Is India's 'Look East' policy in troubled waters?

By Natteri Adigal
On Merinews

India's belligerent posture of not signing the NPT has earned it a pariah status. But now hollow talk and rhetoric are not enough to satisfy the real players, who can extend civilian nuclear cooperation. The need of the hour is strong leadership...

The success of the ongoing rapid infrastructural development hinges on the availability of sufficient power to generate returns. Unless India kick starts development of nuclear power, which has not succeeded so far, it will land itself in huge debts and face bankruptcy, like in 1991.
 
On January 15, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wound up his first foreign trip of 2008 – a three-day visit to China – and spoke blandly about the "constructive and productive" visit. He was right to the extent that it was not destructive and counterproductive! The PM said lots of issues were part of his discussion, like the border dispute, regional trade agreement and civil nuclear cooperation - the last being the most important. However, he said he drew a blank in so many words,   "I cannot say I have got a firm definite answer, but my own feeling is that the relationship of trust and confidence is now being established…"
 
The same day, his special envoy Shyam Saran drew an even bigger blank at Perth, Australia. Stephen Smith, the Australian foreign minister categorically conveyed that his government had decided to overturn the one-year-old policy that had reversed its traditional stand. He said the Australia would not supply uranium to India, because the latter was not a signatory of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).
 
These severe setbacks to the much hyped 'Look East' policy are particularly disheartening as they are directly connected to the ongoing infrastructural development in India. The success of mega projects, inevitably involving huge FDI (foreign direct investment), will hinge critically on availability of sufficient power to generate returns. Vehement protests against indiscriminate acquisition of vast tracts of land or inundation of habitat pose serious constraints to expanding the thermal and hydropower sectors.
 
The Indian nuclear power sector is currently on standby and the mammoth budgets it has swallowed over 40 years produce returns only on paper. Its power projects are appalling simply because the DAE (department of atomic energy) has not been able to master the basic technology, leave alone achieving breakthroughs or advanced practices. Exploding a crude explosive device in 1974, despite sovereign commitments not to do so, using fuel diverted from atomic reactors, had driven off technology suppliers. The NPT, finalised in 1968, committed nuclear powers to capping and eliminating their nukes and prohibited non-nuclear ones from acquiring weapons. The country's belligerent posture of not signing the treaty earned it a pariah status. India is now furiously trying to win back international nuclear cooperation for itself.
 
 However, an attempt at leveraging improved relations with the US to get the boycott from the 45-nation NSG (Nuclear Suppliers' Group) lifted and earn the approval of UN watchdog IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) has so far not been successful. Entrenched beneficiaries of colossal funds siphoned off from the programme – politicians of various shades, dysfunctional PSU (Public Sector Unit) employees and obsolete 'strategic affairs' bureaucrats living in a time warp, with the cold war mindset – have all combined to offer a formidable challenge to the process.
 
Australia possesses 40 per cent of world's known uranium resources and sells the material to over 30 countries under strict safeguards. Like Japan, Canada and Germany, which manufacture and export the major share of nuclear equipment. Australia is extremely sensitive about materials and expertise not going into producing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). When erstwhile PM John Howard of the Liberal Party made a deal with India to sell uranium in 2007, reversing Australia's long-standing policy of not selling to countries outside the NPT, he had argued that it would bring India into the nuclear mainstream and restrict its fossil fuel emissions. The Labour Party headed by Kevin Rudd that swept to power in November 2007, did not buy this argument. With the Indian government proving to be spineless in dealing with vested interests, he overturned the policy of selling uranium to India.
 
During discussions at Perth, Saran tried to convince Smith that there has been no proliferation of nuclear expertise or materials from India to third parties, despite its non-membership of NPT. Smith commented, "That was the view put to me by the Indian government and I responded in what I think is best described as our traditional response and our traditional approach." Both claimed that the talks were "held in a friendly and candid environment."   In actuality, they only "discussed on bilateral trade and the recent cricket dispute between the two nations" according to the minister!
 
The Beijing parleys were not much different. China is an important and influential member of the NSG and can virtually veto any decision that does not conform to its strict non-proliferation policies. All that the Indian Prime Minister got from the Chinese leadership was an assurance to consider India's suggestion of holding dialogue between chiefs of atomic energy agencies of the two countries. The invitation extended to the Chinese Atomic Energy chief to visit India was accepted but no firm schedule was committed.
 
Manmohan Singh was specifically asked whether China would support India's case in the NSG for fuel supplies under Indo-US deal. He replied, "I cannot say I have got a firm definite answer. When the issue comes up before relevant agencies, I do not think China will be an obstacle." There doesn't seem to be any rationale why he is so optimistic.

The PM conceded, "We have requested China to support us when this matter goes before the board of governors of the IAEA and the NSG and the answer I got from both the leaders was that they support civil nuclear cooperation with India consistent with their non-proliferation obligations."
 
There is no sense in expecting that hollow talk and rhetoric can satisfy the real players, who can extend civilian nuclear cooperation. It must also be noted that China has been made responsible to bring rogue North Korea around on the issue of nukes and may not hesitate to don that role versus India also.
 
Tragically, at a time when the need is for strong leadership, there is none in sight to replace the pathetically weak dispensation at New Delhi. As long as the leadership wants to mollify ignorant or crooked hawks, particularly the anti-prosperity comrades in the country, rather than dealing with them decisively, there is no way the country can have inexpensive nuclear energy to power its upcoming projects.

Policy to counter Chinese influence in South East Asia required, say experts

Source: ANI, New Delhi

October 20, 2008

 

India''s "Look East Policy" came in for severe criticism from South East Asia experts while discussing Asian security architecture here today.

Initiating the discussion on "Regional Security Architecture in Asia: Role of CSCAP in ARF Track 2 Process" at Observer Research Foundation, Professor Tony Milner, a prominent member of Australia''s Foreign Affairs Council, said India could have done "much better" while "deep changes are on the way" in the region where the security architecture in a messy situation. He opined that India''s soft power could have been used for better results.

Milner, who is the Co-Chair  of the Australian Committee of The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) and a key member in developing Tract II Australian-ASEAN dialogue, also noted that Russia''s strong coming back into international politics in recent years have made the situation much more complex now.

Professor Baladas Ghosal of Centre for Policy Research India''s "Look East Policy" failed as it did not factor in the soft power it could have used to create common linkages among the countries.

India also had no idea as to how counter the Chinese policy, he noted.

"It (Look East Policy) worked more as a fire brigade, more often reacting to Chinese policies rather than being pro-active", Professor Ghosal remarked.

"Even our association with ASEAN was because of not its efforts, but India was drawn out to them," he said.

Regretting that India is not taking any initiative to forge cultural linkages in these countries, using the soft power, Professor Ghosal recollected the incidence of a questioner asking him during a conference in Indonesia that whether there are Muslims in India. 

Ghosal stressed that there is a need for "multi-structured architecture" to address the specific and complex needs of South East Asia.

Sujit Dutta of Institute of Defence and Security Analyses said India needed to formulate an effective strategy to counter Chinese policy.

Ambassador Dilip Lahiri, who chaired the discussion, felt that India was never comfortable in the South East Asian grouping.

While Jabin Jacob of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies said there were many ambiguity in India''s look east policy, Mirza Zulfiqur Rehman of Jawaharlal Nehru University said the policy is very confusing.

Road to India’s ‘Look East’ policy

By Ranjita Biswas
Source: Dawn.Net

Guwahati, (Assam): Built during World War II as a strategic link between India and Burma, the Stilwell Road is now being resurrected as part of India's 'Look East' policy of engaging its neighbours in South-east Asia. The road became necessary to maintain supplies of war material to Chiang Kai Shek's Kuomintang forces in China's Yunnan province. Air supplies were costly and hazardous along what was dubbed as the 'aluminium trail' because of the number of aircraft that crashed on the Paktai ranges.

According to military archives, the road was thrown open on May 20, 1945 after US army engineers completed "the toughest job" ever given them in wartime. It was named after Gen Joseph Warren Stilwell, its builder, on the suggestion of Chiang Kai Shek.

After the war ended, the road — covering a distance of 1,726 km from Ledo in Assam, and passing through Mytkyina, Burma, before finishing at Kunming in the Yunnan province of China — fell into disuse, partly because of the events in Burma and because of a general neglect of India's insurgency-prone north-eastern states.

The revival of the Stilwell Road now holds out the promise of a better future for the entire region consisting of the Indian states of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh.

"All these years we were isolated from the rest of India, save for the narrow link between West Bengal and Assam. Today, people are waking up to the possibilities of sharing mutual economic benefits with neighbouring countries to the east," Assam state's minister for industries and commerce Prodyut Bordoloi told IPS.

The first phase of the Look East policy was launched in the early 1990s when economic liberalisation was launched in the country. Its aim was to renew ancient contacts with South-east Asia from which India had somehow drifted away.

India's northeast maintained commercial and socio-cultural exchanges with Indo-China for centuries. The Ahoms, who ruled Assam for over 600 years and gave the state its name, are believed to have migrated from Thailand via the Patkai range.

Thailand has been enthusiastic about the planned restoration of the Stilwell Road and is a keen member of the BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral and Technical Cooperation) that groups Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand. Tourists moving from Thailand to southern China and Bhutan are already showing an interest in India's northeast, according to tour operators.

India sees in BIMSTEC an opportunity to address the lack of opportunities for people in the north-east and convert the region from being a security problem into a land of economic opportunity.

India's commerce ministry has indicated that its target is to have the Stilwell Road operational by 2010.

"Reviving the Stilwell Road is seen as a way to open India's northeast to China and South East Asia," says Mahesh K. Saharia, chairman of the North East Regional Council of the Indian Chamber of Commerce. "The opening of the road is not so much for political considerations as for commercial reasons and the development of the northeast."

Saharia says the logic is simple. "Though 40 per cent of the world's people live in China and India, they garner, between them, less than nine per cent of the world trade, and intra-trade between the two neighbours accounts for less than 3.5 per cent of it. However, if intra-trade doubles as projected that would mean moving a huge tonnage of goods for which the land route remains the best option."

China has already built a highway to reach Mytkyina on the old Burma Road, reducing the distance from India to Kunming considerably. In fact, Kunming will then be only 700 km from upper Assam, Saharia points out.

Bordoloi agrees. "Stilwell Road is not a new road. From ancient days, the 12th century particularly, it has been a trans-migrational route for people of different tribes. Now we have to renew those ties. Also, we have to keep in mind the development of the Sitwee port in Burma which can serve as a shorter sea route [compared to Kolkata] for the northeast's export produce."

There are security concerns too. The jungles of Burma are alleged to be training grounds for insurgents in the north-eastern region and are known to be used as a staging ground for the movement of narcotics from the infamous 'Golden Triangle'.

Bordoloi brushes aside such fears. "We need to review old ideas; you can't look at everything through the prism of security. Old paradigms do not work. If there is better infrastructure and connectivity, narco-terrorism can be controlled better."

There are other potential flies in the ointment. Burma's military junta has been wary about the Stilwell Road because a 300-km stretch runs through the jungle-covered mountains and valleys of insurgency-hit Kachin state, over which it exercises limited control.

However, according to Papori Phukan, a researcher for the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, the Burmese junta cannot afford to ignore certain geographical realities. "The area is not connected with mainland Burma and the locals who live in and around the Pangsau pass already procure their basic requirements from Nampong in India, where the Burmese are allowed to visit without passports," she told IPS.

Similarly, people from Arunachal Pradesh state regularly cross over into Burma, using the Stilwell road, to buy goods from Pangsau, Papori said.