Indian Defence Review

US threat of Sanctions for Purchase of S-400 Missile Systems from Russia

US enacted the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) in August 2017 to target Russia, Iran and N Korea. The Act prohibits other countries of the world from entering into defence contracts with these countries.  

India inked a $5 billion deal for the purchase of five Regiments S-400 Advanced Triumf long-range anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia in October 2018 defying US warnings of sanctions. Since then US has been cautioning India on purchase of missile systems from Russia. The Senior State Department official for South and Central Asian Affairs Alice G Wells went to the extent of telling the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation that at certain point India has to make a strategic choice about the type of weapon systems and platforms it is going to adopt.

Presently numbers of aircrafts in India’s Air Force has depleted considerably due to delays in procurement. With the aging of aircrafts such as MIG 21, MIG 27 and MIG 29 in the present fleet, the numbers are expected to go down further. S – 400 weapon system by virtue of its range, coverage, and the number of targets it can track at any one time and engage will free India’s Multi – Role Combat Aircrafts to carryout air to ground missions instead of being tied down exclusively to achieving air parity, thus filling up the gap in our existing capabilities. Should we at this stage abandon purchase of these missile system cowed down by US threat just to please the country?

Despite taking Washington into confidence on the purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia, a Senior State Department official told a group of reporters on May 31, 2019 that India should not assume that it will get a waiver from US sanctions if it went ahead with the purchase of S-400 Russian missiles and added that the purchase could also hamper the future of Indo-US defence relationship. Obviously that was a threat. As of today the issue of US sanctions to punish India for the purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia still hangs in balance.

Unilateral withdrawal from International Agreements   

US made a unilateral announcement in February 2019 that it is pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). The pact is an arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union signed in December 1987. The Treaty required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate and permanently give up all their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges from 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

By dumping the agreement, US hopes to deploy conventional ground-based, intermediate-range missile systems (GBIRs) against China which the INF Treaty prohibits the US from fielding. Due to range restrictions these missiles will have to be positioned in countries neighbouring China. Deploying offensive missile systems in their respective territories is not to the liking and interests of its allies Japan, S Korea, Philippines and the others in the Indo-Pacific region or elsewhere.

Should US not have consulted the Governments concerned before withdrawing from the treaty? Will US now attempt to force deploy these missiles in these countries? What if US threaten India with some such actions contrary to its interests against China in the process of containing that country?

Few examples of US threat to Europe and their deteriorating relations

Trump believes European members contribute very little towards NATO and get all the rewards while US is getting a raw deal due to economic costs of supporting the military alliance. During a NATO summit on July 12, 2018, at a closed door meeting Trump is said to have threatened the members by saying “I can do whatever I want because this alliance has no legitimacy,” and “spending must be raised by January 2019 or the US will go it alone”. On the second day of the conference, a meeting about plans for induction of Georgia and Azerbaijan to NATO which Trump had turned into one about NATO funding, Georgian and Azerbaijani leaders had to be asked to leave the room, and an emergency meeting called.    

The irony is, though Trump cries hoarse about economic costs of supporting NATO alliance and threatens to withdraw from the alliance, the Trump administration seems to have warned its NATO partners that additional moves toward establishing an independent defense entity through the European Union (EU) would be a “poison pill” for the Transatlantic alliance. What right does the US have in any action that EU may decide to initiate towards any independent Security arrangements they may wish to create to protect themselves?

On March 28, 2019, the WTO Appellate Body announced its ruling on Boeing, vindicating the EU’s position that the US hasn’t acted to comply with WTO rules on the issue of support to the company. On April 08, 2019, the Trump administration intensified pressure on the EU to end what it termed ‘harmful subsidies’ for the aircraft manufacturer Airbus. It released a list of European goods worth USD11 billion that could be hit with punitive tariffs with possible negative impact on the bilateral EU-US agreement on mutual tariff reductions.

Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal has not gone will with its NATO alliance partners and signatories to the JCPOA including Britain, France, and Germany. All the three countries have made it clear that they would not go along with the US in re-imposing economic sanctions on Tehran and have wowed to preserve the Iran Nuclear accord citing multiple inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) certifying Iran’s compliance of the accord.  These countries have been making efforts to protect Iran from the effects of the US sanctions.

The worst came when sometime in mid 2018 Trump administration without even showing the courtesy of informing the EU in advance, downgraded the diplomatic status of the EU mission in Washington from that of an Embassy to International Organisation. The head of the delegation who was listed as an ambassador by the Office of the Chief of Protocol now stands downgraded, in the State Department’s list of the diplomatic order of precedence to that of a “heads of delegation.”

If US could treat the European Countries, its long standing allies and partners in this manner, will India be spared? Are we as a nation prepared to accept such indignities?

Conclusion

Trump came to office with no significant foreign policy objectives relating to US’ relationship with India other than business interests and to talk India into becoming its front line state in its efforts to contain China. Independent decisions by countries based on their national interests are unacceptable to the US inviting threat of sanctions. One is not even sure as to what will invite the wrath or some retaliatory action as it happened at the end of G7 meet held in Jun 2018 in Canada when Trump refused to sign the summit communiqué over Canadian Prime Minister’s unwillingness to include a sunset clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).           

Chinese threat to India’s Northern borders and Indian Ocean besides China-Pakistan nexus are often cited as the reason why India needs to enter into a military alliance with US. Will US which till today has not even supported India’s claims against either Pakistan or China militarily intervene or fight alongside India’s military? US remaining silent during Doklam standoff is an eye opener.  Maintaining freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean and open airspace in the Indian Ocean region is a matter of interest to all the countries of the world which use these medium for transportation and not India’s alone. India becoming a US proxy in its efforts to contain China is not in the larger interests of the country. India’s emphasis under these circumstances lies in strengthening its economy, internal coherence and building military capacity. India will do well to maintain balance in its relations with the major powers.

Following Chinese President Xi Jinping-Modi meeting on the sidelines of SCO meet held in Bishkek between June 13-14, 2019 and the directions issued to the Special Envoys of both the countries to speed up discussions for a settlement of the boundary dispute, India needs to take forward the issue of resolution of the boundary question stressing the need for urgency in settling the issue in the larger interest of regional peace. Settling the border dispute with China will provide space for India to concentrate in other developmental issues.