Changing Patterns of US Diplomacy towards South Asia in the Post 9/11 Era with Special Reference to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

Abstract

Abstract This study deals with the patterns of the contemporary changes in the US diplomacy toward South Asia, especially toward India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It deals with the nature and content of the US policy shifts toward south Asia during the period of 2001-2016. After reviewing the remarks and the steps of the three contemporary US administrations i.e. Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama administrations, this dissertation explores the emerging picture regarding the Indo-US, US-Pak and US-Bangladesh bilateral relations in the post 9/11 era. It is argued that, after exploring the current tendencies of the United States during the above mentioned three administrations, the United States is gradually tilting toward India because it considers India as a counter weight against China in the Asian geopolitical phenomena. However, it also wants active bilateral relations with Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are located at the either sides of India to ensure a balance of power. Hence, it prefers an anti-Indian democratic government in Bangladesh. However, Pakistan feels that India‘s alliance and nuclear deal with the US would adversely change the balance of power in South Asia. It is also argued that the patterns of US diplomacy toward South Asia remain the same as it posed during the seventies, eighties and nineties, although the concerns were not the same. In those decades, the US policies were designed in the context of the Cold War world view. However, after 9/11 the concern shifts to face the challenges coming from the so-called ‗rogue states‘ or the groups of anti-US Islamic militancy. In the earlier decades, the United States concern was to prevent India and Pakistan from becoming a communist state as well as to ensure nuclear nonproliferation in South Asia. Now, the concern is to prevent them from becoming the breeding places of antiUS Islamic militancy, which the United States has announced as the ‗Global War on Terror‘ after 9/11. To justify the war, President Bush announced in the new US defense doctrine in a June 2002 speech at West Point: Legal scholars…often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies. But a non-conventional war against terrorism requires taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy‘s attack. 1 Moreover, it is shown that, except in 1971, the United States always gives India a preferential treatment although Pakistan has been used as a Frontline state in curbing communist threats in Afghanistan or against Islamic militancy i.e. Taliban or Al Qaeda networks. It is seen that the United States always takes the role of a mediator during the conflict between India and Pakistan (during in 1948, 1965 and in 1998 except in 19971). However, when the crisis is over, the United States tilts toward India. The China threat and India‘s lucrative market including its lasting democracy are the reasons behind the tilting. The US wants to forge ‗strategic partnership‘ with India as the latter not only provides a huge market for the trade and investment of the US and its allies, but is also willing to be co-opted into America‘s larger global political and economic strategy. 2 India‘s shift from non-aligned and independent foreign policy to one of alignment with America has also been a significant importance behind the US tilting. American role in South Asia has, however, proved detrimental to the cause of IndoPakistan peace and harmony. 3 In Bangladesh, the United States long-cherished desire is to sign such agreements so that it might have free access or a position in the Bay of Bengal. The Bay of Bengal is always geo-strategically important for the United States to hold influence in the Indian Ocean area. So does the Maldives and Sri Lanka. In this case, the United States policies after 9/11 remains the same as previous, however, the patterns of implementing those policies and the definitions given for those policies vary during the above mentioned three administrations. Whereas, the H.W. Bush administration followed the doctrine of collective security or the New World Order, Clinton administration chose not to do everything or to intervene everywhere. Bill Clinton mostly consolidated his efforts in domestic affairs. Bill Clinton‘s liberal policy was strongly criticized by the conservatives and he was accused for not launching adequate interventions against the ‗rogue states‘ and the groups of Islamic militancy. There was a strong belief among the conservatives in the United States that Clinton‘s loose-fisted actions gave enough time to the international terrorists to draw such an attack on Twin Towers. Therefore, George W. Bush was able to legitimate his unilateral approach against international terrorist networks. However, President Obama‘s style was quite different. He emphasized on negotiations and collaborations rather than confrontation and unilateralism in the international affairs. The withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, negotiations with Taliban are such examples. The thesis also briefly explores the causes behind the shifts in the US policy patterns toward South Asia in the post 9/11 era.