In early 1987, U.S. President Ronald Reagan had difficult choices to make on the future of Afghanistan. As the Soviet Union planned its pull-out, the U.S. government, more notably the Central Investigation Agency, had been arming mujahideen fighters trained by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence to hasten the process by pushing out the Soviet army. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was, given his close ties with the Soviet leadership and a growing friendship with Reagan, trying to advocate a path of conciliation that clashed with Pakistan’s plans to control Kabul: a government of national unity supporting the newly appointed President Najibullah. After months of considering the Indian case for a “non-aligned” Afghanistan, however, Reagan and the U.S. Congress chose the other course, transferring funds, arms and responsibility for the outcome to Pakistan. The rest is history.
In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush had a similarly complex decision to make on the future of Afghanistan. The attacks had brought a rare moment of global unity, one which saw Russia, India, China, Pakistan and Iran pledge support to the U.S.’s plan to defeat the Taliban and its al-Qaeda guests. Within months, however, the bonhomie was banished with three words, as Mr. Bush pronounced Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, as the “Axis of Evil”, choosing Pakistan as its ally to continue its war in Afghanistan.
Trump’s geopolitics and India
In 2017, President Donald Trump is in the same place as his administration finalises its Af-Pak policy review to be announced in July, and New Delhi once again has its hopes up that the U.S. will take a stern view of Pakistan’s support to the Taliban and its use of terror groups that target both Afghan and Indian interests. But while the Trump administration has openly called for a cut in military aid to Islamabad , New Delhi would be missing the wood for the trees if it doesn’t see how the U.S.’s actions in other theatres besides Afghanistan — West Asia, South China Sea and multilateral organisations — is equally important to India’s future.
Mr. Trump’s first foreign visit was to Saudi Arabia , where he presided over a grand show of Arab-Islamic unity. His wholehearted support to Saudi Arabia, his call for a unity of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and his open call to isolate Iran, however, came unstuck within days. Saudi Arabia and several other nations decided to blockade Qatar , calling for it to cut ties with Iran, ban the Muslim Brotherhood and shut down the Al Jazeera media network which they said targets the rest of the Gulf’s leadership. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj dismissed fears of any impact on India from the move. But the government must go beyond the obvious to assess its impact.
To begin with, the move to squeeze Qatar’s ties with Iran will only serve to isolate Tehran further, a mere two years after it been brought out of sanctions, and will force New Delhi to curtail its links as well. In April this year, state-owned refiners including the Indian Oil Corporation said they would cut imports from Iran by 20% in a bid to pressure Tehran to award the Farzad-B gas field to a consortium led by ONGC Videsh. Iran reacted angrily, slashing the credit period given to Indian refiners from 90 days to 60 days. In the weeks that followed, it announced an agreement with Russia’s Gazprom for Farzad-B, and reports indicate Iran may also diversify Chabahar port’s dealings beyond India, by inviting China to help with managing its ports. It would follow naturally that as Mr. Trump, who has already convinced Prime Minister Narendra Modi to make India’s first order for crude oil from the U.S. this month, pushes for New Delhi to deal less with Tehran, Iran will look away from its cooperation with India on Afghanistan and more towards the growing alliance between Russia, China and Pakistan instead.
For Afghanistan’s government too, the move to cut Qatar out effectively constricts its cooperation on promoting talks with the Taliban based in Doha, though India has always disapproved of the reconciliation process. Finally, Mr. Trump’s plans for troop levels in Afghanistan seem modest at best, and according to a leaked memo the White House, he would like the numbers of American troops to add to the current 8,400 capped at 3,900. Given that President Barack Obama’s 2009 surge of troops to 100,000 had little impact on the war in Afghanistan, this implies that the U.S. will simply cede more space to Russian-led efforts. India thus risks becoming partner to a player whose military role in Afghanistan is in decline over a more nascent alliance.
A similar relinquishing of space can be gleaned from Mr. Trump’s moves with China. While New Delhi felt justifiably happy with the India-U.S. joint statement ’s mention of China’s Belt and Road initiative in line with its concerns on sovereignty issues, the fact is that the Trump administration has baulked at much of the strong language the Obama administration preferred on the South China Sea. Instead of saying the two countries would “ensure” freedom of navigation, overflight and commerce through the Indo-Pacific region, the Trump-Modi statement only “reiterates the importance of respecting freedom of navigation, overflight, and commerce throughout the region”. No mention is made of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — under which a tribunal ruled against China’s claims in the South China Sea — which was referred to the previous year. The impact of this will only serve to embolden China’s moves on its other frontiers, most notably in South Asia, with the ongoing Doklam stand-off as one indicator. In the bigger picture, Mr. Trump’s geopolitical moves thus far can be seen as empowering regional bullies in their spheres of influence: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and so on.
Ceding space globally
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is rapidly vacating the U.S.’s space in multilateral spheres. The U.S. has reneged on the Paris accord, something that was in sharp focus at the recently held G20 in Hamburg, and India faces a slashing of the climate change fund that was meant to help keep its commitments on renewable energy as a result. On free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the U.S. has already voted with its feet. And at the UN, Mr. Trump’s obvious lack of interest in funding the world body will drastically cut resources for peacekeeping and other projects that India has an interest in.
As a result, Mr. Trump’s decision on Afghanistan must be closely watched, but without unrealistic expectations. For India, the impact of Mr. Trump’s world view and international policies are better judged not by the closeness of his embraces with Mr. Modi, but the spaces that he is ceding across the globe.
suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in
