If proof were needed that the 21st century would be about the struggle to shape Asia's destiny, then it arrived from the mouth of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last month. In New Delhi for the day during her trip across the continent, the US secretary of state told the Indian prime minister that the US' newest foreign policy goal was to "help India become a major world power in the 21st century."
A state department briefing elaborated by saying that Washington understood "fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement."
Sealed by the promise of a visit to New Delhi by US President George W. Bush later this year, these unequivocal statements imply that the US wants India to be a permanent friend.
The message is India is not a great power, but it has the potential to emerge as one.
Asia is in a period of dramatic change, a time dominated by the rise of China.
Such upheaval suits the White House, which considers turmoil important because it offers hitherto unrealized opportunities.
These moments are the US' chance to determine the future of the world.
On the subcontinent the Bush administration tore up its previous policies aimed at denying weapons to India and Pakistan, states engaged in a nuclear-tipped arms race.
ROLE REVERSAL
In a dramatic reversal, the White House announced Pakistan will get F-16 jets, the sale of which were barred in 1990 out of concern for the country's then undeclared nuclear weapons program.
Simultaneously, the White House announced that it would allow US companies the right to provide India with the next generation of sophisticated, multi-role combat aircraft.
More acute is the talk of large transfers of nuclear reactors to India, currently denied such technologies under the nuclear proliferation treaty. Washington's latest move suggests that the agreement's periodic review next month might be more radical than many realized.
By accepting both south Asian establishments as regional partners, Washington says it has snapped the link between India and Pakistan in policymaking. There is a deliberate echo of the aftermath of the Egyptian-Israeli detente in the 1970s, when both sides agreed to peace, got multibillion dollar arms packages and became US allies. The difference now is that the hotspot of Kashmir still burns.
Diplomacy is rarely a zero sum game, but in this case the signal from Washington is that these gains will be someone else's loss.
Although now cloaked in the language of human rights and democracy, the Bush doctrine is still the one articulated in his first term: to prevent the emergence of a hostile rival.
The only competitor on the horizon is China. Its military rise, economic clout, Beijing's self-confidence in Asian affairs and its unpredictable behavior make the world's largest communist country a real threat in the eyes of the Bush administration.
In Europe, the shared perception of a common enemy, which was the foundation of Washington's Cold War alliances, has disappeared.
The confusion in Brussels over whether or not to sell arms to Beijing confirmed to the White House that a new set of attitudes needs new allies.
Washington identifies with trends that promote freedom and democracy, although the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib and the detention of others at Guantanamo without charges dims this moral claim. New and old US alliances in Asia now encircle China -- not that this is openly acknowledged.
Washington's ties with South Korea, Japan and India are justified on the basis of liberty and shared ideology rather than a balance of power argument. The US has not articulated its new Asian policy, but its trusted Asian ally, Japan, has.
GROWING THREAT
Tokyo is aware of the threat to its own shores. Chinese submarines slide in and out of its waters, and defense analysts in Japan note that Beijing is developing submarines and missiles not commensurate to the threats posed in its neighborhood.
In a speech in New Delhi, Yukio Okamoto, the special assistant to the Japanese prime minister, spoke of Indo-Japanese cooperation to restrain a powerful China that wishes to alter the status quo to right perceived historical wrongs.
As two democracies, where English is the language of administration, India and the US share common values. There are reasons for a partnership between Washington and New Delhi to engage with China. India dreams of great power status, has a boundary dispute with China, is irked by its missile technology transfers to Pakistan, and has lost out to Beijing in securing oilfields in Africa.
India, too, is an element in China's calculation. But how big this is will become apparent during the Chinese prime minister visit this week to New Delhi. The thought of the US becoming a weapons supplier to India would alarm Beijing. Aware that bonds are yet to be forged, China is wooing Delhi with promises of free trade agreements and security pacts.
What the US wants to do to China in the early years of this millennium appears remarkably similar to what it did to Russia in the last decades of the previous century.
On offer to India is an opening -- as well as a means to reduce China's influence -- by joining Washington to challenge Beijing.
If it sounds familiar, that is because it was another US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, who invented this form of triangular diplomacy in Asia. Then the game was played in the 1970s to strengthen China at Moscow's expense.
The question in Asia is whether the US' newest friend will become a tool rather than an ally.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS