P. S. SURYANARAYANA
THE importance of being China or India is no longer a new story line on the Asian scene. What is new, however, is the modulation of the policy of the United States towards these two Asian neighbours on matters concerning its `globalised' security interests across the continent.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a more consummate policy-articulator than President George W. Bush, put his intellectual and oratorical skills to good effect, at the annual Asia Security Summit in early June. He spoke about "Asia's emerging security architecture" as seen and shaped by the U.S, leaving no one in doubt about his country's preferences.
The summit, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, was organised in Singapore by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The periodical event has become a half-way house between track one diplomacy, involving inter-state talks at the political or official echelons, and track two exchanges at the level of non-official experts. Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee presented India as "a rising global player". China was represented by a middle-level official. Serving military officers, academic experts and other professionals were present from several major countries of eastern and southern Asia and the West.
In Rumsfeld's view, the international community is at a crossroads now. Drawing a parallel with Harry Truman's post-Second World War presidency, he said that the U.S. was faced with the opportunity and challenge of refashioning "the world system". In fact, the present Bush administration seems more interested in preserving the existing "world system", in which the U.S. remains the sole `hyper power'. Any re-ordering of this system will only be attempted by Washington if the new "architecture" can guarantee lasting U.S. primacy.
While Rumsfeld did not emphasise this salient aspect of U.S. defence policy, the totality of his address and answers to questions from the delegates left no room for any softer interpretation. Relevant to this conclusion was the fact hat he did not actually unveil, in a manner of speaking, "Asia's emerging security architecture" with any details about what it might look like, if and when fully evolved.
Within these parameters, Rumsfeld did indicate that a paradigm shift was currently taking place in U.S. attitudes towards major players in Asia. "Our relationship with India", he said, "has grown from an uneasy coexistence during the Cold War to a true partnership, based on our common values and common interests today."
His key comment about China was that it was "an important stakeholder in the [existing] world system." The Chinese, therefore, "have an obligation to see that the system is successful, because they benefit so enormously from its success." Not being a mind-teaser, the formulation, which emphasises Beijing's obligation, reflects the U.S.' desire to co-opt China's people and leaders into preserving the existing global "system". This system is based on American pre-eminence in not only the military domain but also the frontier areas of science and technology.
No less important was Rumsfeld's clear warning to Chinese leaders that they might face an unspecified "consequence" if they did not "demystify" their military investments. These, in his view, had already raised "concerns" around the world.
Significant, in this context, was the manner in which Rumsfeld clearly wooed India, without of course seeking to portray it as a potential regional counterweight to China under U.S. "tutelage". Mukerjee and Rumsfeld held separate talks on the sidelines of the summit on June 3. They discussed military relations between the two nations and briefly reviewed the implementation of last year's bilateral agreement on defence cooperation.
Growing U.S.-India military ties have brought a new dynamic to the Asian stage. Worth quoting, at some length, is the studied answer that Rumsfeld gave in response to a question from this correspondent on the new nuance.
<
