AFTER the British withdrawal from the subcontinent in 1947, India regarded itself as the inheritor of British power and influence in the region. When on August 15, 1947, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking in the constituent assembly, declared that “India has a tryst with destiny”, he was visualizing a big-power role for his country. Addressing the first Asian conference in New Delhi in 1948, Nehru described India as being the “pivot” of Asia.

Except for a brief period under Morarji Desai’s prime ministership, Nehru’s successors have made no secret of their country’s ambition to play the role of a big power within and outside the region. New Delhi’s explosion of its first atomic bomb in 1974 was a major step in that direction since nuclear power was considered by India as a currency of power.

India’s goals appear to be analogous to those of Britain east of Suez in the 19th century. Having become the strongest country in the subcontinent, the Indian objective now is to prevent the emergence of only other major power in the Indian Ocean region or South-East Asia. It has always nurtured the ambition of establishing its hegemony over the Indian Ocean sea lanes.

But Indian ambitions go well beyond the Indian Ocean. Speaking at the Munich conference in February 1999, Indian prime minister’s National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra hinted at his country’s much broader strategic ambitions by predicting that “in the 21st century a new security order is likely to arise in the Asia Pacific region in which India would be granted as much respect by the US and others as is China today.” New Delhi’s ambition for a big-power status in Asia Pacific is in direct conflict with the principal objective of China’s Asia policy which aims at emerging as the supreme power in South-East Asia and Asia Pacific. This clash of interest is likely to bring India Into rivalry with China.

However, Brajesh Mishra’s forecasting of India’s enhanced importance in the 21st century in the eyes of the United States has come true. The geopolitical interests of New Delhi and Washington have brought them closer to each other after the end of the cold war. Surprisingly enough, the Bush administration has gone even a step farther than its predecessor in befriending India - to give it a greater role in Asia that may ultimately result in a major geopolitical change in the entire region.

According to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, President Bush is set on “strengthening and broadening the relationship with India which goes beyond security, proliferation or regional issues.”(quoted in The Hindu of 15-5-2002).

According to some media reports, the United States and India are discussing a plan under which the latter will be given responsibility to maintain stability in South Asia and increase its presence in South East-Asia, presumably to counter the growing Chinese influence in that region. If reports in the U.S. media are to be believed, senior US and Indian military advisers gathered recently at the Pentagon to discuss the countries’ common interests in the Indian Ocean region and South-East Asia. Reports even hinted that the discussion focused on setting up a sort of defence alliance between the two countries that would be open to other western-aligned East Asian countries like Singapore, South Korea and perhaps Japan.

Military-to-military contacts between Washington and New Delhi are already growing. For instance, US Air Force personnel are training on Indian equipment and the Indians on American planes. It may be recalled that the Indian Express of June 9, published the following story based on a PTI report: “The US, which has lined up several joint military exercises with Indian armed forces, is interested in establishing access to military bases in India, claims John E. Carbaugh Jr., quoting a latest Pentagon report.

Carbaugh Jr., who advises US industry and policy makers, says ‘American military officers are candid in their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and military infrastructure’”. The possibility of Indian public opinion agreeing to give America access to Indian military bases is rather remote, but if it does happen, New Delhi will agree to it only after getting its pound of flesh.

According to reports appearing in the US media, the thinking in Washington appears to be that in the “most volatile” part of the world—-the Islamic crescent from Turkey to Malaysia—— only Israel and India can act as a regional stabilizing force. Since during the Iraq war, an increasingly democratic Turkey turned out to be a major disappointment for the US, the neo-conservatives in Washington are now focusing attention on developing three-way ties between Israel, India and the United States.

The recent green signal from Washington to Tel Aviv to go ahead with the sale of its advanced Phalcon air-borne reconnaissance system to India is indicative of the new trend. Also, the move highlights the growing alliance between the two most potent non-Muslim militaries in the entire region extending from one end of the Islamic crescent to the other.

As India appears to be determined to build a naval force capable of projecting power in the South China Sea, Washington is helping New Delhi achieve its objective. The recent Malabar 4 joint naval exercise, involving thousands of sailors and pilots from the United States and India, indicate the level of relationship developing between the two countries.

The triangular relationship, being developed between Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi was further highlighted when the Indian Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra made an unprecedented appearance at the gala dinner of the annual convention of the American Jewish Committee(AJC) during his recent visit to the United States. The following were the salient points of Mishra’s address at the AJC:

* Stronger Indo-US and Indo-Israeli relations have a natural logic.

* The US, Israel and India have to jointly face “the same ugly face of modern-day terrorism.” An alliance between them would have the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation.

* The increasing contact between the American Jewish community and Indian American community is “another positive reflection of shared values of our peoples.”

* Terrorism did not start on September 11 but that date marks a global awakening to its reach.

* Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will soon be paying an official visit to India.

The AJC announced it would soon be opening an office in New Delhi.

Appearances can be deceptive. The warm reception at Camp David and the Musharraf visit’s front-page coverage in the US press should not lure us into self-deception or exaggerated notions about our importance in the scheme of things. Pakistan is important for the Americans because it is needed by them for their fight against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic militants.

Even the much-touted three billion dollar aid package is subject to conditionalities:(a) Congress approval;(b) Pakistan continues to help in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda remnants and other Islamic militants;(c) makes no trouble for India over Kashmir;(d) keeps its nuclear technology under strict control.

Instead of resorting to ad-hocism,which has generally been the favoured mode of operation of our policy makers, we should try to evolve a long-term foreign policy which not only take care of our immediate concerns but also enable us to successfully deal with the problems likely to arise in the future. We should encourage a national debate on the entire gamut of our foreign policy,the options available to us and which of them can best serve our long-term national interests. Keeping an open mind, the decision-makers should invite for discussion retired diplomats, bureaucrats, academics, columnists and all those thinking Pakistanis who may help in the reconstruction of Pakistan’s foreign policy. We are indeed faced with a difficult situation that may turn even more disturbing in the days to come if it is not tackled with a frame of mind steeped in pragmatism, rationalism and unemotionalism.

AT A time when thoughts of re-election must be uppermost in his mind, President George W. Bush has started a journey to Africa that would not have been considered a high priority destination for the president a few months ago.

Many US analysts have been somewhat puzzled at this trip and that too to a continent where problems and challenges abound. There are a number of civil wars, whose effect is compounded by leadership rivalries in many countries, while the economy of the continent is in a shambles.

But judging from his first pronouncements, one can see that this is primarily an exercise in image-building, presenting America as a world leader and offsetting the adverse global reactions to pre-emption in Iraq.

The visit, that will cover five countries (Senegal, Uganda, South Africa, Botswana and Nigeria) in five days, is also quite relevant to electioneering, given the size of the Afro-American vote in the US. In the last election, the majority of them voted for the Democrats, and Bush would like to attract as many of them as possible to the Republican camp, which has given high profile positions to such African-Americans as Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice.

Significantly, Bush started his visit with a speech in the Goree Island, in Senegal, that was a major centre of the slave trade in the 18th and 19th centuries, with the largest proportion of the slaves going to the US. He called slavery one of history’s greatest crimes against humanity, and made an impassioned plea to safeguard democracy and human rights.

The US President has come to Africa armed with an impressive array of programmes to fight poverty and disease. There is the $10 billion Millennium Challenge Account to be spent over three years to alleviate poverty. The president also announced a programme to spend $15 billion over the next five years to fight HIV/AIDS that is decimating the population of Africa. Congress has appropriated only one billion dollar so far but Bush has shown seriousness of intention to secure the balance.

US Congress had passed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) that allows duty-free import of garments from Africa. However, African exporters and policy makers do not hide their dissatisfaction with the overall US economic policies that are harmful to African interests. The most serious problem is posed by agricultural subsidies to US farmers that virtually rule out African farm exports to the US. Even the AGOA provisions have a flip side since the Act demands reciprocal concessions for US businessmen, such as lower trade barriers. Washington will have to adopt far more helpful policies towards the least developed countries and write off many of its debts, if it really wants to help.

Some other economic goals of a more nationalistic nature have been mentioned. President Bush and many of his close advisers have had a long association with the oil industry. With the Middle East passing through an unstable phase, the US would like to ensure the supplies of oil it is getting from Africa, especially from Nigeria, now the fourth largest supplier to the US.

President Bush has shown an inclination to play a more proactive role to end internal conflicts, such as the one that has plagued Liberia, a country founded by freed American slaves. Some of the criticism voiced in Africa over Bush’s pre-emption in Iraq might be softened if the US takes on a peacekeeping role. However, memories of the last US peacekeeping effort in Somalia are discouraging. Furthermore, with the deployment of its forces in Iraq, and Afghanistan, where they continue to face local hostility, the US is bound to be cautious and consider whether it is in a position to increase its international commitment on this score.

President Bush may encourage regional African involvement in peacekeeping that has been in evidence in Sierra Leone and even Liberia. He also mentioned the desirability of a UN role. His discussions with the leaders of the two key African states, South Africa and Nigeria, would be extremely important in this context. Indeed, the prospects of future stability in the continent would depend largely on a South Africa-Nigeria axis since these two are the largest and richest of the African states.

This does not mean, however, that terrorism, as the leading global issue of the day will take a back seat during the Bush tour of Africa. Indeed, the continent typifies the challenges pertaining to the root causes of terrorism. A combination of poverty, the spread of AIDS and the breakdown of law and order lead to the emergence of failed states, such as Somalia, and creates conditions that become incubators of terrorism. The US faced attacks on its embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salam in 1998. Kenya is again on the verge of a breakdown.

Congress appropriated $100 million to help fight terrorism in Africa at the request of President Bush, but this is an insignificant amount, given the needs and problems of the vast continent. The large amounts President Bush is committing to fight poverty and disease need to be followed up by international efforts to build up the infrastructure in Africa.

It is a different Bush travelling through Africa — different from the one who ordered military offensives against Iraq and Afghanistan, the one whose arrogance is strongly disapproved of by such respected leaders as Nelson Mandela, whom President Bush is not meeting during his African tour. Nor is he planning to meet the leaders of Africa who will be attending the summit of the African Union, to be held during his tour.

Informed commentators have taken note of some ideological differences, which have traditionally figured in the interaction between the Republican leadership in the US and some segments of opinion in Africa. With Communist groups assuming a leadership role in several emerging states, the US Republican leadership played a prominent role in backing anti-Communist groups, such as UNITA in Angola. In the post-cold-war world, perhaps it is time for policy makers in the US to adjust their sights to the new African realities.

Similarly, in a continent where traditional tribal faiths have held sway, both Islam and Christianity have been active in seeking converts. Islam, with its stress on equality and brotherhood, has been spreading faster despite the vast resources available to Christian missionaries. Now that terrorism is being blamed mainly on Muslims, we have the makings of a local clash of values and civilizations, with the US missionaries in the forefront, notably in countries such as Sudan.

President Bush’s tour will be too short to influence the political, economic and social trends in Africa in a significant way. However, even keeping his priorities of helping Africa fight AIDS, terrorism and poverty and brushing his own and his country’s image as the world leader in mind, one hopes that he will help encourage trends and policies that will bring hope and justice to the impoverished and neglected millions of the Dark Continent.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.