*EPF110 12/15/2003
Convergence of Interests Leading to Closer U.S.-India Security Ties
(Study says Indians view tech transfer as "acid test" of U.S. commitment) (1240)

By Anthony Kujawa
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- Joint U.S.-India air, naval and special forces counterterrorism exercises in 2003, along with the resumption of the U.S.-India Defense Policy group meetings, mark a significant increase in U.S.-India security cooperation, scholars at a December 9 forum said.

Speaking at a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) panel in Washington on "Bridging U.S.-India: A Defense Perspective," three American observers of U.S.-India security relations agreed that a "convergence of interests" is bringing the two nations toward closer ties. They also discussed how divergent expectations and perceptions of threat may impact the long-term strategic relationship.

In opening remarks, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chief Policy Advisor for South Asia Jonah Blank called China, Pakistan and counterterrorism the three most important concerns driving U.S.-Indian "strategic convergence of interests."

While pursuing different interests in their respective relations with China, Blank said, the U.S. and India share a convergence of interests in seeing that China does not become a "non status quo power" or try to "radically alter" the balance of power in Asia.

On Pakistan, he said: "At a minimum the United States and India have a common interest in seeing that any change in Pakistan is not for the worse, that Pakistan does not, say, disintegrate into a Taliban state or a state that has such instability and inability to contain its own problems that it becomes a regional threat."

Regarding counterterrorism, Blank said the two countries are not only fighting many of the same groups, but they must find an effective way of combating radical militant groups without allowing these action to become or be perceived as "a battle against the Muslim world."

In separate remarks on U.S-India relations [September 11, 2003 in New Delhi], the State Department's Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca commented on the complementary objectives of the United States and India.

"In every instance, Indian and American objectives, far from being antithetical, are in fact complementary," she said.

"India seeks a regional environment free of unrest, subversion and terrorism; the United States shares that objective. India seeks a regional environment where economic growth, trade, and peaceful cross-national ties can prosper; the United States shares that objective too. India seeks a regional environment populated by liberal democratic states that are sensitive to diversity and the rights of minorities; the United States most certainly shares that objective too," said Rocca.

Rocca said that the United States has been working with India "as much as possible in the hope of jointly realizing our common objectives in South Asia."

Also commenting in New Delhi [July 17, 2003] on strengthened ties, U.S. Ambassador to India Robert D. Blackwill said the United States and India now hold at least one joint military exercise or engagement each month. The exercises, he said, are focused on improving the capacity for combined military operations "across the board" -- special forces actions against terrorists, maritime interdiction, search and rescue, air lift support, logistics transport and airborne assault.

In 2003, Blackwill said, more than 180 high-ranking leaders from the Indian security community were attending conferences sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. In October in "Malabar 2003" U.S. and Indian naval forces participated in their largest ever joint exercises off India's southern coast. On the issue of technology transfer, two of twelve counter-battery radar sets, also known as "Firefind" radars, were delivered to India in July.

"No longer does Washington regard India as an acute and abiding international proliferation risk that must be carefully managed and constantly lectured," said Blackwill, in his remarks on U.S. India high technology, space and civil-nuclear cooperation.

Commenting on the issue of technology transfer at the CSIS forum, Senate Foreign Relations Committee advisor Jonah Blank, described himself as a "strong proponent" of being as "permissive as possible" in terms of what items should be able to be sold to India. "Anything that is permitted say to go to China should also be permitted to go India -- as a baseline," he said.

But Blank clarified that supporting India's "right to have" a certain item of technology, does not mean the United States should encourage India to buy a particular weapons system or that there is "wisdom" in selling a certain system to India.

"The bigger the contract, the more contracts, the more weapons systems that are being transferred, the stronger our ties are," said Blank, is a flawed measure of relations. "Many in the defense realm tend to view the health of U.S.-India relationship strategic relationship on those terms," he said.

Blank urged U.S. and Indian officials to carefully assess how a sale of a particular weapons system advances their respective security interests.

"We should always be looking at these systems with a view towards what do they do. Do they actually advance the security interests of the United States and India," he said.

Blank said he was "skeptical" of the Arrow Weapon System (an anti-missile platform), cooperation on space-based missiles and the Phalcon airborne early warning system. "We should not just say they are big and therefore the U.S. and India have strategic interests and we have to cooperate," he said.

In addition to being expensive, he charged that many weapons systems sold to India are either "destabilizing" or "useless." If weapon systems are "effective" and change the balance of power in the region, Blank said, this is "dangerous" and potentially destabilizing.

"If they don't change the balance of power, either because they don't work or because the U.S. then goes and sells Pakistan essentially a compensatory system, then it is simply making India and making Pakistan pay more money to achieve the same end," he said.

Blank said he was "less skeptical" of sales of items such as night vision goggles, M16 rifles, ballistic vests, lift helicopters, encrypted communications technologies, which he called "more useful" and effective for counterinsurgency efforts.

"The dollar value is not necessarily as high, but the impact upon our genuine core strategic concerns is much greater," added Blank.

Also speaking at the forum, Juli MacDonald, an analyst at Booz Allen Hamilton consulting company, said the U.S.-India relationship is plagued by differing perceptions of threats and expectations. Based on interviews she conducted with over 80 defense officials and government policymakers in both countries for a U.S. Defense Department sponsored study ("The Indo-U.S. Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions," October 2002), MacDonald said Indian respondents desired a relationship built on "equality," viewing technology transfer as the "engine of the relationship." Many respondents, viewed the United States as an "unreliable partner" and "unreliable supplier of equipment," she said.

According to the study, for Indians, "Technology transfer is the 'acid test' of U.S. commitment, it demonstrates U.S. confidence and trust in the relationship, it confirms the U.S. understanding of India as a strategic partner, and it signals that India is a friend and we treat India as a friend," said MacDonald.

"Few Americans expressed an appreciation of this symbolic importance of technology in the relationship," she said.

(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents