Archives

Deepening U.S.-India ties tested by war in Iraq

India Report by John E. Carbaugh, Jr.
March 31, 2003

The war in Iraq is proving a tricky test of the improved U.S. ties with India, although most observers believe that the conflict is a short-term bump in the road in the longer-term move to a deeper bilateral relationship.

Indeed, although New Delhi is opposed to the war with Iraq, it has kept its criticism muted and has not acted obstructively, knowing that its new-found healthy relationship with Washington is too important to jeopardize.

There is "growing Indian sensitivity to not let a negative shadow fall over its budding relations with the United States," said Anupam Srivastava, executive director of the India Initiative of the University of Georgia, and of the South Asia Program of the University’s Center for International Trade and Security.

At the same time Washington acknowledges that the war is a sensitive issue in India, home to the world’s second largest Muslim population, and thus appreciates New Delhi taking the middle ground over the conflict.

However, what is causing U.S. officials more concern is the possibility that India could justify an attack on Pakistan by pointing to the Bush Administration’s "preemptive action" against Iraq. With tensions on the rise again in South Asia following the massacre of Hindu villagers in the Kashmir and the test-firing of nuclear capable short-range missiles by India and Pakistan last week, the U.S. fears that a new crisis in the region is a real possibility, which would come at the worst possible time as Washington focuses on Iraq.

LEGITIMATE INDIAN CONCERNS

India is certainly not in favor of the war with Iraq, and has many legitimate concerns, including the safety and livelihood of several million expatriate Indians who live and work in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf countries; the future secure supply of oil -- India gets over 60 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East; domestic tensions given that it has second-largest Muslim population in the world; and political problems for Vajpayee’s Government as opponents accuse it of not being more critical of the war.

"The Iraq issue raises a host of difficult questions to which there are no easy answers," cautioned Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington last month.

"Many issues are involved: development of weapons of mass destruction, compliance with UN resolutions, sanctions, the problem of inspections, validity of pre-emptive action if there is no immediate threat of aggression, the political acceptability of regime changes imposed externally, the role of the UNSC, the debate between unilateralism and multilateralism, double standards in dealing with situations of similar concern, the consequences of military action against a country located in an already volatile region and its consequences, the possible break-up of the state, the concerns of neighbors, the danger of radicalization of Islamic opinion, post-war political management, control of oil supplies, etc. etc." Sibal said. "The close allies and friends of the U.S. raise these questions and doubts. India has some special concerns about the situation in Iraq because of the presence of millions of expatriates in the gulf region, the size of remittances they send home, volatility of oil prices following armed action, the sentiments, in particular, of India’s own 140 million Muslims. In the case of Iraq, there is a conflict between wishes and expectation."

Given such concerns, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is reported to have turned down requests by President George W. Bush to help the ongoing military campaign in Iraq, including possibly allowing U.S. planes to refuel on Indian airfields. During the 1991 Gulf War the Indian Government allowed U.S. planes to refuel on its territory.

RESTRAINED INDIAN CRITICISM

However, India has been restrained in its criticism of the war, believing that its best long-term interest lies in strengthening its ties with the U.S. Vajpayee has said that although India does not support the war, there is no need for harsh words.

"Subsequent to the start of the current military campaign, India has opted to pursue a ‘median path,’ wherein it has voiced its opposition to the use of force but stopped short of condemning such action," Srivastava said. "It has expressed the hope that hostilities will end soon, and for the international community to become involved in creating a viable structure for the political governance of Iraq after the goal of ‘regime change’ has been accomplished."

U.S. EFFORTS TO LIMIT CRITICISM

Diplomatically, the U.S. has also made a concerted effort to limit Indian criticism, including a number of phone calls from Bush to Vajpayee.

In addition, partly to stem Indian criticism, the U.S. is also quietly offering India a major role in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. "We hope you have a major part to play and we have conveyed that at very high levels," U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill said recently.

Blackwill noted that India, with its "very well developed successful norms in civil society," had a role to play in the "construction of civil society" in Iraq and "economic reconstruction." India, he added, had a "comparative advantage" over many countries because of three factors: Its "vital civil society," its "long term ties with Iraq" and the fact that "India would be welcomed in that situation" where "not every country would be welcomed." "So for all those reasons, we hope you have a major part to play and we have conveyed that at very high levels," he said.

INDIAN ROLE IN POST-SADDAM IRAQ

India would certainly like an appropriate role for itself in post-conflict Iraq, according to Srivastava, including contracts for Indian companies in the multi-billion dollar economic rebuilding effort. "India … hopes to cash in on the opportunities in the petroleum sector and beyond that will arise during the post-conflict phase," said Srivastava, who noted that in 2002 India’s state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Commission’s external arm, ONGC Videsh, had actually reportedly signed an agreement for oil exploration in southern Iraq and to develop the Tuba oil field. "There is also optimism that several Indian companies might receive sub-contracts from the major U.S. and western companies that are expected to bag contracts ranging from a few million to a few hundred million dollars."

More broadly, however, India’s possible role regarding the constitution of the successor regime to Saddam Hussein would be influenced by two considerations important to New Delhi. "First would be the ethnic composition of the governing coalition that will take over in Baghdad after the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s Revolutionary Socialist Ba’ath Party," Srivastava said. "Iraq’s population comprises roughly 20 percent Sunnis, 60 percent Shias, and about 17 percent Kurds. The ethnic composition of the coalition in Baghdad will impinge crucially upon its political legitimacy and viability to carry out the difficult tasks of rebuilding Iraq. The second Indian consideration would be to ensure that this coalition is backed by strong international support as it would be required to adroitly manage post-Saddam relations with Iraq’s neighbors, principally Iran and Turkey. In both cases, broader Arab and regional support would be critical for crafting a sustainable and long-term economic recovery program for Iraq, including negotiating the quota of oil output granted to Iraq by its influential OPEC neighbors."

India’s middle ground position on Iraq is also influenced by its goal of seeing a ‘belt of democracies’ from the Mediterranean to the India Ocean, according to Ashok Kapur at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. "You are going to have regime change in Iraq and the hope that there is going to be more democratic societies in the Middle East. And in that case, you want to create a belt of democracies from the Mediterranean to that part of the world. In that context, it would be helpful to have that, and the Indians and the Israelis make that argument, that you need a league of democracies."

SHARED PRIORITIES ILLUSTRATED

India supporters in the U.S. have also contrasted New Delhi’s measured behavior over Iraq with the troublesome behavior of older allies like France and Germany. "French and German reluctance to cooperate with us on Iraq is merely the latest evidence that it is time to reevaluate who we consider our friends," said Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute. "Two of the great challenges facing the United States in the coming years are rolling back the danger posed by Islamic fundamentalism and containing the rise of China. The intersection of these interests leads us to India -- a free-market, multiethnic democracy with significant economic potential and growing military power."

U.S. officials also contend that the war with Iraq actually illustrates the shared priorities of the U.S. and India. "The U.S. and India had overlapping vital national interests -- promoting peace and stability, combating international terrorism, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction," said Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca.

INDIA SENSES DOUBLE-STANDARD

However, there are some concerns that the war with Iraq is creating a strain on these shared priorities. New Delhi is unhappy that the U.S. is calling for Indian talks with Pakistan as South Asian tensions rise, suggesting that Washington is being hypocritical given that it resorted to military action against Iraq and Afghanistan instead of dialogue to resolve these crises.

"If dialogue per se is more critical than combating international terrorism with all necessary means, then one can legitimately ask why both in Afghanistan and Iraq military action instead of dialogue has been resorted to," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Navtej Sarna said. "We see the call for dialogue by the U.S. State Department spokesman as inappropriate in the context of the heinous terrorist crime in Jammu and Kashmir. It regrettably shifts the focus from the basic problem between India and Pakistan. The problem is not lack of dialogue but continued sponsorship of terrorism by Pakistan which is being overlooked."

INCREASE IN SOUTH ASIAN TENSIONS

Before the war with Iraq begun, there were worries in Washington over a rise in South Asian tensions, triggered by a new spurt of violent Islamic fundamentalism, and India’s reaction.

"Lost in the debate on Iraq are the impact U.S. military operations there will have beyond the Persian Gulf. A disturbing case in point is South Asia," warned Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. "U.S. action in Iraq is likely to bring increased instability in Pakistan, a spike in violence in Kashmir, an enhanced risk of preemptive Indian action -- in short, all the makings of a new Subcontinental crisis."

Schaffer added that that strong opposition inside Pakistan to an attack on Iraq -- coupled with the U.S. preoccupation on Iraq at the expense of other problem areas like Kashmir -- could embolden Islamic militants into increasing cross-border terrorist attacks, as seen by last week’s massacre of Hindu villagers.

EXCUSE TO TAKE MORE AGGRESSIVE ACTION

At the same time, the preemptive U.S. action against Iraq with little international support "would be another powerful argument for those in India who want to take preemptive action against Pakistan," Schaffer warned. "Combine this scenario with a surge in violence in Kashmir, and you have the makings of another South Asian crisis. A South Asian war scare would oblige the United States to get involved, in much the same way it has done twice already in 2002. But with a Middle Eastern hot war taking place at the same time, the United States would have no appetite for starting work on a long drawn-out peace process."

Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, also warns that a byproduct of the Iraq conflict could be an increase in instability in South Asia. "A war in Iraq could generate more proliferation -- even if America wins quickly. If the strongest states in rough neighborhoods -- Russia, India and Israel, for example -- think more sympathetically about preventive war as a result of a smashing U.S. military success, then their potential adversaries could be more inclined to seek protection by acquiring or expanding stocks of deadly weapons."

However, other observers downplay the threat of India using the U.S. war against Iraq for justification of military action against Pakistan. "Some public reaction in India has argued that the government should learn from resolute U.S. action in Iraq and take appropriate military action to end Pakistan’s support to cross-border terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere. But there is no evidence that this reaction, which resides on the fringe of the political spectrum, will shift the ‘center of gravity’ away from its current position of muted criticism of U.S. action," Srivastava said.

U.S. DISTRACTION EXPLOITED

Nevertheless, some U.S. observers caution that India might be deliberately using the U.S. distraction in Iraq to push its own agenda. India is trying to catch Washington off-balance as the U.S. focuses on Iraq, one U.S. analyst speculated.

"Other nations will try to exploit the expected U.S. tunnel vision -- hoping to press their own agendas and have the United States react without taking time to analyze and prepare contingency plans," the U.S. analyst said. "New Delhi is increasingly anxious to end Washington’s support for Musharraf, whom Indian officials say is doing little or nothing to stem cross-border attacks by Islamist militants and Kashmiri separatists. New Delhi is quietly warning that if Washington doesn’t drop Musharraf and find a true pro-U.S. general to lead Pakistan soon, it might face a much bigger threat than Iraq. With the United States’ focus growing tighter on Iraq, Washington might miscalculate on another issue -- taking the word of an ally at face value without taking time to fully analyze the situation and simply shooting from the hip."

MOMENTUM REMAINS FOR DEEPER U.S.-INDIA TIES

Despite the problems in U.S.-India ties triggered by the Iraq war, the consensus among close watchers of the bilateral relationship is that the short-term tensions will be overcome.

"A serious and sustained Indian criticism of U.S. action in Iraq could certainly vitiate the political atmosphere and retard the momentum of substantive engagement in the near term. However, the domains of bilateral strategic cooperation that have been identified for the longer-term reside on a relatively secure foundation of shared interests and vision, and are not likely to be buffeted too strongly by such actions," Srivastava said.