Hafizzz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 5,041
- Reaction score
- 0
India’s SCO dilemma
India’s SCO dilemma - Indian Punchline
The statement by external affairs minister S.M.Krishna at the Istanbul Conference on November 2 could have been made by his British or Australian counterpart as an articulation of Anglo-Saxon solidarity with America’s plight in Afghanistan. It is a stunner displaying how much India remains the US’s junior partner in the Afghan war!
Short of uttering the words “New Silk Road” or “OSCE”, the mandarins did a marvellous job drafting a statement that is deceptively couched in platitudes but in diplomatic terms closely echoing the US’s agenda in convening the Istanbul conference. (Maybe, the only “additionality” is its irresistible Indian itch to give a kick to the Pakistanis on their ***** whenever an occasion presents itself.)
Where, indeed, does India stand on regional security at the present definitive juncture? Krishna avoided mentioning Afghanistan’s “neutrality” as an article of faith for India. His predecessors used to say this key word, but Krishna just won’t, when the US strategy aims to set up military bases in Afghanistan.
The statement offered that India would “work with” the US and NATO’s so-called “transition and beyond”. Pray, what is this “beyond”? NATO and US have repeated ad nauseum that there can be no “beyond” in Afghanistan without their military presence.
The statement’s “vision” of a regional security architecture “radiating out from the Heart of Asia” falls out of Hillary Clinton’s speech at New York on 22 September at the meeting with foreign ministers of Central and South Asia (which Krishna attended), where she presented the US’s “vision” of the New Silk Road.
Equally, the Indian statement’s description of collaboration in terms of the “idea of linking Central Asia and South Asia” was exactly what the George W. Bush presidency espoused (and Barack Obama revived as New Silk Road). Bush called it the “Greater Central Asia strategy” and its primary objective in geopolitical terms was to roll back Russian and Chinese influence in Central Asia by pitting India as a counterweight under the pretext of “linking” Central and South Asia. The New Silk Road has the very same objective.
Clearly, India is playing a dangerous shifty game in its regional policy with regard to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia. It needs to make up its mind where it stands. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since Delhi formally applied for membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SCO].
Put simply, the mandarins have had a change of heart and India’s regional policy is today back somewhere circa 2006. Unsurprisingly, the latest from Moscow is that India’s SCO membership goes into the backburner until Russia and China can be sure that India won’t turn out to be the US’s Trojan horse.
The Istanbul conference exposed a curious fault line in regional security: Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran opposing tooth and nail the US move to create a OSCE-type regional security architecture in South and Central Asia while India pussyfooted. Another chapter opens in the bizarre trapeze acts that masquerade as India’s post-modern diplomacy.
India is not a power at all because she is often used by the West to counter Russia and China.
India cannot say NO to the West because she depends on the West for every she needs.
