Comment


Written by SAO • Special Features • July 2010

Have your say...

SouthAsia put forward the following questions to regional and international scholars, analysts and academicians about how they view the ties between U.S. and South Asia.

1. Would you say that the balance of relations between the U.S. and various countries of South Asia is based on a strong convergence of interests, values and geo-strategic ties?

2. If the U.S. has influenced policies in South Asia to create an environment of peace and amity, why has this not led to the settlement of various bilateral disputes and more prosperity for the people?

3. It is said that British imperialism in South Asia has been replaced by U.S. imperialism. Would you agree?

This is what a few of them had to say:

Stanley Wolpert

Eminent American historian and Emeritus Professor of History at University of California, Los Angeles.

1 - Yes.

2 - Though most of us in the United States, and, I believe, in South Asia as well, would, indeed, be happiest living in a world of "peace and amity," no nation has the power to "create" that ideal environment for any other sovereign state. We can only try our best to achieve those wonderful goals by establishing a democratic civic society, responsive to rules defined by our Constitutional legislation and Courts of Justice that allow all of our people to enjoy freedoms of speech and press and religious persuasion, without infringing on or persecuting others for different beliefs, insuring all women and children, as well as men, the joys of security within their own homes and on every street or wooded trail in their homelands. Even in the best run nations, nonetheless, there are criminals and corrupt police, or crazed soldiers, who think they can break every law without being punished, and they must either be imprisoned or killed by their law-abiding neighbors and sane officials. Until India and Pakistan resolve to stop fighting and distrusting one another, working together instead to find sensible ways to end conflicts and cooperate in helping each other build bridges of friendship, creativity and prosperity, there is little any one else can do to insure the happiness and prosperity of their people.

3 - No. British Imperialism was based on territorial control of all of South Asia with its most powerful army and navy, during much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The United States has no interest in territorial control of South Asia, but "outsourcing" by major American corporations to India, and our new "Global" economy, is viewed by many as U.S. "economic Imperialism." The economies of China and India, however, are both currently growing faster.

Dr. Andrew Bacevich

Professor, International Relations and History, Boston University. A retired colonel and author of several books, he is also a leading political analyst.

2 - U.S. policy seeks in South Asia what it seeks elsewhere: order and access. A stable international order that is open to American enterprise while adhering to American norms is essential to preserving the existing American way of life. At least this is the consensus view of American elites.

3 - This does translate into a form of imperialism, although it would be a mistake to compare American imperialism to British imperialism. The two differ radically. Especially since the end of the Cold War, the American approach to imperialism has emphasized the use of military power, informed by the belief that the application of hard power facilitates order and access. There is plenty of evidence in Afghanistan and Pakistan suggesting that just the reverse is true. Washington chooses to ignore that evidence.

Tarun Khanna

Jorge Paulo Lemann Professor, Harvard Business School and author of ‘Winning in Emerging Markets.'

1 - Not being a political scientist, I won't comment on the political ties between America and South Asia. However, I feel this region can do away with its problem through economic symbiosis amongst itself. A number of the economic problems afflicting the countries are common, for example, basic education and financial illiteracy. Take the latter issue. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, and possibly the other south Asian countries, all have microfinance firms. Grameen originated in Bangladesh. India has a vibrant microfinance sector, including some of the largest such firms in the world. There is much to be gained by sharing knowledge about these problems. The same can be said for health, communications, etc.

2 - From the perspective of India, it is hard to make too much sense of this. It is true that the U.S. is a dominant economic and political power. But many of the newly ascendant emerging markets are making their own interests apparent. Witness the stance adopted by the developing countries on climate change, versus that adopted by the developed world. There is also bilateral exchange between private sector entities in different emerging markets. For example, sugar and biofuel producers from each of Brazil and India have invested in each others' backyards; there is interchange between health providers in the same two countries. Indian software engineers are commonly seen in the streets of Hangzhou and so on. In general, the proportion of cross border commerce (think of cross border trade for example) that is south-south (that is, from one developing country to another) compared to all cross border commerce, has risen sharply in recent years. All this suggests that the idea of American imperialism is overstated.

