Great-Power Relations | Why Did Blinken’s Lightning Visit Bring the United States and India Closer?

What is the relationship between America and India?

Shanghai Institute for Global Governance and Regional Country Studies* Aug 3, 2021, 10:27 AM* Shanghai*

China-United States friendly and mutual trust programme

From 27 to 28 July, United States Secretary of State Brinken visited India to exchange views with India on the new epidemic, the situation in Afghanistan and the Quartet cooperation mechanism. In the case of Afghanistan, the United States and India, each with its own considerations, are still awaiting the evolution of the situation in Afghanistan. On the issue of China, the two countries will continue to suffer on the border between China and India, the South China Sea and Tibet through closer cooperation with the “quartet” mechanism.

The American-Indian relationship of the rapid warming.

On 27 July, United States Secretary of State Brinken arrived in New Delhi and began a two-day trip to India. In addition to transportation time, Brinken focused his main trip on 28 days, where he met intensively with the Indian National Security Adviser, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, as well as with Indian civil society. In addition, he met briefly with representatives of the Dalai Lama. On the margins of the meeting, Brinken received an interview with the American and Indian media and visited the United States Mission to India. Immediately after the end of his trip to India, Brinken went to Kuwait to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Gulf War and returned to Washington on 29 September.

High-level interaction between the United States and India has been very frequent since Bhai came to power. When Biden first took office, Prime Minister Modi of India and the Prime Minister of India spoke to him by telephone, emphasizing “the common democratic belief”. In March and April of this year, the leaders of the two countries took advantage of the “four-way” mechanism dialogue and the Global Leaders Climate Summit to hold online talks. The Foreign Ministers and Chiefs of Defence of the two countries also interacted with each other, and the United States Defense Commissioner, Austen, paid a high-profile visit to India in March, committing to deepening cooperation between the two countries; and Foreign Minister Sujayson of India visited the United States at the end of the month, following a brief meeting between Foreign Ministers G7 and Brinken in May. According to the Indian Express, this visit by Brinken also laid the groundwork for the “Four Side” Leaders Summit in the United States of America, scheduled for late this year.

In spite of the short stay, Brinkon's visit held a high-level exchange of views with India on a number of key issues, including the New Crown Vaccine, the “Four Side” mechanism, climate change, human rights issues, the situation in Afghanistan, etc., and highlighted to the outside world the unprecedented close cooperation between the United States and India, which, in a joint press conference with Indian Foreign Minister Sujayson, declared: “There is hardly anything in the world more important about bilateral relations than American and Indian relations”. In addition, the time for Brinken to visit India coincided with the media attention of Under-Secretary of State Sherman after he had completed his modest trip to China.

The two countries have shown very proactive cooperation on a number of well-established and ambitious issues. Since the visit of United States climate envoy Kerry to India in March, the process of cooperation between the two countries on this issue has been smooth, and the United States-India Partnership on the Climate and Clean Energy Agenda 2030 was launched in April this year. In addition, on the issue of the new crown vaccine, Brinkon announced that the United States Government would provide an additional $25 million to improve the vaccine supply chain in India, improve the “vaccination hesitation” of the population and help train more health workers to mitigate the epidemic in India. The Wall Street Journal reported that earlier this year, the United States, Japan and Australia had committed more than $200 million to India to help India ' s vaccine company rapidly expand its capacity and increase its global supply chain by 1 billion doses by 2022.

During his visit, Brinken also criticized the human rights situation in India “as planned”. According to Deutsche Welle, in a human rights report released in March, the United States Department of State criticized India for “unlawful and arbitrary killings, and police executions without legal support”, and that the Government “restricts freedom of expression and the press and uses defamation laws to regulate social media” in the course of its immunization. According to the report, a 84-year-old Indian priest accused of terrorism and died at the beginning of this month after nine months in detention, which prompted condemnation by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, and the international community's attention to the injustices suffered by the Muslim community in India.

Although these topics were repeatedly mentioned at the Department of State's pre-publishing session, it is clear that they were not the focus of the visit. Blinken only said a few words when he met with civil society: “The fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are the common tenets of democracies like the United States and India... We believe that all people should have a say in their Governments and should be respected.” In response, the Associated Press quoted a scholar, Kugelman, who said: “Human rights issues are unlikely to fundamentally affect American-Indian relations. In the final analysis, as long as the rise of China continues to be a matter of common concern, no matter how bad the human rights situation in India may be, there will be no problem in relations between the two countries.”

The delicate question of Afghanistan

In contrast to human rights issues, it is Afghanistan that the United States and India really need to communicate and even compromise. In recent weeks, the Taliban's offensive has intensified, and the Wall Street Journal quoted an Indian official as saying that the Taliban had occupied 212 of Afghanistan's 426 districts (mainly rural and northern) and had taken control of key border crossings to Pakistan. The Taliban claimed to have taken control of more than half of the country. At the same time, the Biden Government is keenly planning for the full withdrawal of United States and United States troops in Afghanistan by 31 August, in order to fulfil its commitment to “completely withdraw from Afghanistan by the twentieth anniversary of 11 September” at the time of the elections. Thus, the future situation in Afghanistan is largely clear.

At a press conference on Wednesday, CNBC journalists asked about the differences and the consensus between the two Foreign Ministers on Afghanistan, saying that the two countries were dominated by consensus on the issue, and that “different backgrounds and different positions” could lead to a slightly different view. Brinken agreed with this and further noted that there was no military solution to the Afghan problem, that negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan Government were needed and that any future Government in Afghanistan must be highly inclusive and fully representative of the Afghan people. Ultimately, however, Afghans need to lead and have ownership of the peace process in their country. He also indicated that the United States would remain highly involved in the Afghan issue after the completion of the withdrawal, not only by providing development and security assistance, but also by “actively engaging in diplomatic good offices to facilitate the peace negotiation process”.

This statement by the Foreign Ministers of both countries reflects the delicate attitude of both countries with regard to Afghanistan. For the United States, while there is no point in continuing to be caught in the mirage of war in Afghanistan, it would also harm Biden's political capital, but total non-interference would have led to the destruction of two decades of business results, and it would have been possible to find a “right balance” between these two situations with the strength of India. On the other hand, as India is not yet ready for the impact of the full withdrawal of United States troops, India will inevitably require that the United States military presence be maintained in Afghanistan as much as possible.

Sujayson, after his talks with Brinken, stated to journalists that “as a country that has maintained a strong military presence in Afghanistan for 20 years, the sudden withdrawal of the United States will have unintended consequences”. The Washington Post, for its part, stated that Indian officials hoped that the United States forces would continue their air strikes against the Taliban within four months of withdrawal and try to prevent them from taking control of the entire territory of Afghanistan, which was not necessarily in line with United States considerations.

For India, the question of Afghanistan is far from being as simple as “black or white”. On the one hand, the Government of India has always been vigilant against the Taliban, given its constant fear that their support by Pakistan would pose a threat to the security of India and even serve as a breeding ground for terrorist activities. In addition, according to the Indian Express, India has invested more than $3 billion over two decades in Afghanistan to build infrastructure such as hospitals, roads, dams, schools and more than 400 projects in 34 provinces of the country. The two countries signed a strategic partnership agreement in 2011, which was followed by the opening of air transport corridors, resulting in a continuous increase in trade volumes. Last November, Sujsen also announced that 100 “community development” projects valued at $80 million would be launched. Once the Taliban have taken control of the entire territory of Afghanistan, India ' s investment over the years will be rewarded.

On the same day that Brinken visited India, the head of the Afghan Taliban Political Committee, Baladar, visited China and was received by the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, in Tianjin. The Wall Street Journal states that China's political contacts with the Taliban have been ongoing for a long time, after Taliban spokesman Shahin also stated: “We will not allow anyone — individuals or entities — to use Afghan territory against the United States, its allies or any other country, including China”. As the Taliban took control of Badakhshan province in north-eastern Afghanistan, and came to the mountains bordering the Xinjiang region of China, the organization was anxious to dispel China’s potential concerns and release goodwill to China in order to use the latter’s influence to prepare its legitimacy.

India is deeply concerned about such developments and believes that China is trying to fill the “power vacuum” in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the United States, to squeeze out India's pre-existing influence on Afghanistan, to unite Pakistan and the future Afghan regime, and to create a geopolitical posture to block India. As a result, the Government of India has also recently begun contacts with the Taliban in an attempt to hold some leverage on both sides of Afghanistan.

From the standpoint of all, the considerations were complex until the complete withdrawal of United States troops and the dust of the situation in Afghanistan were settled, and it was difficult for India and the United States to reach a full consensus at this time. The Washington Post quoted a Pentagon official as saying that the United States did take note of India ' s long-term investments in Afghanistan, but refused to reveal what specific demands the two countries had on Afghanistan. This will probably also be one of the main themes of the “Four Side” Summit at the end of the year.

The situation between the Quartet and the border between China and India

Beyond Afghanistan, the implicit theme of Brinkon's visit to India is the Chinese strategy, and even Afghanistan can be part of the Chinese strategy. On this issue, the two countries are suffering mainly from China through the US-Australian-India “Four Side” mechanism and the China-India border solidarity alliance. “The scope and intensity of American-Indian cooperation is unprecedented,” C. Raja Mohan, Director of the South Asia Institute of the National University of Singapore, said, “Chinese-Indian relations are in the worst period ever, opening up space for extensive cooperation between the United States and India.”

From the very beginning of Biden's tenure, we have analysed that the efforts of the United States to build and consolidate the Four Sides Alliance have been sustained and comprehensive. As long ago as the Trump Government launched the Indo-Pacific Strategy, the four countries of the United States and Australia maintained a high degree of convergence on China-related issues and held joint military exercises in the Western Pacific Sea. The emphasis on the “Tournal” alliance has not been weakened in any way since Biden came to power, and through intensive meetings at the top of the four countries in the first half of the year, this mechanism has in fact become the major geographical alliance of the United States to block China in Indo-Pacific and Asia-Pacific. India is less dependent on the Chinese market than Japan, and closer to Australia and China, it is bound to be an important feeder of the “four” alliance. CNN also reported that a large part of Brinken's talks with Sujsen also revolved around the Four Sides mechanism.

On several occasions, Brinken visited India, the “four-side” mechanism appeared as a high frequency of keywords.

During a joint press conference with Su Jiesheng, Mint’s journalists asked how the Foreign Ministers would respond to China’s criticism of the “Tournal” mechanism, Blinken said that the “Tournal” mechanism represented a coordinated effort between “a group of like-minded democracies” that worked together on such global priorities as vaccine distribution, economic recovery, response to the climate crisis, and maritime security. He also stressed that the “four-side” mechanism was not a military alliance and was designed to “respond to regional challenges and to uphold international rules and values of peace, prosperity and stability”. Sujsheng went on to say that, in the era of globalization, India's interests were “extended beyond national borders” and that India's interests were shared in the Indo-Pacific region. He added that a State should “do not consider that the acts of cooperation of other States must be detrimental to itself and that such acts of cooperation are in the interest of all mankind”.

During a subsequent CNN interview with Brinken, the interviewer asked further questions on the subject at the outset, asking Brinken to explain specifically what the United States perceived as the “four sides” mechanism and once again to respond to China's allegations about the “four sides” mechanism. Brinken's response was broadly consistent with the wording of the press conference, with the addition of the phrase “maintain the belief in free and open areas of the Indo-Pacific region”. He also stressed that, as the above-mentioned major global problems could not be solved by a single State, “it is natural that these democracies are united”. In response to China’s accusations about the “Tournal” mechanism, Brinkon stressed that the “Tournal” mechanism currently plays a role in the provision, distribution and prevention of vaccines, not at all against China.

While Brinken repeatedly emphasized in his interviews that the “quadrilateral” mechanism was not a military alliance and did not imply a declaration of war against other member States when other States attacked one member State, such assurances were also questioned to some extent, given the depth of the bilateral defence cooperation framework between the United States and the other three countries. When Brinken was asked “how to respond to China's accusations” twice, he did not directly deny that the “quartet” was aimed at China, nor did he specify where the “regional challenge” came from, but, to the left and the left, he repeatedly emphasized the role of the “quartet” in the prevention of epidemics, which was itself a form of acquiescence. The rapid development of the “four-side” mechanism over the past year, as well as its upcoming first-under-line summit of leaders at the end of the year, stands in stark contrast to the stagnating Chinese-American relations and the wave of Chinese-American high-level talks, with clear answers to the “enemy” question.

The intent of the “Four Side” mechanism to block China has not yet been clearly identified, and the situation along the border between China and India has begun to deteriorate. According to Bloomberg, India has recently increased its troops to more than 50,000 people in the three disputed areas of the border between China and India and now has 200,000 Indian troops stationed in the border area between China and India, an increase of 40 per cent over last year. On 27 June, Indian Defence Minister Singh travelled high-profilely to the Radak region to inspect the status of the Indian military alert, the first time since February this year that the two armies announced disengagement from the Banguk area, where high-ranking Indian officials travelled to Radak, where last year's border conflict between India and China took place. In addition, India has deployed more than 20,000 additional soldiers on the Indian-Pakistan border who have carried out “counter-terrorism missions”.

Against this background, the visit of Brinken to India was accompanied by a statement of political support for India. According to The Indian Times, Brinken met briefly with representatives of the so-called “Tibet Exile Authority” Ngodup Dongchung in the morning after a meeting with Sujsen.

In this regard, during a regular press conference held on 29 September, the spokesman of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lixin, expressed his firm opposition to any form of contacts between official persons from any country and Dalai. The United States should abide by its commitments and desist from using the Tibetan issue and its implications to interfere in China's internal affairs, as well as from providing any support for the anti-China activities of the “Tibet independence” forces. According to Agence France-Presse (AFP), Chinese leaders have recently gone to Tibet to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the peaceful liberation of Tibet, a move widely regarded by Brinken as a renewed pressure on China on Tibet, while expressing support for India at a time of continuing tension along the border between China and India.

The Biden Government's policy towards China has essentially taken shape, with the “quartet” mechanism, with India as its main anchor, becoming the main geopolitical weapon. Against this backdrop, both the Chinese-Indian border, which is bulwark by large armies, and the war-torn Afghanistan, will be at the forefront of the race of the great Powers.