Next, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to serve another ‘demand note’ on Pakistan and that too while in India, which made it needlessly provocative. Her other remarks at the end of the US-India strategic dialogue were not helpful either, particularly her support for India’s quest for transit rights across South and Central Asia. It was, however, in the southern port city of Chennai that Clinton became India’s unabashed cheerleader, stressing that India-US ties would be the defining partnership of the 21st century, while nudging India to play a more assertive role across the Asia-Pacific region, arguing that it “is an ambitious agenda, but we can afford to be ambitious.” Her assertions must have fallen on receptive ears, as Indian Foreign Minister Krishna confirmed that “we discussed our shared interest in peaceful and stable Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean region architecture in the region”. As if to demonstrate how much the two are in sync, it was announced that the Indian president would be undertaking official visits to South Korea and Mongolia, two countries of special interest to China, while the joint statement revealed that “India, the US and Japan plan to commence a trilateral dialogue at the senior official level.”
Increasingly, Clinton has been sounding as if she has joined those in the US who are convinced of the need to galvanise South East Asian nations to confront China now, rather than in the future, when it may no longer be feasible. A year ago, at the annual Asean Regional Forum (ARF) meeting in Hanoi, Clinton had waded into the choppy waters of the South China Sea, where China and its South Asian neighbours are embroiled in a contentious dispute, declaring America’s support for the right to freedom of navigation. Suspecting it as America’s effort to fish in troubled waters, China was constrained to warn the US and other major powers to stay out of disputes in the region. At last week’s ARF annual meeting, Clinton renewed her efforts to encourage South East Asian nations to be more assertive in their claims to the strategically located and potentially lucrative waters of the South China Sea.
Clinton’s remarks in Chennai appear to flesh out the bare bones of the US-India strategic partnership envisaged by Bush and the neocons. Its scale is huge and ambition unlimited, as Clinton herself admitted. Though an Indian Ocean power, the US is committing itself to making India a Pacific Ocean power as well, and for this purpose encouraging her to work with Japan on security issues relating to the region. The East Asia Summit would be turned into the premier regional forum for dealing with security issues and India invited as an observer, for the first time, in the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Nothing could be more provocative to China.
Do Clinton’s exhortations in Chennai represent the Obama doctrine for ‘containment’ of China? Getting India into this arrangement may sound like a stroke of genius, but could turn out to be a huge folly as well. Coming as it does at a time when the American economy shows no sign of recovery and its debt to China exceeds $1 trillion, Clinton and company are engaging in an audacious gamble and one that is likely to add greatly to regional tension and turmoil.
Given Pakistan’s strategic relations to China and continuing tensions with India, the Obama administration’s encouragement of India to become more assertive and ambitious in both South and South East Asia demonstrate the limitations of US-Pakistan relations, while creating huge challenges for Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2011.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713904359-0/burn-(1)1713904359-0-270x192.webp)
Most folks who keep pointing to Chinese holding US treasury bonds in excess of a trillion US$ as a case of threat to US.
These folks know nothing about the fundamental rule in Banking - You owe $100 to the bank, you are in trouble, you owe $100,000,000 to the bank, the bank is in trouble!!
Basically US's biggest lenders (China, Europe, Japan) can't afford USA to fail. Heck, even India has in excess of US$40billion in treasury bonds, and should its value fall by say 25%, its a loss of $10billion, which is almost India's education budget!
How can world afford a rapid US downfall?
@ Tariq Fatemi:
“Particularly her support for India’s quest for transit rights across South and Central Asia”
Tell me what is wrong in demanding transit rights for a landlocked destination ..?? Whether it is Mangolia, Nepal, Afghanistan, Switzerland, Suez Canal passage or any other nation? This is basic UN mandate. Hillary was discussing the issue particularly in relation to trade and it pinches you because Pakistan is unrightfully denying it for India-Afghanistan trading ties. Sir, be pragmatic.
Also note that the US being in debt to the Chinese is a problem for the Chinese as well. It is the Chinese who buy US dollars and treasury instruments and they would be rendered worthless if the dollar collapsed. The dollar is a still a hard currency and any collapse of the US economy and the dollar would lead to a collapse of the export driven economy of China as well as the yuan would appreciate. Collapse of the chinese economy would mean civilian unrest in China and a softening of the commodity prices that would hit nations exporting to china. On the other hand, a collapse of the dollar could lead to a hardening of commodity prices and that would hit all, india and china included. This would make chinese exports expensive, leading to the same cycle as mentioned above.
