Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and several American congressmen recently voiced support for the peaceful farmers’ protests in India, the first of which elicited a strong condemnation from the Indian government. New Delhi regards such statements as “meddling” in its internal affairs despite the country itself often criticising Pakistan for various developments that occur within its neighbour’s borders. Quite clearly, India’s double standards in this respect speak to the fact that it’s strategically weaponised its response to democracy and human rights issues at home and abroad, proving that it isn’t always sincere with what it says.
It remains to be seen whether New Delhi will lash out at Washington after Russia’s publicly financed international media outlet Sputnik reported that four US congressmen spoke favourably about the peaceful farmers’ protests. More than likely, India will decline to do so out of concern that it would risk “rocking the boat” ahead of Biden’s planned assumption of the presidency next month. The country doesn’t want to get on the bad side of its new American ally, especially considering that the incoming Biden Administration plans to prioritise democracy and human rights issues as the basis for its diplomatic engagement with the world.
The reason for this assessment is that many members of the next US administration either previously served with the Obama one or were greatly influenced by its worldview. The Obama era was characterised by exactly that same sort of engagement with the international community, though just like India’s stance on such topics, it wasn’t always sincere. Rather, democracy and human rights issues were simply used as covers for disguising power moves in the Mideast and Eastern Europe as evidenced by the US’ support of the theatre-wide Colour Revolutions nowadays described as the “Arab Spring” and its backing of Ukraine’s fascist “Euromaidan”.
That said, the state’s support for such issues – whether sincere or not – isn’t the same as some of its lower-level members’ such as those four congressmen who support the peaceful farmers’ protests. Unlike those who serve in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”), they’re less likely to have ulterior motives. If anything, they might only want to virtue signal ideological consistency with their liberal supporters, who usually back any people-driven movements regardless of whether they’re weaponised by the “deep state” like the “Arab Spring” was or genuinely grassroots like farmers’ protests in India are.
Still, such support shouldn’t be dismissed because it could organically grow to take on a life of its own, such as if India overreacts by condemning those American politicians for example. That could set into motion a self-sustaining cycle of political escalation whereby the entire Democrat Party – and by extent, the incoming Biden Administration – feels compelled to publicly defend themselves from what they might then portray as “meddling” in America’s own democracy after a foreign government criticises elected officials for expressing their constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech.
The other scenario of India ignoring their statements might also backfire on it if the party’s democracy and human rights lobbies feel emboldened to intensify their efforts to make this issue an important part of the political discussion. Some politicians might go along with this for self-interested electoral reasons while others might honestly believe in the cause that they’re supporting. Either way, it must be recognised that the incoming administration is very ideological and is willing to politically act based on its beliefs regarding democracy and human rights issues (again, whether sincerely believing in them or just using them as cover).
As regards American-Indian relations, it’s unlikely that the Biden Administration will take any meaningful action to sanction or otherwise pressure India to conform to international democracy and human rights standards related to the freedom of its farmers to peacefully protest Prime Minister Modi’s “Great Reset” ‘reforms’. That strategic partnership is much too important to politicise for ideological reasons since it’s needed to serve as a “deterrent” to China according to the plans of the US “deep state”. Even so, however, the Biden Administration might bank on virtual signalling support for Indian farmers in order to boost its global soft power.
For example, Washington and New Delhi could agree behind closed doors that the former won’t meaningfully pressure the latter, but that the issue has become too big to ignore, especially if the protests continue beyond Biden’s planned inauguration next month and are possibly met with Indian state violence against them. Considering just how much Modi believes that he needs Biden more than the inverse (particularly if the latter seeks to clinch a “New Detente” with China for pragmatic reasons), India might end up accepting as many verbal lashes from its ally as needed in order for the US to promote its soft power at New Delhi’s expense.
All that primarily matters for American-Indian relations is that their military ties remain on track and continue to be jointly directly against China. Even in the best-case scenario of Biden successfully reaching a “New Detente” with China (which would likely be fought tooth and nail by dissident pro-Trump members of his “deep state”), he’ll still need to militarily support India as a counterweight to the People’s Republic if only to remind Beijing of the consequences if such a proposed series of compromises between it and Washington fail. For that reason, the US’ democracy and human rights pressure on India will likely remain mostly symbolic.
from The Big Picture Of The World News On The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/3qEbGdu
No comments:
Post a Comment