The United States Foreign Policy in the Asian region - WWII to present.

 

October 2021

PART – I:          

The United States Foreign Policy in the Asian region – background since end of World War II.

Forgetting the words of its 1^st President, General George Washington; who in 1789 had given advice to his country regarding relations with other nations: "avoid entangling alliances"; the United States has been embroiled in world politics throughout the 20^th and 21^st centuries, embracing a foreign policy that takes up a great deal of its government's time, energy, and money.

Our review begins with the US foreign policy in the years after the end of World War-II, where it pursued the policy of containment of communism, and trying to stop it from spreading beyond the countries already under communist influence, This led to the advent of the ‘cold war’, a struggle for global supremacy between the USA and the Soviet Union [U.S.S.R].

Most nations aligned with either camp, but in the 1960s the Soviet Union drifted away from China, as the communist movement got divided. Some countries like India, asserted their neutrality and formed the ‘non-aligned’ block of nations. USA understood that a forced roll-back of communism by force might lead to a nuclear war, and hence developed the policy of containment, to oppose the spread of global communism.

The containment policy meant that the U.S. was committed to fighting the communist expansion around the world. This was put to test in Vietnam War which commenced in 1954 with 16,000 American soldiers on-the-ground in South Vietnam that sky-rocketed to over 500,000 at its peak; fighting the Viet–Cong troops of North Vietnam who were supported by China. In August 1964, the then U.S. President Lyndon Johnson secured an almost unanimous support of the U.S. Congress for the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’, which gave the President authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of conventional military force in Southeast Asia. The resulting escalation of violence proved to be disastrous for the U.S with 58,220 American dead and 304,704 wounded; leading to a public realization that America was deeply involved in a war that the majority of its citizens did not understand or support.

The Nixon Doctrine announced in July 1969 by then President Richard Nixon, radically transformed the U.S. foreign policy. It rejected the long–standing policy of containment that required combat troops on the ground in U.S. friendly / allied countries and shifted the main responsibility of military defense onto the ally itself. Under this new doctrine, the U.S. would restrict itself to diplomatic efforts, financial assistance, supply of military ordnance and military training to the allied country.

While the Nixon Doctrine was a message to Asian nations that they had to be responsible for their own defense; the then Ruler of Iran Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi used this very doctrine to convince the Americans to sell him military armaments without any limitations, a suggestion that was embraced by Nixon and his top advisor Henry Kissinger; who now considered Iran and Saudi Arabia as the two pillars of regional stability in the Middle–East region. Total arms transfer from the U.S. to Iran exceeded US$ 552 million and those to Saudi Arabia were worth $ 312 million (in 1972).

When the Indo–Pakistan war of 1971, that led to the creation of Bangladesh started, the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier force into the Bay of Bengal as a symbolic support to Pakistan, but refrained from actual combat on behalf of its critical ally in the then ongoing and secret negotiations that were underway for building economic ties between USA and China. The Nixon administration feared that an Indian invasion of what was then West Pakistan would lead to domination of that region by the Soviet Union, and seriously undermine its position as a global power. In direct defiance of the sanctions imposed upon Pakistan by the U.S. Congress, Nixon supplied it with military supplies while also encouraging China to assist Pakistan with military hardware. Pakistan lost the war and Bangladesh gained independence. Initially, India gained the stature of a regional superior power, but these gains were lost in the negotiations of the Shimla Agreement of 02^nd July 1972.

When Jimmy Carter took over as President of USA in 1977, he reoriented the U.S. foreign policy to emphasize his country’s commitment to human rights, values of democracy, nuclear non-proliferation and ending global poverty. He was elected to the presidency of America during a period of non-hostile relationships with China and the Soviet Union. As a part of his diplomatic initiatives, he normalized relations with China and in the process, revoked the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, Carter initiated grain embargo and started to provide armaments and financial aid to the mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan. These same mujahedin would later on form the terrorist organizations; Taliban and al–Qaeda.

Carter’s presidency was marked by several crisis, including the 1979 oil crisis (also known in USA as the 2^nd oil crisis) and the Iran hostage crisis (where 52 U.S. diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (from 04 Nov 1979 to 20 Jan 1981) by a group of supporters of the Iranian Revolution who took over the American embassy in Tehran. The U.S. initiated ‘Operation Eagle Claw’ on 24^th and 25^th April 1980, in an attempt to rescue these hostages, but due to the combination of bad weather and mechanical failure of the majority of its helicopters at the secret staging area in the deserts outside Tehran, the mission was aborted.

Afghanistan had been non–aligned in the early years of the Cold war between the Soviet Union and the Western powers led by USA, but the 1973 coup deposed the then King of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah and led to the formation of the Republic of Afghanistan under the leadership of the new (and pro–Western) leadership of Daoud Khan, who had earlier served as the country’s Prime Minister. Five years later, the Communists seized power. The new regime which comprised of Nur Mohammed Taraki’s Khalq faction which was made-up primarily of non-elite Pashtuns who had adopted Marxism, and Babrak Karmal’s Parcham faction made up of urban-based middle–classes who followed socialism; signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union in December 1978. The policies of the Khalq faction that exploited tribal resentments led to the eventual failure of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Its radical approach to reforms and brutal crackdown on dissenters encouraged the rebellion of the religious sections of the Afghan society, leading to the creation of the Mujahidin. In the April to September 1979 general uprising, Taraki was deposed and replaced by his Khalq rival Hafizullah Amin. This alarmed the Soviet leadership who feared that an Islamist government would threaten its control over Soviet Central Asia. The fall of Amin’s government prompted the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and install Parcham leader Babrak Karmal as president.

In the U.S., the Soviet invasion alarmed the Carter administration, which believed that the former’s conquest of Afghanistan would present a grave threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region. Carter renewed financial and military aid to Pakistan, who in turn sponsored the Afghan mujahedin to fight the Soviet forces inside Afghanistan, with the additional financial assistance of Saudi Arabia and Britain. These events brought about a significant change in the U.S. foreign policy; ending the policy of détente and returning to the policy of containment. U.S. support for the mujahedin in Afghanistan continued until the withdrawal of Soviet forces in Afghanistan in 1989.

During his administration, President Carter normalized relations with the People’s Republic of China that controlled mainland China, and strengthened relations with Japan. The U.S. was hostile to Vietnam due to its alliance with the Soviet Union, and supported China in its short border war with Vietnam in 1979. In January 1980, Carter revoked the Sino–American Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan (aka the Republic of China); but continued to maintain diplomatic relations through the Taiwan Relations Act [1979].    

Ronald Reagan defeated Carter to win the U.S. Presidency in 1981. His main goal of the American foreign policy was to win the cold war against the Soviet Union and the roll–back of communism. This was achieved through the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe, the German re-unification in 1990 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. These events made the U.S. the only super power of the world, and as part of the Reagan Doctrine, offered financial support to anti–communist opposition in central Europe while taking an increasingly hard-line against the communist government in Afghanistan.

During the period of 1978 – 1988, Pakistan was ruled by Zia-ul-Haq and his military dictatorship. Reagan’s policies focused on preventing the Soviet Union from taking control of Afghanistan. While the U.S. Congress approved a US$ 3.2 billion in aid for military and economic assistance to the mujahedin through Pakistan, the U.S. policy focused on bolstering the Zia regime and weakening Pakistan’s democracy advocates. The U.S. sold high performance military equipment to Pakistan, along-with nuclear technology, sophisticated intelligence gathering equipment and training to both the Pakistani Armed Forces and to over 100,000 Afghan mujahedin.

The India – U.S relationship was slow in its improvement, due to the tactic support that India had given to the Soviet Union in its invasion of Afghanistan. As the relations strengthened between the two countries, the U.S. approved the supply of selected technologies to India, that included gas turbines for Navy warships and VLF communications. By the late 1980s there was a significant improvement in relations between both countries.

George H.W. Bush as President of the USA [1989 – 1993], with his extensive experience, emphasized caution and careful management in foreign policy. In June of 1989, China violently suppressed the pro–democracy Tiananmen Square protests, leading to an abrupt termination of military sales by USA to China. In 1991 Bush decided not to approve a request to license the export of U.S. satellite components to China for a Chinese domestic communications satellite, citing Chinese companies engaging in activities that raised proliferation concerns. US–China relationships deteriorated sharply after the Tiananmen Square Massacre with estimated death toll of several thousands of the pro-democracy protestors. There was a revival of hard-line Maoist ideology from 1989 onward and increased paranoia in the People’s Republic of China (mainland), as communist regimes collapsed across the world.

William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton (President of USA, 1993 – 2001), inherited a United States of America which was the only superpower with a military strength that far overreached that of the rest of the world. With the end of the cold war, Clinton focused his priorities on U.S. domestic affairs, especially the economy. His foreign policy was focused on the promotion of American trade around the world. In Asia, North and South Korea had agreed on a process to reduce nuclear armaments, and China was focused on internal development, having replaced its revolutionary fervor in favor of growth under the principles of market economy.

Realizing that an increase in international trade would support the priority of economic growth; delegations of entrepreneurs, financiers and business group delegations traveled to various countries; including China, Hong Kong and India. Clinton made it his priority to maintain trade with China, boost American exports, expand investments into the Chinese market and create related jobs in the USA to support this agenda. In 1993, he granted China the ‘most favored nation’ status, and minimized tariff levels on Chinese imports.

Clinton had initially designated this status as ‘temporary’, and had imposed conditions on its extension dependent on Chinese reforms in areas of free emigration, release of peaceful prisoners from local prisons, recognizing and accepting human rights in their society and permitting free access to international TV and media coverage. Despite the lack of reforms by the Chinese, Clinton extended the most favored nation status anyways. In 1998, Clinton visited China on a nine-day visit and in 1999, signed a landmark trade agreement with China, that would lower the trade barriers between the two countries and enabling easy exports of U.S. goods to China. The U.S. Congress voted to grant permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000, and this was endorsed by Clinton in the form of a Presidential Bill.

Even though Clinton pursued the policy of international trade and economic growth, he was equally prone to use America’s war-machine when it suited his political needs. On 26 June 1993, he ordered a cruise missile attack on an Iraqi military complex in Baghdad, as a retaliation for the supposed assassination attempt on his predecessor George H.W. Bush by Iraq’s Intelligence services. Twenty–three cruise missiles launched by two U.S. naval ships hit nineteen targets in Baghdad, killing nine civilians and wounding others. This strike was clearly in violation of international law, and it seems unlikely that this action was in “strict compliance” with “any conventional understanding of international law”. In his efforts to weaken the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Clinton signed the ‘Iraq Liberation Act’ into Law on 31^st October 1998; instituting a police of regime change in Iraq, Subsequently, for several years, the U.S. routinely bombed key defense installations in Iraq and justified these attacks as responses to “provocations” by the Iraqi armed forces on U.S. aircraft overflying their nation.

In 1993, Clinton had announced that “containing the hostile and dangerous government of Iran” would be the basis of his Middle–East policy. In 1994, he had declared that Iran was “a state sponsor of terrorism”, marking the first time that an American President has used those words.

In 1994, the Clinton administration lifted the Trade embargo on Vietnam, and restored full diplomatic ties in July 1995; citing progress on the Vietnam war’s POW / MIA issue and the market reforms implemented by the Vietnam government from 1986 onward.

The Clinton administration’s policy of engagement with China was based on “confronting China”, but not strongly enough to damage relations between the two countries. In 1995-96, the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis erupted between China and Taiwan. The upcoming Presidential elections in Taiwan and the possibility of declaration of Taiwanese independence, caused concern in China, which led to their conducting a series of missile tests of the coast of Taiwan. Clinton responded by staging the biggest display of U.S. military might in March 1996, and stationed numerous aircraft carrier groups near Taiwan. Eventually, China declared the “missile tests” as completed and a cease fire was declared.

It was the Indian nuclear tests of May 1998 that prompted a serious dialogue between India and the U.S. In the wake of the tests, extensive bilateral discussions ensued and U.S. policymakers came to pay far greater heed to India and its concerns. Toward the end of the second Clinton administration, despite differences in some critical policy arenas, most notably non-proliferation, the relationship had acquired meaningful interaction.

On 11 September, 2001, al–Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the U.S. military headquarters (the Pentagon) near Washington DC, ending a decade of economic prosperity. George W. Bush was the President of USA when this surprise attack prompted a paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy. The focus on domestic prosperity was replaced by unilateral action to combat the growing trend of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that originated in the Middle East. America embarked on military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The “Bush Doctrine” was based on the views of the neoconservatives in his cabinet, where multi-literalisms were ignored. The neoconservatives believed that since the United States was the world’s lone ‘superpower’ in the early 2000s, it could act unilaterally to establish a strong U.S. influence in world affairs. In the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks, the foreign policy was transformed into a policy with an expeditionary outlook, with a narrow focus on terrorism and the strong belief that the military and economic power of the U.S. was strong enough to transform geographical regions and societies. As part of this doctrine, the U.S. reserved the right to carry out preemptive military strikes against nations known to sponsor terrorism. According to Bush, three nations; Iraq, Iran and North Korea; that he defined as the “Axis of Evil”, posed the greatest threat to global peace, due to their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Bush also emphasized his new interventionist policy of spreading democracy globally with the view that ‘the survival of liberty in USA depends on the success of liberty in other countries”.

The U.S. led a NATO invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, initiating the ‘Global War on Terror’, in what became the first phase of the war. The main goals of the war were to defeat the Taliban, force al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and capture the leaders of al–Qaeda. In these efforts, USA deployed 98,000 troops on-ground at its highest point in 2011.

Simultaneously, Bush improved relations with India, Japan, South Korea, China and other countries of the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations). Relations with India improved over common concerns regarding the growth in Islamic terrorism, climate change and energy security. Since 2004, both countries are pursuing a strategic partnership based on shared values and convergent geopolitical interests.

The Bush administration faced a difficult task of sustaining a strong relation with China in the context of China’s military and economic progress. It was defined by Bush in his views that, “China would be respected as a great power, unthreatened but not unchecked”. His administration made efforts to assist the faster entry of China into the international economic system, assist in China’s economic development and share mutual economic benefits, and supported China’s entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization).

