taliban insurgency. These concerns are being raised from within Afghan intelligentsia as well. "There will be two powers in the government, and it will be very difficult for them to work together," said Sediq Mansoor Ansari, an analyst and director of the Civil Societies Federation to AFP.

Furthermore, this power sharing deal would put a big question mark on Afghan democracy. People would have no idea about what happened to their votes. In short term, this may not seems to be an issue at all but it would cause dearly to Afghan state’s cohesion in coming months. 

Despite years of fighting Taliban remain defiant

It remains an unfortunate aspect of Afghan history that the country has been in perpetual state of war since last 40 years and there is no end in sight even now. A fragile country, with so many social fault lines, would remain vulnerable to political edginess if foreign players keep meddling into Afghan political affairs particularly Iran, India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. US desperation for a political settlement is quite fathomable. As far as the American role in making both parties to reach this deal is concerned, by the initial American reaction it would be prudent to think that this deal has blessings from Washington. Americans wants to sign BSA (Bilateral Security Agreement) before draw down of the US/NATO forces completes by end of this year. This agreement, if signed, would enable the US military to stay in Afghanistan for minimum 10 years. Americans still believe that they can eliminate offcuts of Afghan resistance. Keeping the Afghan security profile of last 13 years, it would be prudent to assume that this idea wouldn’t work either. But it certainly would put the Americans into a position to protect the Afghan government. For now, the future of this power sharing deals hangs with just a reedy fiber of hope and optimism.