India has demonstrated that it has its own independent views on regional and global issues by categorically telling Australia that it cannot be part of any multilateral security arrangement. This has been the country’s policy ever since the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, when India decided to chart a nonaligned course. The necessity to restate the fact arose when Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd declared in a media interview that India was ready to join the US-Australia security pact meant to keep a check on China’s moves in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr Rudd’s statement — the response of “the Indian government has really been quite positive” — has no meaning when India is “not aware of any such proposal”. Perhaps, he took India’s “positive” response for granted, as he is scheduled to be in New Delhi soon for talks with Defence Minister A.K. Antony when he is expected to convey his country’s desire to revoke the ban on uranium exports to India. India needs uranium from Australia and is also interested in reaching agreements on fighting terrorism and maritime security. But these are separate issues, having nothing to do with the US-Australia defence architecture.
The US and Australia have their own calculations as far as China’s rise as the dominant player in the Asia-Pacific region is concerned. The US is working overtime to stop China’s growing influence in the region and beyond. Washington’s new military base in Australia is aimed at implementing its policy of containing China. Interestingly, the US supported Vietnam when China protested against the India-Vietnam cooperation pact for exploring oil and gas in the South China Sea. Washington’s Myanmar policy also appears to be undergoing change as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited that country this week and appreciated the political reforms being undertaken by the ruling military junta.
But why should India become a part of the US Asia-Pacific strategy? New Delhi is, of course, concerned about China’s String of Pearls policy to strengthen Beijing’s presence in India’s immediate neighbourhood. But it has to plan its moves the way it suits India’s national interests. There is no point in demonstrating that India is competing with China. It is wiser to go in for cooperative diplomacy as can be seen in India’s Look East policy. It has resulted in considerable gains for India in East Asia.
The US and Australia have their own calculations as far as China’s rise as the dominant player in the Asia-Pacific region is concerned. The US is working overtime to stop China’s growing influence in the region and beyond. Washington’s new military base in Australia is aimed at implementing its policy of containing China. Interestingly, the US supported Vietnam when China protested against the India-Vietnam cooperation pact for exploring oil and gas in the South China Sea. Washington’s Myanmar policy also appears to be undergoing change as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited that country this week and appreciated the political reforms being undertaken by the ruling military junta.
But why should India become a part of the US Asia-Pacific strategy? New Delhi is, of course, concerned about China’s String of Pearls policy to strengthen Beijing’s presence in India’s immediate neighbourhood. But it has to plan its moves the way it suits India’s national interests. There is no point in demonstrating that India is competing with China. It is wiser to go in for cooperative diplomacy as can be seen in India’s Look East policy. It has resulted in considerable gains for India in East Asia.
No comments:
Post a Comment