Dr. Syed Rifaat Hussain

Professor and Chairman, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

1 - Historically, U.S. has pursued an India-centric approach to the region. It has now become quite visible after the end of the Cold War. U.S. strategic partnership with India assigns that country a huge security role in managing the region. Washington has often described India as a "net provider of security in the Asia-Pacific region." U.S. has a convergence of interests with India based on its geopolitical interests and democratic values. Because they are Muslim countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh are viewed as sources of Muslim opposition to American geopolitical interests. U.S. has convergence of interests with the government of these two countries but views their predominantly Muslim populations with suspicion and distrust. Other South Asian countries do not matter much in the American scheme of things.

2 - U.S. does not have a coherent policy framework for dealing with issues of war and peace in South Asia. As a dominant superpower, it thrives on a situation of controlled conflict in the region - it allows Washington to play both sides in situations of bilateral conflicts and also prevent the region from posing a collective challenge to U.S. supremacy in the region. America has never engaged in a systematic well thought out policy of conflict resolution in the region and its involvement in Kashmir has always been behind the scene and now largely in deference to Indian sensitivities Washington has stopped calling for a just resolution of the Kashmir conflict.

3 - U.S. is not an imperialist power but an imperial power as it seeks to preserve influence without exercising direct territorial control over the region. Given the mass resistance to American attempts to hold sway in the region, U.S. has tried very hard to keep friendly regimes in power. The country pays lip service to the cause of democracy in the region. In reality, it has supported and promoted those governments that have shown pro-U.S. leanings. What matters the most for Washington is a surrogate power structure in the region that would allow it to maintain its position of strategic dominance in the face of rising challenge from China.

Col (retd.)R Hariharan

Former Indian Military Intelligence officer and a specialist on South Asia.

1 - This is what the U.S. and many South Asian nations would like us to believe. But that would be oversimplifying a complex melange of domestic, international, ideological, economic, and political interests of the U.S. and the nations of the region which affect their inter - relations. U.S. had always acted solely on its own national self interest. Its contours are amorphous and ill defined. As its shades vary from national self interest to hegemonic interests to power projection, its objectives are multiple and dynamic. So there is convergence on some issues that affect the U.S. interests (issues of MNC operations, trade and tariff, nuclearization, terrorism etc.); but the convergence could get skewed when domestic compulsions or other big power play comes in. So when the U.S. speaks of balance of relations, it is based upon its own compulsions equated with the dynamics of South Asia as a region or specific nations. This is most visible in the U.S. handling of Afghanistan.

2 - I do not believe the U.S. or any other external power has either the level of power or influence required to create an ‘an environment of peace and amity' in such a large region as South Asia. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, bilateral issues of nations in South Asia are far too complex for an external power, particularly one with Anglo Saxon ethos, to pressurize them solely by muscle or money power to settle their disputes. Secondly, South Asia is not Latin America where the U.S. could arm twist (even there its influence is waning) smaller nations. South Asia has large nations with politically conscious populations and well developed economies not wholly dependent upon the U.S. I believe, the historical period for the U.S. to wield such influence to shape overwhelmingly the environment in South Asia is over.

3 - I do not agree with this statement because the dogma that dictated imperialism is worn out. I am sure the U.S. as a big power has hegemonic interests in the region. But imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is not possible now as serious challengers are emerging to on guard at every step. And the U.S. of the present day is not the same inward looking one of Teddy Roosevelt days. It has a global face which it is chary of losing.

Bashir Ahmad

Acting President/Senior Fellow, Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad.

1 - South Asia has never been a high priority region for the United States, not even during the Cold War years for obvious reasons. South Asia is an over populated, poverty ridden and caste stricken region and prone to violence and conflict; Inter-state and Intra-state. Above all the region lacks strategic resources like oil and precious metals etc. Till late, the Indian economy was a closed economy and there were no opportunities for trade and investment for the U.S.A. U.S. relations with South Asian States have been based on U.S. enlightened self interest and on global balance of power and geo-strategic considerations, whereas values and strong convergence of interest have never figured prominently. In an unequal relationship of such magnitude, only lip service is paid to commonality of interests where the dominant partner prevails. Rhetoric about values i.e. free-world, democracy and human rights is used as a smoke screen.

2 - Although America has never promoted conflict in South Asia and has desired peace, but it has never acted as an honest broker to settle various bi-literal disputes. Being a status quo power it has always desired to earn the goodwill of the stronger power in South Asia i.e. India, at the cost of other states of South Asia. Its role in South Asia matches with its track records of Middle East, where it has always sided with Israel. U.S.A. sees India influential to safeguard its interests in the Gulf region and in the sea-lanes of Indian Ocean. Moreover, peaceful rise of China and market considerations have compelled U.S.A. to forge a strategic relationship with India where the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal is a case in point whereas on the other hand its relations with Pakistan have always been of tactical nature, despite rhetoric of non-Nato Ally.

3 - British imperialism in South Asia was product of an era and times which are no longer valid. U.S. imperial ambitions have suffered a severe setback in Iraq and are terribly bogged down in Afghanistan. Mercifully, the world is moving away from uni-polar to multi-polarity.

B.S. Raghavan

Ex-U.S. Congressional Fellow and Ex-Director, Political and Security Policy Planning, Government of India.

1 - No. They are based on calculations of self-interest, not always enlightened, with each country following the policy of oneupmanship rather than genuine partnership. The U.S. considers it in its interest, as the arbiter of the world, to keep as many countries within its fold as possible. The menacing shadow of terror is an additional inducement for the U.S. and South Asian States to be mutually collaborative, if not supportive. These factors exist in a stable equilibrium at the moment, and they should not be mistaken for any geo-strategic ties as such.

2 - It is not the kind of peace and amity that come from a conviction of their intrinsic worth, but pretence of getting along for the nonce with each other without rocking the boat. Further, the U.S. has not ‘influenced' policies, but only conditioned behavior, and has also been indulging in gamesmanship of a super-power. Basically, the biases and egos of the entities of the region are alive and well; since the disputes help them to retain their importance, they refuse to go away.

3 - Everything is in a flux in an age when four simultaneous revolutions - knowledge, communications, technological and social - are on and there is a constant churning without anything being at a standstill. In this ever-changing scenario, nothing can be a replacement of anything else. The U.S. has only filled a vacuum and is making the most of it. It is imperialistic in the sense of flaunting its power and wealth, and resorting to pre-emptive strikes and regime changes backed by tortures and falsehoods, and it applies this approach to the whole world, and not to South Asia alone.

Dr. Chuda Shrestha

Security and Conflict Management Analyst, Nepal

1 - With the end of balance of power or bipolar system after cold war, U.S. as a sole power have its role and relation in all various South Asian countries on the basis of her interests, values and geo-strategic linkages. Among the South Asian countries, U.S. extends its relationships with India as a potential power of the region second to China. Its relation with Pakistan and Afghanistan stands as allies, geo-strategically important for the coalition war against terrorism. Similarly, U.S. relation with Nepal is also based on her interests and values as well as the concern of Tibetan issues.

2 - Of course, U.S. has influenced policies in South Asia in various aspects; politically, economically and militarily in the top echelon whereas it lacks in understanding and addressing the various layers of diversities, complexities and the gravity of the problems of South Asian countries. This has hindered to create an environment of peace and prosperity of the people.

3 - In some extent, I do agree. Political and economic turmoil situations in South Asia have created culture of dependency towards the U.S. from individual to state level policies.

Bishnu Pukar Shrestha

Human Rights Activist, Nepal

1 - The U.S. has major economic, political and security interests in South Asia. Economically it wants bigger markets for U.S. goods. Politically it wants secular and moderate countries to succeed with the secular tasks of economic and political reform that build their credibility at home and abroad. The U.S. has great interest from the point of security to combat terrorism. So Americans are trying to apply the formula of deploying their military with a framework of ‘places, not bases' approach to align security cooperation. The geo strategic tie of the U.S. with the South Asia is to circle china. For the same reason the presence of U.S. military in South Asia is one of the strategies to look out and have some control on the burgeoning Chinese military capability. The United States has two strategies; firstly it wants to keep India and Pakistan engaged in a peace process and cajoling India especially to make strategic concessions to Pakistan military power. Secondly it wants India to divert from the "look East" policy and instead look to the West.

2 - The central idea of U.S. foreign policy is to occupy any place for long in the slogan of peace and amity. The imbalance between U.S. - Pak and U.S. - India relations are intended to destabilize the region. As a result we can not see peace and prosperity of the people in this region.

3 - Though not in the same form as British or Roman Imperialism, U.S. seems to be having a cultural and economic imperialism over this region. U.S. looks at South Asia as a region where it can practice its political domination. Americans fully realize that the South Asian market is a potential market and so they want to replace the Asian goods from the market with American products. For this purpose they are keenly looking to develop their allies in South Asia and this they are doing in the name of peace and development, peace and amity. This is a form of imperialism. Hence we can say that the U.S. is replacing the British imperialism.

Dr. Syed Farooq Hasnat

Adjunct Scholar, Middle East Institute, Washington D.C.

1 - Ever since the cold war, the U.S. interests in the South Asian region have been limited to Pakistan and India. Although Sri Lanka is strategically located in the Indian Ocean, it has been hardly considered vital for the American interests, even by the U.S. navy.There have been various phases in recent history when the U.S. considered Pakistan as vital to its interests, and convergence of interests surfaced in that case. First phase was when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan in 1978 and a war of resistance was encouraged by the Americans. The second came after the U.S. onslaught on Afghanistan in 2002, when Pakistan became an important player in the Afghan war theater. The third U.S.-Pakistan cooperation came after 2007, when the Taliban and Al-Qaeda reemerged in Afghanistan and in the border areas of Pakistan. With India, the U.S. relations are more in terms of long term interests - economic, strategic and political, basically to counter the Chinese influence in the region.

2 - In no point in history the United States had a complete influence over the South Asian countries. However, at crucial times the U.S. did exercise its influence, when it came to Pakistan-India disputes. This was especially so whenever the tensions accelerated, with a potential of developing into armed conflict. U.S. backdoor diplomacy played a significant role in defusing the crises arising out of the Indian standoff of 2002. In Kargil conflict in 1999, President Clinton used his influence to defuse the conflict that was heading for a dangerous showdown between the two nuclear countries. There is an opinion, particularly in Pakistan that the U.S. has a tendency to influence its policies, by using various means, especially through its economic assistance. Recently, the U.S. has realized its limits in regard to the military capacity (examples of Iraq and Afghanistan). In these circumstances the U.S. will exercise its influence to a level which will have acceptability from the weak and corrupt political leadership of Pakistan, who are looking for legitimacy, not from its own people but from outside powers.

Rahul K Bhonsle, retired Brigadier from Indian Army and publisher, Security Risks

(security-risks.com)

In a Uni-Multi polar World, America sees itself as a key interlocutor in inter state relations. U.S. vital interest of securing the Home Land against terrorism has deepened its engagement in South Asia. The geo-strategic location of the region at the base of other contending powers, Russia and China and the Indian Ocean are other factors shaping U.S. interests, values are essentially embellishments to manage public perception.

While the U.S. does have motivation to support peace and amity in South Asia, given the long and vexed legacy of contested bilateral relations of countries in the region, U.S. influence has been limited to management of conflict. More over bilateral disputes are best resolved through mutual engagement based on trust and confidence building, presently there is a major void in this sphere in South Asia. The U.S. is contributing to building trust in its own way, but the countries themselves would have to make an extra effort.

I think we need to overcome the complex of imperialist persecution which has been our past legacy. Countries in South Asia particularly India have now moved far beyond the paradigm of imposed, "imperialism" and have attained strategic autonomy. Other countries have the potential to do so by exploiting the vast potential of their people and think geo economically rather than geo strategically and shed the perception of victim hood.