Commentary | Region

No, Mr President

A s George W Bush embarks on a state visit to India and Pakistan, it would be instructive to analyse the evolving role of the US in Southasia. Washington DC has always been an active political participant in the region – supporting India against China in 1962, sponsoring military regimes in Pakistan, fighting wars in Afghanistan, having interventionist ambassadors in Nepal, castigating the LTTE in Sri Lanka, and pushing for specific economic policies in all of these countries. The ‘war on terror’ has ensured that the US not only has a diplomatic presence in the region, but a powerful military force, placed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to back it up as well.

Considering that the US is the global hegemon, this active role in the Subcontinent is hardly surprising. But it is clearly undesirable. The United States has ignited intra- and inter-state conflicts, supported dictatorships, and directly and indirectly engineered anti-people policies. Such actions overwhelm the well-intentioned activities of the past, including support of scholarships, assistance through USAID, and placement of Peace Corps volunteers. In recent days, Washington has sought to actively project its power in a manner that will be extremely detrimental for the people of the region.

The darkest manifestation of this power occurred in Damadola in Bajaur Agency, a federally administered tribal area in Pakistan, in January. US missile attacks killed 18 villagers, including women and children, in an operation that was later claimed to have been designed to attack al-Qaeda leaders. The ‘war on terror’ is illegitimate and immoral, and the killing of innocent civilians, conveniently brushed aside as ‘collateral damage’, absolutely unacceptable. The compliant military regime in Pakistan should have stood up to that heinous crime, and President Bush, during his visit, must render an unqualified apology for the killings. A country that brags about its moral standing before the world must be held accountable for the innocent people its push-button warfare victimises.

Even as the US military kills people in Pakistan long-distance, Ambassador David Mulford in Delhi has been behaving as if India is just another state under the US federal government. In January and February, the diplomat publicly declared that Delhi must vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency; he also launched a sermon on how India should open its retail sector to foreign direct investment, and wrote a letter of remonstration to a chief minister of a province, seemingly violating diplomatic norms. The clear message sent by the liberal and left Indian political classes asking the ambassador to quiet down was important, for the entire Westphalian system of international politics is based on the principle of state sovereignty. While there are large areas where state sovereignty can now be challenged by others, in suggesting how India should go about framing its internal economic or strategic policies, Ambassador Mulford seems to have crossed the limits.

Another ambassador who seems to miss all-important nuances of local politics is James Moriarty in Kathmandu. His statements instructing veteran political leaders – Girija Prasad Koirala was a politician when the US was still engaged in the second world war – on how to deal with Maoists is not only unwarranted, but could also potentially wreck prospects of peace in Nepal. The Maoists, for all the bravado indicated in several media interviews by their supremo lately, are seeking a ‘safe landing’, for they realise that capturing the Nepali state militarily is a pipedream. At a time when the mainstream parties and activists are seeking to assist the rebel leadership in this difficult task, albeit with due caution, Ambassador Moriarty has been like a bull in a china shop – raising fears of Maoist takeovers, and causing some distress to politicians being hounded by the king, who are bound to show some grace to an American ambassador. While caution with regard to Maoist intentions is warranted, the diplomat’s excessively loud alarm bells serve to help continue the terrible domestic conflict in Nepal.

Its overwhelming power may allow the US to intervene in the domestic political processes of other countries, but this assertive intervention flouts established norms of inter-state relations, and creates a political divide between the world’s superpower and the people of Southasia. President Bush would do well to reconsider his administration’s policy and actions, if he wants this relationship back on track.