Volume 2, No. 8, August 2001

The US president George W. Bush addressed the National Defence University in Washington on May 1st and declared his intention to come out of the 1972 ABM Treaty and undertake "a new framework for stability and security that reflects the world of today". For the US  rulers the present day world realities are going to give rise to enormous challenges and pose immense dangers to their worldwide empire and its No.1 position. And they feel the need to organize the world in a way such that any threat to the empire is clubbed down and curtailed to every extent possible. The collapse of the USSR-led rival imperialist bloc in 1990, changed the power equations in the world. As the anarchy of the world imperialist system is bound to give rise to new inter-imperialist rivalries and new imperialist blocs the number one position of the US is bound to face a challenge sooner or later. This challenge will also be compounded by the change of governments or systems in the oppressed countries that may come into opposition to the lone super power of the world.

Moreover, Russia, in spite of its political and economic collapse, is still a formidable military power. Then, the European Union, born out of the European community of the seventies and eighties, is increasingly talking about a United States of Europe, common European defence and common European interests that far exceed the borders of Europe. The NMD is in fact a major weapon to mainain military superiority over potential imperialist rivals of the future.

The May 1st 2001 announcement made by Bush was long overdue as per the wishes of the Pentagon. The Pentagon had wanted Clinton to announce it. So, it has not come as a surprise to anyone. But what has surprised the world, and also the US administration, is the quick Indian response that came endorsing the plan in its totality.

There are reports that before endorsing the US imperialist plan the ministry of external affairs consulted no one in the government. Neither the cabinet, nor National Security Committee, nor the Secretary to the PM nor anyone else knew of the endorsement statement. Perhaps India was the first in the world. Even the NATO allies of the USA were a bit sceptical or did not want to be that wanton, to welcome the NMD. Even the closest ally of the US, the UK, did not speak up and was concerned about the response of its European neighbours. The Indian eagerness to respond to the US announcement baffled even the Americans themselves. They never expected such a "wild" response from India as one of the US embassy officials in Delhi said that it was beyond their "wildest of expectations". Such an ardent response from India, as found in the new zealous converts, has elated the Bush administration. The US felt the need even to convince its longstanding "allies and friends" about the NMD declaration.

What is behind the Indian haste and the unprecedented enthusiasm for things emanating from Washington requires a close political analysis. Apart from the opening up of the economy in all its branches, including production in the defense sector, there are many things that are of greater political significance and implications. From the conflict in Kashmir to the role of a regional bully to a willing pawn to play the game of the master player in international affairs the Indian rulers are eager to assume the role of the "deputies of the international sheriff". The changed international equations and the world situation calls on them to excel even their Pakistani counterparts, who presently find themselves cornered and in a difficult situation.

Jaswant Singh, while speaking of the so-called previous wasted decades, said that India should have acted as a more vigorous regional bully all along and allied with US imperialism. This he says, in retrospection, while re-evaluating the fate of the Soviet Union that had started siding with the reactionary regimes in pursuit of its social imperialist ambitions. For him, had India adopted this course it would not have faced the Kashmir problem, the Taliban threat, and lastly, China might have refrained from "attacking India" as the US would have stood by it all through. Now he wants to set history ‘right’ by going all out in support of the US policy makers. He just does not want to remember that it was India which backed out of its commitment to the people of Kashmir. That it was the US which created the Taliban. That India, and not China, was the real instigator of the India-China war.

The "haste" in welcoming NMD is not that hasty as both the countries have been exchanging views over it for the last one year. Singh has been shuttling between USA and India to meet Strobe Talbot exchanging every bit of information with the masters of the New World Order. Many of the ‘critics’ of the welcome statement say that India should avoid "crassness", the "fawning tone" and the "extreme of fatuity" in its expressions. A veil of softness, modesty and self-respect can do the job better and in a more appropriate looking manner. Moreover, the critics assert, consulting the cabinet and the opposition, like in the case of CTBT, would have made it a "democratic" decision. This is one ‘major difference’ between the ruling class parties of our country on this point. All these gentlemen, while ‘criticizing’ the Indian endorsement, have cautioned that "to say all this is not to suggest that this country should not do all that it can to promote friendly and cooperative relations with the US"; that the Government should proceed "guarding against steps that could adversely affect the new beginning with the US." Generally, this is the attitude which the ruling classes of our country have adopted towards the US. Most of their representatives seem preoccupied with the need to stoop down before the US or support whatever it does. Some shamelessly, others with a "modicum of civility". In the absence of a competing power centre in the world they have been left with little choice to show off their "independence".

Faced with a ‘civilizing’ barrage of criticism from the press and the congress party, the Indian authorities softened down their tone a bit, afterwards. "We have not endorsed the NMD as such," the ministry of external affairs said. This statement vainly tried to clarify that their welcome was confined to the "cuts in nuclear weapons" and reference to the "real consultations" in Bush’s statement.

The Indian leaders want to deceive the Indian people and the world that India is only welcoming Bush’s scheme for "cuts" in the nuclear arsenals. They want the world to take it as a step towards a new strategic balance for world peace.

Many are afraid of the NMD project, of a renewed arms race, that it may lead to "an all devastating war" and say, "the world is again becoming a very dangerous place to live in." But for the Indian rulers it is a welcome development. India defended the US by using Bush’s phrase that it is a "strategic and technological inevitability." By repeating the US arguments India not only justified the NMD but also defended the militarisation of space and the US preparations for winning a nuclear war or holding of the weaker States of the world to ransom. The US missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1999 is a case in point.

The Indian position on NMD, somebody rightly said, is an "abject surrender".

