With the signing of the logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement, Delhi is no longer averse to acknowleging that defence and military cooperation as well as counter-terrorism is now a core element of its multi-faceted relationship with Washington, DC
Anurag Mathur’s famous novel The Inscrutable Americans describes in detail how India and the US perceived each other a couple of decades back. Symbols and scenarios have changed since then. There is always symbolism attached to firming up and rejuvenating parched partnerships between twin nationalities and letting go of disparaging and belittling incidents. When the buck stops on the diplomatic mantlepiece of defense ties, then the bilateral equation shimmers forth in a novae manner.
It is sine qua non that India and United States share the rostrum on a bevy of issues of the order of democratic consonance, adherence to rule of law, delimited constitutionalism, respect for individualism etc. Apart from these foundational areas of convergence between New Delhi and Washington, DC, culture, diaspora, maritime security and the fronts of counter-terror, tend to serve as the adhesive between the twin nationalities, perched atop a curious liberal perch. The shibboleths of mandarins in India, much before the advent of the ‘Modi denomination’ in New Delhi, perilously pitchforked the distinction of the ‘Worlds’ between India and United States.
Then, the brickbats of Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and libya were thrown into the heady mixture in order to accentuate “the virulent distanciation theme” between the twin nations, their populations and larger establishments. The recent upsurge of terror spectacles in the European mainland in places such as Paris and Brussels along with the social vitriol in the homeland itself, seem to serve as a conjoined space between both the nations. It is here that the hard power aspect of the bilateral partnership characterised by the defense component intertwined by the novae commercial aspect of the relationship, takes a sturdy front seat.
Since the signing of the New Defense Framework in 2005, both nations have made major strides in the realm of defense cooperation. The defense tryst between the two nations received a fillip with the visit of US Secretary of Defense William Perry in 1995, when New Delhi signed the first Memorandum of Understanding which grew gradually, culminating in the visit of US Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen to New Delhi in 2010.
The corrective organic zeal of the twin nations was thus achieved by the steadfast striving of both the national establishments. The last visit of US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter to New Delhi a few months back, comprised of joint production of protective ensembles mobile electric hybrid power sources, designing jet engines and designing aircraft carriers. The Enhanced Cordon Guard of Honour accorded to Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar makes for a very tall order and ebullient reading of the stature which Washington, DC accordes to New Delhi.
After all the palaver about the military agreements of the order of logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (lEMOA) Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), ink has been shed on paper. These three seemingly modest agreements will go a long way into concretising the fundamentals of a wholesome India-US Defense partnership. lEMOA is a simpleton’s non-pedigreed agreement which paves the way for enabling military logistics cooperation between the twin democracies without making the twin establishments run for cover in the context of flouting agreements. In the larger ambit of the large corpus of lEMOA, both the nation’s will have the ability, but not the bounden obligation to be tied down by a military logistics lasso.
In a media portal release it has been pithily reported that, “In a joint statement, Parrikar and the US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said discussions ranged from increased strategic and regional cooperation, to deepened military-to-military exchanges, to expanded collaboration on defense technology and innovation”.
What does John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, has to contend this time aroundIJ After hectoring Dhaka on the Islamic State linkages, the US seems to have opened its listening cap for what the Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj has to contend with. New Delhi’s concerns on the spawing and the avid sustenance of terror outfits from across the border has elicited a kosher response from the American Secretary of State.
The precision of the Boomerang phenomenon seems to have ruffled a few diplomatic feathers in Washington. Kerry has mouthed the homilies that India and US will now strengthen the dragnet against the terror spectacle which no longer besmirches only India, and parts of West and South Asia. The New York Times reported tersely on the occasion of the second round of the India-US Strategic Dialogue that, “Sushma Swaraj and John Kerry had had a meeting of the minds on cross-border extremism that India and its neighbors face from militants in Pakistan. They both agreed that nations must not maintain double standards, such as the categorization of good and bad terrorists, nor must they act as safe havens.”
This amounts to a prudent enough indication to the state of Pakistan which has recently witnessed a draw down in its defense-related aid and succor from Washington. Though in the larger context, the agreements inked between New Delhi and Washington as yet do not initiate a mutual usage of each other’s military bases, but it does target an unhindered and relatively hassle-free thicket of red tapism in
mutual cooperation.
Still, the US Secretary of State, was polemical about suggesting to India that the instrumentality of dialogue can be the best attestation which Washington can provide to the India-Pakistan interlocutors on the quandary of Kashmir. Apart from the weather gods, the domestic upheaval in the State of Jammu and Kashmir form an interesting backdrop to US Secretary of State’s visit to New Delhi. These exigencies do provide an amicable grist to the mill of “the nay-sayers in-perpetuity” who can even be heaped with the heady appellation of “Natterating Nabobs of Negativism” as the American Vice President Spiro T Agnew referred to the mainstream media in United States in the unsteady 1970s.
(The writer teaches at Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi)