The rise and rise of rice

[Guest guest]

The rise and rise of rice

 

By M.V.Kamath

 

Now that George Bush has been voted into power for his second and

last term, the question in most Indian minds is: How will it affect

India? After four years of interaction with Bush, Delhi knows him or

should know him better. During those four years it was Colin Powell

who was the Secretary of State. Now it is Condoleezza Rice, who

earlier was the president's National Security Adviser, a post that

has never been popular with the State Department.

 

When Henry Kissinger was Richard Nixon's National Security adviser

he usually put the Secretary of State under a cloud. The situation

improved when Kissinger himself became the Secretary of State. The

same may be said of Condoleezza Rice's appointment as Secretary of

State. She will have the field all to herself. The United States has

come a long, long way since the days of the Klu Kux Klan (KKK) when

Negroes (as Black were then called) often had to face the KKK's

terrorism.

 

True, Colin Powell became the first black to be a Secretary of

State, but the rise of Rice has been even more dramatic. And to

think that she hails from, of all states, Alabama, once a KKK

stronghold. America has changed drastically. Not much is known about

Condoleezza except that she was born in Birmingham, Alabama and just

turned fifty on November 14, that her father was a Presbyterian

minister, her mother Angelina a teacher, that from her very

childhood it was drilled into her to dream big and then go out and

realize it. That she certainly did. She got her Ph.D when she was

barely 26, learnt to play the piano to qualify as a concert pianist,

and reportedly is at home in four languages.

 

She was a star pupil at Denver University's Graduate School of

International Studies and was reportedly a student of Josef Korbel,

controversial head of the U.N. Commission on India and Pakistan in

the fifties and a man intensely disliked in India for literally

putting Pakistan on par with it. One doesn't know what poison Korbel

has planted in his student's mind regarding India.

 

After becoming Secretary of State she is reported to have received

an Indian official in rank three steps below her. Over the last four

years she apparently did develop direct contact with first Brajesh

Mishra and laterly with J. N. (Mani) Dixit. It is claimed that it

was Condoleezza who was the brain behind the recent conclusion of

the Indo-US agreement on the implementation of the "Next Step in

Strategic Partnership (NSSP) calling for increased cooperation in

the fields of civilian nuclear energy, civil space programme, high

technology trade and missile defence. She certainly did write in the

prestigious journal Foreign Affairs in its issue of January 2000

that while "India is not yet a Great Power, it has the potential to

become one".

 

It sounds highly patronising, but one cannot and should not expect

anything better from the world's only Super Power, and its policy-

makers. Condoleezza has been during Bush's first term, a behind-the-

scene policy maker. She will now be one right up front. She made her

name and earned her reputation as a specialist in Soviet affairs.

She can put that behind her considering that the Cold War has long

been over. What she and the United States has now to face is the

rise of Islamic fundamentalism. When asked what are the major

challenges of the times, a former State Secretary, Henry Kissinger,

identified four.

 

The first he identified as the "uprising of radical Islam against

the secular world and against the democratic world, on behalf of

reestablishing a sort of Caliphate". The second was the spread of

weapons of mass destruction. The third, a shift in the centre of

gravity of the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and to Asia

and the fourth, the consequences of globalisation for humanity.

Condoleezza would probably agree with Kissinger. In the matter of

fighting radical Islamic fundamentalism, her views on Iraq are well-

known.

 

If John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State was totally

immersed in the Cold War and treated the Soviet Union as the

villain, Condoleezza has had no hesitation in treating Iraq as the

present day enemy, despite Russia's reservations, Germany's

hesitancy and France's total opposition. She is reported to have

dismissed all three in one sentence that said: "Punish France,

ignore Germany and forgive Russia". And that is supposed to reflect

the views of her boss George Bush as well.

 

In fact it is said that she probably reflects her boss's views

better than any former Secretary of State has reflected the views of

his president. She certainly would have every right to put HMV after

her other, academic qualifications such as Ph.D. HMV would stand for

`Her Master's Voice'. She is supposed to be so close to Bush that

once she inadvertently described Bush, not as her president, but

before she bit her tongue as her `husband'. A psychiatrist, no

doubt, will know how to analyze Bush-Rice relations.