Obviously, the Indian references to Bush’s commitments about reduction in the nuclear arsenals and solving the matter through talks are as unconvincing as are those of Mr. Bush. The US has always contemplated missile defence as a means of bolstering offence. Moreover, in NMD there is no place for the elimination of nuclear weapons, as India had been demanding in the past. The change in the official Indian position is quite evident. It is not the principles which have determined the Indian response but the opportunism, or the Realpolitik, which is at its core. A bourgeois newspaper has well defined the Indian position: "Realpolitik has much to do with the enthusiastic endorsement of the controversial US moves. Even the governments which have shown unease are by no means unfriendly to the US … India’s submissive attitude stands out all the more prominently".

Most of the criticism of the Indian endorsement statement has been a soft criticism even by bourgeois standards. This is the Realpolitik of the bourgeois. Still there are a few persons among the bourgeoisie who have tried to bring out the real US intentions behind the NMD and have made a sharp criticism of the Indian position.

One such is a former secretary to the Govt. of India. While airing his concern over "the independence and sovereignty" of the country being seriously compromised for the sake of "friendship with the USA" he has lambasted the so-called defensive nature of the NMD. According to him such a defence "will give a country the confidence to go on the offensive against its adversary with impunity. Thus the entire world will be held hostage to the country possessing such a system. The more fool proof the system is the more absolute will be its dominance over the world."

But the present rulers are out to undo the "blunders" of the past by committing more of them. But this, then, has always been their way while dealing with this or that imperialist power.

India might be looking forward to rain missiles on the freedom fighters in Kashmir, or anywhere within India, or across the line of control, with US backing. And for that opportunity to arrive it will readily accept, and be a partner in, US crimes worldwide. Once the US formally declares Pakistan a "rogue" state, the thing India has been urging for long, the Indian adventure can be sure of ‘international’ acceptation.

The US ruling class is happy that there are enough forces in India for whom the "NMD has opened the door for substantive cooperation between India and US" and a "road map for a new destination" has opened up. The India Caucus in the US says the Indo-US nexus "has become one of the most significant emerging relationship in the world." The US wants to make use of India as a thwart to counterbalance China. For the Bush administration China is considered a future competitor in the East Asian Theater. In Asia it is only China which has come with strong opposition to the NMD. It thinks that its nuclear deterrence will be rendered useless and become vulnerable to American bullying and blackmail if the US goes ahead with its plans to build a Theater Missile defence in East Asia, protecting Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

Russia is more disturbed by this development. With the ABM treaty thrown to the winds the world strategic balance of nuclear deterrence is going to be shattered to the Russian disadvantage. Unable to embark upon, let alone to build, its own version of the NMD for itself and Europe the Russians face a further downslide in their international standing as a powerful counter military force against the US. Russia and China, both due to their own reasons vehemently oppose the NMD and both want to go into a political pact to counter the US schemes. For this purpose a Sino-Russian summit is slated for the month of July. Both have also rushed their high officials to India to know of the Indian position and to neutralise it. The Indian government has tried to pose that it is not that enthusiastic to the US moves and instead want the new world strategic balance to be arrived at through negotiations between the US and Russia. It has given its word to the Russian foreign minister that India supports the Russian position on the IBM treaty and would like a change (or an abrogation) only through a mutual US-Russian settlement. Again, this is the same kind of sheer diplomatic talk meant to appease the Russians while basically siding with the Americans.

India, under the present circumstances, is geared to retrieve its "lost decades" of relations with the US. A more closer collaboration and a cringing friendship is what the Indian leaders are aspiring, notwithstanding the fate of a ‘friendship’ the Pakistani rulers have been having with the US which has landed Pakistan into a quagmire of myriad problems. Now Pakistan is almost a "rogue" state for the US. The Indian rulers understand that "friends" and the "rouge states" are flexible categories and the inclusion in and the exclusion from these categories depends upon how far a particular country is subservient to US interests. And they are ready to do the bidding of the master, serve it well and be damned. There is no other course for the bourgeois leaders of a third world country. The only choice for them is to choose from this or that from the imperialist powers. Pakistan and India, both are in competition to make a better place in the US bandwagon with the former facing a very difficult situation while the latter out to push it down on to the tracks. The regional bully is getting all set to carry the behest of the International Boss.

On the heel of welcoming the NMD defence production has been opened up to the private sector. Only the defence personnel remain to be privatized. Soon we shall see the involvement of foreign forces being hired by India to quell internal disturbances. India is already an ever-willing enthusiast to lend its armed forces to the imperialists to do the dirty work of suppressing the movements in various countries in the name of "peace keeping". With the new found "convergence of interests" with the US this will increase. Conversely, the US led "international community" will happily come to fulfil India’s need ‘to maintain peace within India’ when the rulers here feel threatened by the peoples’ movements.

To reward India for its blatant support of the NMD the US administration is considering removing the sanctions imposed on India in the wake of the Pokhran nuclear blasts in 1998. A good part of these sanctions was removed by the Clinton regime itself, the rest will be done away with by Bush. The present US regime has a different view of the CTBT regime and will find other ways to prevent the proliferation of nuclear armaments and missiles. When the US assistant secretary of State, Armitage, came to meet the Indian "friends" after conferring with Tokyo and Seoul over the NMD plans he is considered to have asked the Indian leaders to cap their missile programme. This is there in spite of a new shot of "strategic friendship" into the Indo-US relations. The US wants everyone else to restrict and cap their missile and nuclear programmes while the US continues its own march forward to produce new systems of offense and defence, including the ones meant for space. It already has the biggest stockpile of nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction but is hell bent to prevent others from producing these.

Indian officials have described the endorsement as of a "new security paradigm" which is "to transform the strategic parameters of the Cold War". Rightly said. It is a transition from Cold War to Hot War times to ensure US domination over the world. It is also to punish those who dare to defy the US diktat. Indian surrender is to this paradigmatic shift.

May 19, 2001

<Top>