The world’s two leading democracies must face the twenty-first century’s key security challenge of terrorism as allies.
What are the strategic issues that will be discussed during the visit of President Obama to India? There is a lot of speculation about the US strategy in the Af-Pak region and the US strategic approach to China in East and South East Asia. These are important issues and will no doubt be covered during the discussion. But what is missed out in all this speculation is the crucial achievement of the two leaders during the Washington summit last November.
In the joint statement issued at the end of the summit, the leaders of the US and India noted that the shared values cherished by their peoples and espoused by their founders — democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights — are acquiring an increasingly greater prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure and sustainable world.
The two leaders resolved to harness these shared strengths and to expand the US-India global partnership for the benefit of their countries, for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia and for the betterment of the world. Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognised that the India-US partnership is indispensable for global peace and security. Therefore, the primary strategic issue to be discussed is putting content into this partnership.
In the words of National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, speaking at the Carnegie Endowment in the last week of September 2010, “An open, balanced and inclusive security architecture in Asia and the world would be a goal that is in our common interest. So too would be the rules of the road (or codes of conduct) for the global commons, developed internationally through a democratic process of consultation and negotiations…Traditionally, India and the USA have viewed each other across the Eurasian landmass and the Atlantic Ocean. We get a different perspective if we look across the Pacific, across a space we share and that is vital to the security and prosperity of our two countries. Apart from changing geopolitics, the emergence of new transnational and global threats also brings us together.”
Obama is the first US President to declare, “Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a cruel irony of history — the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up…Terrorist networks such as al Qaeda have tried to acquire the material for a nuclear weapon.” Former US Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice wrote on December 11, 2005, “For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing in peace, not preparing for war.”
The twenty-first century, unlike the twentieth century, is not going to witness a Cold War, or a nuclear confrontation among major powers, or wars of the Second World War type. The anticipated threats to international peace and progress are religious sectarian extremism; use of terrorism against secular, democratic states; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by failing states; pandemics; organised crime and the use of some of these factors by non-democratic powers to subvert global democracy and expand their own influence.
China, the sole non-democratic major power, has been using nuclear proliferation as a strategy to expand its influence in South and West Asia against India and the US. China’s nuclear proliferation to Pakistan has enabled that country to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy behind the shield of nuclear deterrence. It is in this context that the NSA has suggested an open, balanced and inclusive security architecture for Asia and the world.
Unfortunately, the perception that the security challenges of the 21st century are different from those of the 20th century is yet to develop in either the US or India. While the US establishment considers the 21st century’s challenges a continuation of those of the 20th century, needing the same kind of responses — such as military alliances and continued application of policies and procedures used during the Cold War confrontation — the Indian establishment views non-alignment as an all-round panacea for the new challenges too, overlooking the factor that, unlike in the Cold War era, the main focus of application of pressure for both Chinese one-party authoritarianism and its ally Pakistan’s sectarian extremist terrorism is currently India itself.
There are some incipient signs that in China itself democratisation may become a major issue of contention in domestic politics. Democratisation of China’s polity will be a historic positive development and international solidarity among all major pluralistic, secular democracies at this stage will only contribute to that much-wished-for development.
Each side has long lists of demands for the other side. These demands are based on the perceptions that the US will continue with its Cold War alliance framework and the legal requirements derived from it to deal with the security challenges of the 21st century. Similarly, there is a widespread Indian view that non-alignment continues to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution to its security problems and that the US should deal with Indian demands outside the Cold War-Nato strategic framework.
| A CONVERGENCE OF VIEWS |
| * The values shared by the US and India — democracy, pluralism and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights — are acquiring increasing prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, secure and sustainable world |
| * Manmohan Singh and Barack Obama have recognised that the India-US partnership is indispensable for global peace and security; therefore, the primary strategic issue to be discussed is putting content into this partnership |
| * In the 21st century, threats to international peace will come not from a Cold War, or a nuclear confrontation among major powers, or conventional wars, but from sectarian extremism; use of terrorism against secular democratic states; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by failing states; pandemics; and the use of these factors by non-democratic powers to subvert global democracy and expand their own influence |
| * Despite the new security challenges of the 21st century, the US continues with its military alliance approach; India views non-alignment as an all-round panacea, overlooking the factor that, unlike in the Cold War era, the main threats to India now are China’s one-party authoritarianism and its ally Pakistan’s terrorism |
| * The two sides must realise that while military preparedness is a primary requisite in deterring threats to democracy, it is not sufficient to deal with threats of nuclear proliferation, terrorism behind the nuclear deterrent shield and use of terrorism to bleed pluralistic nations |
| * Once the leaders of the two countries decide that the relationship must derive from the imperative of the world’s two leading democracies facing the 21st century’s common security challenges of terrorism and one-party authoritarianism, individual transactions will fall into place. |
It is to be hoped that this summit will result in the leaderships of the two sides highlighting that the 21st century’s challenges need responses that are different from those that were needed in the 20th century. Military alliances are passé. While military preparedness is a primary requisite in deterring threats to democracy, they are not sufficient to deal with threats of nuclear proliferation, terrorism behind the nuclear deterrent shield and use of terrorism to bleed pluralistic nations through a thousand cuts.
The leaderships of the two countries should direct their bureaucratic establishments that various transactions between the US and India have to be decided not with reference to the framework of the Cold War and its derivative, the non-aligned approach, but from the imperative of the two leading democracies of the world facing the 21st century’s common security challenges of terrorism and one-party authoritarianism allied to each other. Once the leaderships assert their common strategy to face the challenges of the present day, the resolution of various individual transactions will fall into place.