 

The point so far as Delhi is concerned is not what she feels about

Bush but what policy she is going to adopt vis-a-vis India and

Pakistan. According to Steve Cohen, a leading American expert on

South Asia, who has been following Indo-US relations in depth for

years, it was the State Department till recently which was the focal

point of American policy regarding Indo-Pak relations, while the

Pentagon was the centre of gravity as far as Pakistan was concerned.

It will be remembered that it was Colin Powell, as Secretary of

State, who declared Pakistan as a "major non-NATO ally" in Islamabad

without informing India of US decision when he visited Delhi prior

to his calling on Musharraf.

 

The general belief is that whatever may be an individual State

Secretary's views on India and they have, in effect, invariably been

mostly hostile -Washington will find itself leaning more towards

Islamabad than on Delhi. It would be foolish if not counter-

productive, to expect Condoleezza to be overtly friendly towards

India.

 

One suspects that Henry Kissinger put it just about right when he

said in an interview to the Hindustan Times: "I think it is in our

interest to have a moderate, responsible Pakistan conducting

international affairs and we think that it is also in the Indian

interests. In our relations between India and the US, you are a

potential super power. The traditional conflict between Pakistan and

India has to be seen in the context that you and we have a lot of

common interests which go beyond the India-Pakistan crisis.

 

We will be friendly to Pakistan and we should be friendly to

Pakistan, but that cannot be directed against India or prevent close

collaboration with India. The interests of India and the US are very

parallel, so we have to find some means of expressing this ... "

Would that be the thinking of Condoleezza as well?

 

Does the US have any other option open? Can the US afford to have a

perpetually hostile India in this part of Asia? And as regards

Pakistan, the US has probably done more than enough to help

Musharraf to get on with his work than even he could have dreamt of.

He is supposed to get $ 3 billion worth of aid, half of it in arms

supplies, but the understanding has yet to be signed. India has

already objected strongly to the US proposal.

 

Would the US need India in containing Islamic fundamentalism?

Hardly. There is no role for India to play in this department. Has

India a role to play in Iraq? Iraq has always been friendly towards

India and Delhi in no circumstances would want to alienate Baghdad.

But India can be helpful if the United States proposes to quit the

scene totally, right down to the last soldier, which is totally

unlikely.

 

In the circumstances India can only stand aside and keep silent. It

makes little sense to criticise the US when it has already fully

committed itself to introduce democracy in Iraq even if that means

destroying the country. India's role will come when the US has

finally realized its folly. And that's not going to be soon. It is

going to be a long wait. In the immediate future one should not

expect any pro-active role from the US insofar as India and Pakistan

are concerned.

 

In Stephen Cohen's view all that Washington wants in the immediate

future is (a) to keep Pakistan with it in the war on terrorism (b)

allow the strategic and economic relationship with India to grow and

© prevent a major war between India and Pakistan. That last is

however, unlikely. Pakistan may be aggressive, but Musharraf is not

that stupid to invite war at least not after Kargil. And by now

Musharraf should know that the Pakistani people are getting tired of

the Pakistani Army.

 

What India on its part should do is to encourage better economic

relations with the US, ignoring left-wing opposition. Manmohan Singh

is quite capable of that. And surely Condoleezza would not be averse

to it either. And George Bush is very supportive of outsourcing a

word that is getting increasingly meaningful in Indo-US relations.

 

Indeed, almost for the first time since India achieved independence,

Indo-US relations are on an even keel. India's role as a future

power is getting to be increasingly realised not only by the US but

by the European Union as well. India must pursue this with ruthless

and efficient determination. There is no need to pick up quarrel

with the US. India has greatly matured and the stronger India become

economically, the better will Indo-US relations turn out to be.

 

We don't need to go out of our way to cultivate Condoleezza, but if

she prooffers her hand of friendship it should be firmly grasped. In

the days to come India can afford to forget Pakistan, even if it

insists on being an irritant. We have come a long way since 1947.

And as we move faster ahead in the days to come Pakistan may yet

come to accept the dictum that if you can't beat your enemy, it is

better to join it.

http://www.samachar.com/features/021204-features.html