Bush had identified North Korea as one of the three states in the “axis of evil” in 2002. His administration’s policy was to isolate North Korea from the world in an effort to force it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. North Korea had developed its nuclear weapons capabilities several years before the inauguration of George W. Bush as President of USA, and earlier administrations had pursued a policy of rapprochement with North Korea, offering economic assistance in return for an end to North Korea’s WMD program. In contrast, Bush sought to isolate North Korea in the hope that its regime would fall due to this isolation. 

India’s pursuit of its nuclear weapons program came into focus during Bush’s second term as President, and culminated in the historic US–India civilian nuclear agreement of 2008. This accord effectively ended one of the principal issues of contention in the relationship and cleared a path for a robust strategic partnership. In the wake of this agreement, and despite much hesitation on India’s part, the two sides made fitful progress toward forging a strategic partnership.

Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of USA in 2009 and inherited two wars (ones in Afghanistan and Iraq), and an economy in crisis. Other than his long–term concern about climate change, Obama did not have a sweeping ‘Obama Doctrine’, and preferred to deal with situations as the arose on a case-by-case basis.

An early opponent to his predecessor George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, he announced his plan to bring down troop levels in Iraq to 50,000 by August 2010, and kept drawing back troops until only 150 troops remained in Iraq by 2012.

Conversely, Obama was committed to increasing the US military commitment in Afghanistan to prevent the extremist Taliban regime from regaining power and allowing al–Qaeda to continue using that country as a base of terrorist operations, and sent additional troops to Afghanistan, raising the military presence there to 60,000 troops on an average.

However, Obama was convinced that a change in military strategy was needed so that the Government of Afghanistan would be able to defeat the Taliban on its own. In December 2009, he approved and additional troops for the purpose of training of Afghan forces to independently fight the Taliban, with the condition that U.S. forces must begin to withdraw from Afghanistan by July 2011. Obama accomplished the disengagement of the American active combat forces by 2014, with about 12,000 remaining to continue the campaign to defeat the Taliban. His administration’s success in tracking down and killing the al-Qaeda leader Osama bi Laden on 02^nd May 2011, gave Obama credibility in military matters.

The Obama administration claimed that their approach to the ‘war on terror’ relied on multinational force and not unilateral actions, and was focused on surgical air-strikes, rather than deployment of troops in the conflict areas. This strategy failed in Libya, since the lack of troops on ground deprived Obama of any means to control the local chaos after the killing of the Libyan dictator Muamar al–Qaddafi. One harsh consequence was the attack of radical mobs on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the killings of four U.S. officials, including that of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

In Asia, the Obama administration established the “U.S–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue” in April 2009, to discuss a wide range of regional and global strategic and economic issues between both countries. While the U.S and China have repeatedly clashed over China’s claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Pacific Command was put in the forefront to strengthen military relationships in the region. In 2014, the U.S. recognized Tibet as a part of China.

Relations with North Korea were contentious due to its nuclear weapons program and threats of military action. In May 2009, North Korea announced that it intended to terminate the 1953 armistice agreement that ended the Korean war; effectively restarting the 60-year-old conflict and raising the threat alert in South Korea to just short of an actual war. Obama was harshly criticized for failing to restrain or eliminate the North Korean nuclear weapons and missile program, as it became steadily more alarming to the U.S. Congress.

Obama was eager to consolidate bi-lateral relations with India. His shift in the U.S. foreign policy is based on the assessment of three issues of American national interests and India’s role in achieving them, i.e. building strong bi-lateral cooperation in security and defense sectors, deliver U.S. products and services to a potentially huge export market and utilize India as a strategic pivot towards Asia. Obama did succeed in strengthening defense ties, but failed to accelerate U.S. exports into India and also failed to convince India of the U.S. commitment towards its Asia pivot strategy. India’s regional territorial concerns over its security took priority over the U.S. strategy.

During the presidency of Donald Trump (2017 – 2021), his “America First” policy pursued U.S. nationalist foreign policy goals that gave priority to bilateral relations over multinational agreements. It was notorious for being unpredictable, for reversals on prior international commitments, overturning diplomatic customs, pursuing political and economic practices of brinkmanship with adversaries and ignoring mutual interests with traditional allies. He adopted a policy of non-intervention and isolation, and supported populist, authoritarian governments, while his State Department officials pursued pro-democracy efforts around the world.

The Trump administration withdrew from many prior multinational commitments of the U.S. and urged NATO allies to increase their burden sharing of protecting Europe. He initiated the 2019 Korean Peace process to resolve the Korea conflict and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, while withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal. He oversaw the partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq / Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan, while brokering the Doha Agreement with the Taliban to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan. As part of this agreement, the U.S. agreed to the release of 5,000 Taliban members who were imprisoned by the Afghan government. [Some of these ex-prisoners went on to join the 2021 Taliban offensive that defeated the Afghanistan government].

He continued the U.S. war on terror against the Islamic State and accomplished the successful elimination of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October 2019. In January 2020, he ordered the successful assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, using a drone strike.

During the election campaign that elected him to the presidency of the U.S., Trump had accused the People’s Republic of China [mainland China] of currency manipulation. He pledged to act in a “swift, robust and unequivocal” manner against Chinese piracy, counterfeit American goods, and theft of U.S. intellectual property and trade secrets. In December 2016 as president–elect, he accepted a congratulatory phone call from the President of the Republic of China [Taiwan], which was the first such contact by Taiwan with a U.S. President since 1979, which provoked China (PRC / mainland) to lodge a stern diplomatic protest. Trump responded that he was not bound by the U.S. ‘one China policy’ and considered it open to negotiation. However, in February 2017, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to the one-China policy in a telephone conversation with PRC General Secretary Xi Jinping.

Relations between the two countries deteriorated in 2018 and 2019 when President Trump launched a trade war against China, by setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the objective of forcing it to make changes in what the U.S. said were unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. In response, the Chinese accused Trump of engaging in protectionist policies, and retaliated by raising tariff on American goods ranging from alcohol to clothing, and to liquefied natural gas (LNG). This trade war impacted the economies of both countries. In the U.S. it led to higher cost for manufacturers, higher prices for customers and financial difficulties for the agricultural sector. In China, it led to a slowdown of industrial and economic growth.

The relations further deteriorated when Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in November 2019, to impose sanctions against China (PRC / mainland) and officials in Hong Kong who were considered responsible for human rights abuses there. In June 2020, Trump signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which authorized the imposition of American sanctions on Chinese government officials responsible for the detention camps holding Uyghur Muslims in China. In July 2020, Trump signed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, that sanctioned Chinese officials, and ended Hong Kong’s preferential treatment by the U.S.

On 22^nd July 2020, the U.S. government ordered the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston. In retaliation, on 24^th July, China ordered the closure of the American consulate in Chengdu. Boston College political scientist Robert S. Ross commented that the Trump "administration would like to fully decouple from China. No trade, no cultural exchanges, no political exchanges, no cooperation on anything that resembles common interests."

Donald Trump shared favorable and trusted relations with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and expressed desire for a closer alliance with India. In June 2017, the two leaders met at the White House in the U.S. capital, Washington D.C., and reaffirmed their commitment to a strong partnership between the two countries, specifically in the areas of defense, counter-terrorism and maritime security.

Both countries have similar approaches to other issues. The Trump administration renamed its Pacific Command as INDOPACOM to reinforce its commitment for closer military ties with India. The U.S. criticism of China’s One-Belt-One-Road policy reflects India’s concerns that no country can accept a project that ignores the core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity, and both share the desire for better security cooperation with Japan, Australia and Vietnam.

In 2018, the U.S. declared that India is eligible to purchase license-free space and defense technology under the ‘Strategic Trade Authorization’. The long-standing gap between the U.S. and India on the Pakistan policy had also converged considerably, leading to the Trump administration cutting aid to Pakistan, citing the latter’s failure to act against terrorists.

However, there were irritants in the bi-lateral relations as well. India’s eligibility for the ‘Generalized System of Preferences’ program that permits certain products to enter the U.S. duty-free was put under review, and the U.S. policy on immigration, specially related to the H1B and H4 visas have impacted negatively on the Indian sentiment.

Joseph “Joe” Biden took office as the President of USA on 20th January 2021. His foreign policy emphasizes repairing alliances, which Biden claims have been damaged under the Trump administration, and returning the U.S. to a ‘position of trusted leadership’. His administration has focused on international cooperation to combat the Covid-19 pandemic and strengthen U.S. defense against foreign sponsored cyber-attacks and cyber-espionage.

In early February 2021, the U.S. Congress panel on Afghanistan recommended that the Biden administration slow down the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and keep troops in-country after the May 01 deadline set by the 2020 Doha Agreement between the U.S. and Taliban. The panel warned against a complete U.S. military withdrawal because the Taliban had not fully complied with their obligations under the agreement, and that it would lead to resurgence of insurgency, an increase in terrorist threats and a possibility of an Afghan civil war. On 13^th April 2021, the Biden administration announced that the 2,500 troops that remained in Afghanistan would be withdrawn by 11^th September, 2021, and Biden personally stated that "The likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely." On 15^th August, the Afghan government collapsed under the onslaught of the Taliban, and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country, leaving Afghanistan in full control of most of Afghanistan.

President Joe Biden and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi are committed to close cooperation on climate change and promoting a free and open Indo–Pacific region and have agreed that the rule of law and democratic process must be upheld in India’s region. In response to the security issues posed by China, both leaders agree to "support freedom of navigation, territorial integrity, and a stronger regional architecture through the Quad initiative".

 

PART – II    :           Overview of U.S foreign policy.

The official objectives of the U.S. foreign policy are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community". Additionally, it has the goals of controlled exports, non-proliferation of nuclear technology, fostering commercial interaction with other nations, and international commodity agreements.

The U.S. President decides on all foreign policy, which is implemented by the U.S. State Department and allied agencies. However, treaties signed by the President are valid only when they are ratified by at least two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. The Congress approves the President’s nominees for the position of U.S. Ambassadors to various countries and international organizations, and has the power to declare war.

U.S. foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to America. There are seven confirmed cases where the U.S., acting principally through its spy agencies, have covertly assisted in the overthrow of governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964) and Chile (1973). The U.S. has intervened and influenced 81 elections in foreign countries between 1946 and 2000.

U.S. foreign policy is influenced by efforts to control the import of illicit drugs into America. This is especially true in Latin America which is the focus of the U.S. ‘War on Drugs’. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement that prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries.

Critics have cited instances where the U.S. has overthrown communist (leftist) governments in foreign countries, its continued support for Israel since its inception, its human rights abuses and violations of international laws. They charge U.S. presidents of using democracy to justify military intervention abroad. The U.S. has faced condemnation for supporting dictators who systematically violate human rights, for facilitating and supporting state terrorism in lower income countries during the Cold War, and for conducting political assassinations, political repression and state sponsored terror in the southern most areas of South America. 

Human Rights organizations have been critical of U.S. air-strikes and targeted killings using drones (an unmanned aerial combat vehicle) which have resulted in collateral damage to civilian populations. From dropping 26,000 bombs on seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan) in a single year (2016) to accusations of complicity in war crimes for supporting the Saudi Arabia led intervention into the Yemen Civil War, leading to infectious diseases outbreaks and starvation of the general population in Yemen; the U.S. has been accused regularly of being the biggest threat to world peace, since the U.S. attempts to export democracy have been negligible and mostly a failure.

The U.S. government torture program since 9/11 has been "breath-taking" in its scope, according to the detailed report submitted to the United Nations Committee Against Torture by the International Human Rights Clinic. The U.S. carried out its torture program in the U.S. Military Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and secretly in 54 other countries, and the program involved two U.S. administrations: the Bush Administration which designed, implemented and authorized the torture program, and the Obama Administration which covered it up and obstructed justice by failing to prosecute U.S. officials who designed and implemented the torture programs.

The U.S. is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture, and at the time of signing it on 18^th April 1988; had declared that “The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary” and that “nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States”.

In reality, in the policy of transferring military detainees to Iraqi control, the U.S. appears to have knowingly violated the Convention Against Torture. The Convention proscribes signatory states from transferring a detainee to other countries "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." The U.S. had received reports of more than a thousand allegations, many of them substantiated by medical evidence, of torture in Iraqi jails. Yet U.S. authorities transferred thousands of prisoners to Iraqi custody, including almost 2,000 who were transferred to the Iraqi government in 2010.  

 

PART – III   :           Conclusion.

The United States of America has consistently followed a foreign policy based on its own self–interests; and willing and knowingly violates the principles of humanity, integrity and the right to free-will of people of other nations. Using various pretexts; from that of ‘exporting democracy’ to ‘war-on-terror’, the U.S. has been destabilizing various parts of the world since the end of World War II, and till the present. Its foreign policy is based on the single point of exerting its opinions on the world through war, coercion and deceit, with a total disregard for human rights of non-American populations and for the sufferings caused by their self–serving policies.  

 

Compiled by:

Sardar Sanjay Matkar

October 2021

 

References / Citations

1.          Council for foreign relations (CFR) https://www.cfr.org/us-foreign-policy

2.          U.S. State Department https://www.state.gov/a-foreign-policy-for-the-american-people/

3.          U.S. Foreign Policy https://www.foreignaffairs.com/topics/us-foreign-policy 

4.          Chatham House https://www.chathamhouse.org/topics/us-foreign-policy

5.          The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/foreign-policy/

6.          The Brookings Institute https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/04/the-mess-in-afghanistan/

 Charlie Company https://charliecompany.org/2012/08/31/when-did-the-vietnam-war-start-and-end/

 

 

 

Let’s not pretend..

 The social, civil and political situation in our Bharat is getting out of control on an almost daily basis. Enemies within our country are putting in every effort to destabilize our democratically elected government and with the help of anti-national and foreign elements are plotting to weaken our Nation.

Let’s not pretend that everything in our country is manageable and that the government is in full control. Over the last couple of years we have experienced the growing hold of the Leftists cabal over our society. The activities at Shahin Baug were the first coordinated efforts of radical Islamic elements who teamed-up with the leftists to protest the legally enacted laws of our country; laws that were debated and accepted by the majority of our Parliamentarians, the elected representatives of the people. A few hundred people squatted on public roads in an attempt to force an elected government to retract laws that are enacted for the protection of hundred and twenty-five million citizens. Same is the case of the ongoing farmers protests that have paralyzed the outskirts of Delhi. In both these cases it is clear that there were political agendas to create unrest among the people, with a focus on attempting to win political advantages on an anti-government platform.

The weakness of our government was first seen during the unlawful activities at Shaheen Baug. The government had every right under the Constitution to end this protest with strict implementation of existing laws, but they allowed the situation to deteriorate till it completely undermined law and order.  The same is being repeated in the farmers protest activities. In fact, this activity should not be called the farmers protest, but rather the Punjab landowners militancy against the Parliament of India. The violence unleashed by these militants was on full display on Republic Day 2021 and yet the government in power failed to respond with a strict enforcement of law and order. Police personnel were attacked with swords and steel rods and many were grievously injured; and the incompetence of the Minister in-charge of law enforcement was found to be vast and immeasurable.

Let’s not pretend that the Leftists are an irritant and not dangerous to our society. Leftists across the world are united by a single philosophy, a single purpose, a single agenda and global finance. They work towards creating instability in democratic countries because that’s the only society where they can violently push their agenda under the democratic values of freedom for all. Conversely, patriots and nationalists, who are branded as conservative and right-wing have different outlooks based on their own country’s needs for a strong and united social and civil structure. Leftists are spread across politics, media and in non-government organizations. Their philosophy appeals to the frustrated masses who identity is defined by the lowest common denominator of hatred towards all those who are hard-working, honest, law-abiding and supportive of democratic institutions.

Let’s not pretend that we can appease these anti-national elements, both inside our country and abroad. The Leftists use their large amounts of finance, accumulated through donations from communist countries like China and Islamic countries of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have a history of sponsoring terrorism and anti-democratic movements. Instead of challenging the leadership of these countries on their actions, our government keeps building bridges of commerce and cultural interactions with them. Appeasement does not eliminate the danger, it only makes the dangerous more bolder.

Let’s not pretend that we are a thriving democracy because our leaders tell us so. Thirty percent of our population is still deprived from literacy, 6.7% of our population is below the official poverty limit and those people who live in absolute poverty are unknown. 440 of the 536 Members of Parliament (approx 82%)  elected in the 2019 election are multi-millionaires, while the average daily wage of the majority of our citizens is Rs. 356.30 per day (Rs. 126,842.80 per year) in 2020. Approximately 1.77 million residents of India are homeless and have no access to safe drinking water, adequate food or basic medical care.  

Let’s not pretend that we will remain a thriving and vibrant democracy when the average age of our Parliamentarians is 54 years and that of our Cabinet ministers is 60; in a country where 65% of the population is below 35. Unless the age gap between the political leadership and the majority population is reduced drastically, our nation is in no position to advance or stride ahead to its full potential.

Let’s not pretend that western countries or their businesses are friends of ours or have sympathy for our problems. NGOs from USA and UK sponsor activities that are against our country. The British parliamentarians did not hesitate to discuss events which are the internal issues of India, as if they are still the masters of a colony. The current Canadian Prime Minister has no hesitation in showing support to Khalistanis supporters in an effort to consolidate his vote-bank and many members of the United States Congress pass resolutions that blatantly interfere in the internal affairs of our sovereign nation. They are well aware that the rise of our nation will lead to loss of influence of their own nations.

And finally, let’s not pretend that our government of elders is in any position to control the rising power of technology. Social media platforms routinely and brazenly violate the freedom of expression of our patriots while encouraging leftists extremism. They do not consider themselves answerable to democratic governments and continue their anti-India activities without restrictions. Their lawless behavior is a reflection of our weak government and not of the power of their technology.

Our tech-savvy younger generation, united by their disappointment in traditional banking; with its slow and inefficient work culture, repeated verification of documents for opening accounts and transferring funds, and the realization that the cosy and symbiotic relationships between banks, businesses and government agencies is leading to unsustainable losses of the exchequer; is turning to crypto currency like Bitcoins to conduct transactions. They are in parts protesting against the governments monopoly on money, the restrictive rules and regulations that favor the powerful and what they deem are unfair taxes. Essentially, they are disrupting the conventional and rigid framework of traditional banking with what they believe is a monetary revolution.

Let’s not pretend that we are in a stable and secure society because we are actually in a middle of a violent storm of circumstances that are fast moving out of control of our law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and into the hands of our enemies.

Let’s not pretend anymore.

 

Who am I?

 Born in this land called India, also called as Bharat, but referred to by our Islamic neighbors as Hindustan; who exactly am I? What is my identity? Where lies my purpose? What are my responsibilities and most importantly, where are my priorities supposed to connect with those of others from my own land?

 The lack of this defined identity is one of the most predominant cause of unrest and divisive character of our country. A country can never be classified as a Nation, unless the people believe in a shared common identity. Unity does not lie in diversity; unity lies in shared values, shared responsibilities and a shared vision for a nation and its future.

Historians have offered various theories as to the origin of the name Bharat for our country. According to one version, the Rig Veda’s 18^th hymn of the 7^th book describes a vicious war known as “Dasharajna” or battle of ten kings; where ten of the most powerful tribal kings of those times fought against King Sudasa of the Bharata tribe of Trtsu dynasty. Sudasa was victorious in this battle and in honor of this victory, the people of this region started to identify themselves as member of the Bharata tribe and the land was named Bharat Varsha, meaning the land of Bharata. In another version, according to the Mahabharata, our land was named Bharatvarsha after the legendary emperor Bharata Chakravarti; who was the founder of Bharata dynasty and the ancestor of the Pandavas and the Kauravas; who fought against each other in the battle of Kurukshetra for the throne of Hastinapur, also known as the Mahabharata battle.

The term ‘India’ has evolved from the Greek Ἰνδία to Latin India as known in the old English (5^th - 12^th century AD).

The origins of the name ‘Hindu’ is said to have derived from the river Sindhu, the name of the Indus river as mentioned in the Rig-Veda, somewhere around 1700 - 1100 BC. The neighboring Arabs and Persians who uttered the alphabet ‘s’ as ‘h’, called the land as Hindu which then morphed into Hindustan - the land of Hindu.

 Mahmud of Gazni invaded Hindustan around 1001 and started the process of six hundred years of Islamic rule over majority of the country, which was challenged successfully by the Maratha Empire that formally existed with the coronation of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in 1674 and ended in 1818 with the defeat of Peshwa Bajirao the 2^nd at the hands of the British East India company. In 1858, the governance was transferred to the British Crown and India became a colony of the Britain till 1947, when it gained independence.

 The Constitution of India, as presented to the people of India by Dr. Bhimrao ‘Babasaheb’ Ambedkar was exclusively a document for the People’s Rights and Freedom, and defined the identity of the country as “a shared race, culture and language (that) may provide the basis for a patriotism that was particularly Indian … For nationality to exist there needed to be more than a common race, language or culture. There needed to be a “spiritual essence,” a tie of kinship. Above all, it required “the will to live as a nation” (Ambedkar 1946: 39)”. It can be interpreted that according to Dr. Ambedkar, the identity of our Nation would be a “social feeling” that imbibed a sentiment of fellowship and superseded class and caste differences. 

Contrary to his opinion, today we are a nation divided along religion, regionalism, caste, creed and financial inequality. Socialism as a political tool has been the main pillar of all political parties, but in reality the mix economy of free-market and socialism has given rise to lack of rational calculation of costs of development, bureaucratic inefficiency and deep rooted state corruption at all levels of governance due to the concentration of power in the hands of government officials; with limited freedom to entrepreneurs and free-market customers.

This has led to pre-millennial, millennial and GenZ generations of our country to live under the restrictions of aspirations that cannot be met, being victims to distorted thinking about the historical past, myths about governmental successes; all which lead to bad attitudes, poor civil and social habits, lack of self-care, various addictions and lack of balance in life. This further leads to a lack of a clear sense of meaning, purpose and direction in life, with no clear idea of who they are and what they should achieve in life. Without proper guidance, sufficient support from all parts of society, and clear perspectives; they lack the required skills and insights to develop effective strategies in life and sustainable action plans to implement changes in their outlook and daily activities to achieve successful goals.

In order to overcome many of the issues that are creating social and civil unrest in our country and its effect of the deteriorating law and order implementation; its the responsibility of our elected representatives to define our country by one single name - which will be its identity. Once the name has been chosen and made permanent. Governmental ideology cannot be a mix of socialism and free-market. It has to be one or the other, for a clear definition for effective long term strategies. People make up the society that makes up a Nation. If the guidelines stated by Dr. Ambedkar are followed, it would mean that class, caste and religious differences have to be overcome. This can happen by officially identifying our people only by name, age, gender and skill-sets; and replacing cronyism with meritocracy. Cronyism via religion, caste, creed, political affiliations and financial bonding exists as fact of life, rather than an exception. This is one of the prime reasons for constant civil unrest; the others being unfulfilled political promises, differentiation in economic opportunities, institutional ignoring of merit in favor of vote-bank politics, and the lack of effective implementation of law and order which, when reinforced by an inefficient and at times incompetent judiciary leads to a constant social frustration among the majority.

Technology is assisting our current generations to overcome many issues, but the dependence of technology means an higher distrust of the government, its policies and its leaders. Our country is fractured from the inside and unless there are decisive changes that positively impact the majority of our citizens, a looming Constitutional disaster should not be a surprise to anyone.