I think all of us armchair warriors on both sides take ourselves and our governments too seriously. Hillary was just being gracious to her hosts. US needs the Indian markets for all that it produces from guns to gums. Note that it sells arms to both our governments. Note that there wasn\t a squeak out of the Indian government condoning what Hillary said. Note how the Indian government refused to activate the Chushul advanced airfield as the area is disputed by China and the Indian government did not want to rub the Chinese the wrong way. It is not enough to have a big gun with bullets. You need to be able and willing to shoot. This is where guts come in. The Pakistani government, the intelligence services and the army show far more guts the way they keep taking swipes at India through state and no-state actors. They are willing to walk to the edge even if it leads to total annihilation of both countries. Guess they are smart enough to realise that the Indian government, the armed forces and the Indian people are cowards who have sold their souls to lucifer. We are not worried about the country per se. We are more worried about the stock exchange. Note how the state and non-state actors always strike at the common man and not the governing class. The governing class hits back hard when they are struck at. Note how the Punjab and the Tamil terror movements were wiped out only after the governing was struck at.
Look India is where China was 10 years ago. It is already the fastest growing nation in the World. And, will remain so for a long long long time. In the next 20 years, India will have an economy comparable to that of China and US.
Please be not so delusional to think Pakistan can do something to counter this or plays a significant role to influence events. Pakistan can be a middle level power at best and looking at Pakistan's growth rate it is not reaching that landmark anytime soon.
Pakistan would do well to make peace with India, by doing the only sane thing it can do. Tacitly accept India's position on key issues. India is racing a race in which Pakistan cannot even participate.
American is an untrustworthy partner. India will find this out for themselves. As far as the US relationship with Pakistan is concerned I think it is finished. As soon as the US finds some face saving way to leave the region they will put some sanctions in place like they had done in the 90's.
Pakistan needs to solidify its friendship with Iran and China.
I am clueless about the intention of the article, is the Author blaming America of being opportunist? What did you think it was doing all this while with Pakistan..moving arm in arm in the deserts of Afghanistan asserting love and friendship?
A diplomat like Mr. Fatemi should read the international developments and identify the 'Laxman Rekha' within which Pakistan foreign policy has to operate. Unfortunately, he has chosen to ring the alarm bell for Pakistan when there is no one to come to rescue. I think, Mr. Nawaz Sherief, whom Mr. Musharaff tried to project as half-wit, has greater political wisdom than this erstwhile blue blooded ambassador.
Pakistan has always been a small state created by the Muslim elites and from the start had no leader who could craft a raison-de-etre for it's existence. Given its limitations it should have carved a role for itself within the bounds of its capabilities. Unfortunately, the cold war, the Soviet intrusion into Afghanistan coupled with the Islamic myth of Muslim superiority made it assume an importance far beyond it's entitlement.
One may wonder, if Pakistanis were asked to choose for one miracle for their country what they would ask for!!! I can guess-they would say: "In Islam there are no miracles".
We have to move beyond rhetoric and acceptance of reality is good for all. America wants stability in this region called South Asia, this argument doesn't seem plausible and ignore some historical facts and figures. In the past, during cold war era what was the role of america in this region to contain communism, but I do understand that the circumstances has changed. In this world where non-renewable energy resources are depleting fast, the one can imagine to what extent some country could go in securing these resources. Without any provocation no one can secure these resources. America is intervening as far as the dispute of south china sea is concerned, this is not a theory based on some assumption in reality a fact. US wants peace and also wants resources to boost its economy, so in this context conflict between america and china is inevitable, anyhow these two countries shares more aspirations than differences.
@NoSpinFacts:
Good try, with your quoting passages from ISPR material...Pakistan can definitely survive by severing ties with US...after all, Somalia, Sudan and North Korea have survived.
But, don't for a moment, think that Pak can survive by falling foul of their hitherto largest donor.
If you do, you are either naive, or you have a super immigration lawyer.
Mr Fatemi: The US is courting India because of several reasons-
it's burgeoning economic might--which includes a 400 million strong midddle class, and American companies want access to it. India is a responsible, pluralist and the largest democracy, obviously the oldest democracy in the World would want to be friends with it. India has vast resources of technologically trained manpower, which the US companies want. US wants a part of the pie, when fulfilling India's vast security, infrastructure and aviation needs (and those contracts are worth billions of dollars)..The cold war is over and Pakistan doesn't want to be a responsible and sincere country in fighting terrorism. So, Pakistan, at this point, has nothing to offer to the US, and hence the US is moving away from Pakistan and tilting towards India. Seriously, it's time to get your house in order, otherwise, this rhetoric is not going to help much, at this point!
Mr. Ambassador. I believe that your piece is full of assumptions. What makes you think that India will do the bidding for the US. Why wouldn't India want to stay friends with China? China is one of the largest trading partners India has. Has India bought the fighter planes from the US? And for that matter, there is no agreement to buy the US nuclear plants as yet. I believe that India will be pragmatic and will look after its own interests. That would include having good relations with all major countries, including China and Iran
It seems that every time the USA meets with India there is a rash of conspiracy articles which tend to portrait the USA as using India as a foil against China --- but that's nonsense. The reality is that the USA wants stability in this region of the World and India is the only major player that can help provide that stability. It's not the USA's fault that India is better suited to fill this role than Pakistan. .. Further --- China isn't the USA's enemy --- you won't find anyone in the USA saying that and you won't find anyone in China saying that --- you only find Pakistani's saying it. .. Lastly -- the author implies that the USA's economy is going to crash any minute -- I suggest the author explain why the demand for USA treasury bills is so great that the USA can sell all it wants for a measly 2% yield -- that alone is pretty good anecdotal evidence that China and the rest of the World seems to have high confidence in the USA.
Tariq Fatami,has writen a alaming column for south asia.It is my strongly held view that the foreign policy of India was bogged down for almost 60 years and only 9/11 and Bush Presidency has made New Delhi to its pottential,as more and more Indian elite are part of mainstream America and also India,it is rapidly realizing it can hugely benifit from American friendship.People forget USA can make or break a country,Germany,Japan,China and south Korea are stand out example of largeness of America,do not delude yourself,she has done this with only alturestic motive only,there is lot of thought behind this---SELF INTEREST,it is not a evil term.It also punishes recaltrsant foe and friends alike.You ignore this at your own peril,'HUBRIS'and self delusion,and undue self importance,'they say one is full of'.India for a very long time suffered from this decease,but lately it has taken 'shot'which seem to have cured this 'hubris' of Nehru/krisha Menon time,and put some reality check for them,case in point the defeat of entrenched'pakka communist'in west Bengal and kerala,and the leftist are on the run in India and are in real danger of oblivian.The writing on the wall,for Pakistan also,from very long time American leaders have been asking Pakistan to change its obsession with radical Islam and unremitting unrelenting hyseria about India,I have long belived thet is enough room for both countries under the sun,just some hard reality check.I will not say them,as it will prevent this writing from seeing the print,but people who can smell the coffee know it,it is no rocket engineering.A caution,Shifting to China and ditching Usa is not good policy,the strategic alliance has 3 part1)military2)land mass,3)population and strong ecnomy at least the pottential.My blogg is for some what sharp tools and not for idealouges,dogmatic,fundamentalist 'lakeer ke fakir',for careful thinking guys,It could even benifit politicians but I doubt it as they neither have time,or inclination to change their corrupt way,why should they?
Well at least you admit they are intellectuals. It is the un-intellectual babu's we need to worry about.
Keep on imagining these geopolitical games while sipping tea. its all these babus and intellectuals are good for.
Time to move on from this relationship. Pakistan has done more than the United States in the war on terror. It has a 140,000 troops deployed on the Pak-Afghan border, has lost 5,000 soldiers and 25,000 civilians in this war. The land and air routes provided to NATO/ISAF alone have resulted in hundreds and billions of dollars in savings for the United States and allies. Pakistan's economic cost due to this war has been in excess of $68 billion. Pakistan has been a true ally, but Washington has been doubling dealing with media leaks, public humiliation, and now running to cut a deal with the Taliban. The fact is that Afghanistan is a mess because resources were diverted to the unjust war in Iraq from 2003 - 2009. Pakistan is being made the scapegoat for policy and strategy failures in Washington. US Aid, which has been no more than $3-4 billion (the rest was reimbursement for using bases, deployment of troops, and supply routes) has had a miniscule impact on the economy. Pakistan's budget is $29 billion a year and the Debt-to-GDP ratio is only 61% (as compared to 90% in the US and 74% in India). The Pakistan military now uses about 80% Chinese equipment. Let's get the facts straight. Pakistan is not a walk over like Jordan or Georgie - The relationship must be mutually respectful. We have been the battered wife in this relationship, so let's try a separation for to see how we do.
Obama doctrine? Its called pragmatism. Again, which delusional world do our aging bureaucrats live in? Do you think that America, a declining economic power, is going to shun the worlds second largest population, and a challenger for China on our behalf? As for Mr Fai, he is an Indian-American, why is the Pakistani foreign office jumping to his defense? Give us a break please! The government of Pakistan has spent $4 million of taxpayers money so that Mr Fair, not even a Pakistani, can play charmer and lobbyist on Capital Hill pumping money into to respective electoral campaigns.
"given Pakistan's strategic relations with China"..you really think the US or even China factor Pakistan in? China holds $1 Trillion of US debt that is more than enough leverage. Delusional appears to be epidemic.