DEL Makes A Prediction

Dawn's Early Light discussed, during Secretary Rice's trip to Asia, the US's desire to sell 125 F-16s to India.  The French and Russians are competing for the same contract, and currently India does not fly US fighter aircraft.  Instead, the IAF flies the Mirage 2000 from the French and the SU-30, MiG-29 and MiG-21 from the Russians (as discussed in DEL here).  The contact would be extremely valuable to Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-16.  With sales in 2004 of $35.5 billion, Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, with subsidiary operations in a number of states, including Texas.  The F-16 is manufactured in Fort Worth, and continuing the line would mean the preservation of 5,000 jobs. (For a breakdown of Lockheed Martin worldwide operations, click here.)

When the US announced today that it was selling F-16s to Pakistan, my initial reaction was that the US must not have been able to secure the F-16 purchase from India, and therefore was less concerned about the the diplomatic fallout in India.  However, I now believe that Secretary Rice made an offer to India that is in its strategic and economic self interest.  My guess is that Secretary Rice offered the following:

• India should purchase the US F-16s (up to 125 aircraft)
• The US will approve a smaller sale of F-16s to Pakistan, with New Delhi's knowledge
• The US will offer future, more advanced military hardware including:
  • missile defense
  • nuclear reactor technology
  • high tech programs
  • other advanced US weapon systems
• The US will engage in a long-term strategic relationship with India to contain China and proactively work to propel India into being a major 21st century world power.

While the LAT (doesn't even mention the word "China"), NYT and WaPo (which argues the move will push India closer to China) play the US sale of fighter jets to Pakistan as angering New Delhi.  I imagine the US and India have cut a deal for a closer relationship to strengthen India in line with the Bush Administration goal of supporting democratic governments.  Why does DEL go out on such a limb with a counterview to the major US newspapers?  Read this article "US Wants to Help India be a Superpower" from the AFP via Sify News, owned by an Indian tech company:

"The United States unveiled plans Friday to help India become a "major world power in the 21st century" even as it announced moves to beef up the military of Pakistan.

Under the plans, Washington offered to step up a strategic dialogue with India to boost missile defense and other security initiatives as well as high-tech cooperation and expanded economic and energy cooperation.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has presented to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the Bush administration's outline for a "decisively broader strategic relationship" between the world's oldest and largest democracies, a senior US official said."

The long-run goal of the United States is to diplomatically and militarily contain China by supporting the democratic governments in the region, thereby applying the soft power and hard power that the United States often is criticized for not demonstrating.  If the Bush Administration has New Delhi on board, this will complement the strengthening of the US-Japanese alliance (see DEL here and here).

it will be interesting to see if the US is also in favor of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the world's largest democracy as well.  I could be wrong, but I believe Secretary Rice is sharp and is thinking several steps ahead of the MSM in promoting the Bush Administration's democratic and national security goals.

Update: Robert Mayer of Publius Pundit emails several excellent follow up points:

Bill,

The MSM was certainly dumb on this. With Condi as our new Secretary of State, we've been diverting much more to regional powers of late. A major case thus far has been India.  India has done an amazing job with helping in the tsunami crisis, and currently they are handling the democratic crisis in Nepal. The new U.S. foreign policy seems to build strong democratic societies that can then exert influence on budding or established problem/communist states. With China enforcing its naval power in the straits and Indonesia, a powerful and populous ally against the communist mainland right next door is certainly in our strategic interest.

Largely, however, liberals are still so stuck on the "unilateral world policeman" slogan that they haven't noticed this deferment of power to regional players. And since we all know the MSM is largely liberal, well, there is certainly some cause and effect there.

Best,
Robert Mayer 

Update 2: The discussion continues below with several great comments from Nitin (The Acorn blog) and Dan (TDAXP ~~ the experience blog).  Hopefully Simon will chime in a really get the debate going (He is gone until Wednesday celebrating Easter). 

Please feel free to join in the discussion. 

Comments

[Nitin]

Bill,

You have an optimistic (from India's point of view at least) take on the matter.

But any analysis of China cannot ignore the 'indirectness' of China's strategy. It has cultivated Pakistan to indirectly keep India down, and North Korea to keep Japan and the United States down. It helped Pakistan with the nukes, and the North Koreans with the missiles, who then helped each other.

Putting US technology in Pakistan's hands clearly risks letting China have a rather uncomfortably close look at it. There's a precedent for it: during the Vietnam war era, Pakistan allowed China to take a rather close look at the F-104s that it had received from the US.

But hey, let's hope you are right!

[Dan]

I'll need time for your argument to sink in. However, my first thoughts...

1. Nitin is right that the China-Pakistan angle is important, but he misunderstands it. PRC-IRP-USA have an old working-alliance going back to Nixon. During the closing decades of the cold war the three worked together to check Soviet power. Nor is America overly concerned about Chinese acquiring technology -- Israel regularly works with China as an American proxy. I think Bush's care for Pakistan relates to this, and particularly the concern that if America abandons Pakistan it will reinforce a Beijing-Islamabad axis.

2. Robert is right that Rice is courting regional powers. But this was Powell's aim too, and he was very successful at it. Under GWB America never had better relationships with Russia, India, China, or Japan. It's this tradition which makes the Pakistan sale otherwise puzzling.

3. We have to be careful with talk of "containment." Bush is clearly trying to create a sustainable balance to China. But China is emerging as a force for good. Hedging our bets is not containment.

4. Bush's generally pro-democracy push always makes the sale strange. Pakistan is a terrible country, combining North Korean proliferation with Saudi repression with BS Saudi-style diplomacy. If America would be able to secure nuclear installations an Islamist government would be a step up from Musharraf.

[Duane Henry]

Comparing this artical to your article on Cope India a couple of weeks ago really highlights a dramatic change in US policy in the region. coming from a military 'grunt' point of view, the sale of top US technology to Pakistan is scary. How much US technology and tactics will be discriminated how far? India already proved themselves (agian refrencing DEL artical a couple of weeks ago) far more advanced than we knew, how much more will this help more hostile nations advance? Thanks for the new perspectives, very thought provoking.

Razor

[Bill]

Nitin,

Your points about China's diplomatic moves are valid, however the proof of what I am arguing will have to wait to see whom India selects for the aircraft order. If India selects the US, after the United States made the move of selling F-16s to Pakistan, I truly believe it can only be because Sec. Rice offered a long term strategic partnership with India.

Rice speaks often of wanting US-Pakistan and US-India (non hyphenated between the India-Pakistan). There is no reason India cannot provide the better of two models for development in Asia between India and China. Since the US' principal threat in the Pacific in the future lies with North Korea and China (both Communist) nations, it would follow that the United States would try to counter-balance these threats especially with respect to China.

Why wouldn't India accept a US offer to promote it over China and accept the opportunity to begin buying high-tech American weapons instead of Russian and French designs? If the list of items for sale grows over time, the US would be a better supplier than the French or Russians, however the US would be a more fickle seller.

Of course, I could be wrong. But when India decides whom to buy from, I think we will see.

It is important to not underestimate the Bush Administration's goal of supporting and expanding democratic governments. India is a logical choice, when we are faced with an assertive and growingly aggressive China next door.

Best regards,

Bill Rice
Dawn's Early Light

[Dan]

Thanks again for your insight, Bill. As a Catholic I'm knowledgeable of China's repression. However, they are not a particularly aggressive state.

Over the past few years China has been pushing a "status quo" policy with Taiwan. Over the same period they have leaned on North Korea, but never encouraged any Pyongyang outburst. I don't believe they are interfering with US missions in Mongolia or the 'stans.

China is moving in the right direction in a lot of areas. We have to hedge against them, but we shouldn't be unduly frightened.

-Dan

[Nitin]

Bill,

The deal which the US has offered India does make a lot of sense. The best evidence that India is considering it seriously comes from the worried Russian response.

But defence procurement is a politically sensitive affair in India (as in the United States). Be prepared to see the loony Left and India's own cold-war dinosaurs to create a lot of noise over this.

The good news is that India's defence minister has already made very positive noises about buying American gear.

But Dan's point about the US being little bothered about China getting its hands on advanced American technology bothers me a lot.

[Robert Mayer]

God, I'm rereading what I wrote, and slowly biting my tongue over the typographical errors. Nothing too bad, but accidentally typing Indonesia instead of India really highlights how tired I was!

[Simon]

I'm with Dan. The first assumption that needs addressing is whether China is a competitor or a potential ally. It's early days but the latter is more likely, especially given the closer economic ties betweent the two. Next is dealing with "rising India" - in that you're right that Rice is playing the next decade's game. Also China and India recognise each other's rise and our currently undergoing a rapid rapproachment over such issues as the border and Tibet. It's not about containment, it's about strategic balance.

[Dan]

Wow. The greatest blogger on Asian affairs in history agrees with me. This makes my day.

:)

[sm]

surprised to see no dialogue on this update: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050329/ap/d894p70o1.html

[penis enlargement pills]

penis enlargement pills
acne treatment
weight loss
VigRX pills

[acne review]

There are more acne treatments on the market than ever before and if you suffer from acne you really don't want to waste your time determing which acne product is most effective.

Luckily for you, we've tested and reviewed some of the most popular acne treatments available so you don't have to!
http://www.acne-review.net

[exposed skincare]

Look for gentle cleansers that are sold as acne solutions. When you’ re evaluating skin cleansers for acne, include natural acne treatments in your search as well. For example, a soap made from Echinacea and other herbal ingredients is an effective antibiotic facial cleanser that helps fight acne and restore clear skin. Tea tree oil also has known antibiotic properties and serves as a mild anesthetic that will soothe the irritated skin.