Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities _______________________________ISSN 2348-6252

Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

The U.S. Interests and Policies towards South Asia: From Cold War Era to
Strategic Rebalancing
Mehraj Uddin Gojree
Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, INDIA
Available online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me
Received 9th March 2015, revised 6th April 2015, accepted 18th April 2015
Abstract
Long considered a "strategic backwater" from the U.S. perspective, South Asia has emerged in the 21st century as
increasingly vital to core U.S. foreign policy interests. During the Cold War era, the U.S. regarded South Asia as an area
of marginal strategic importance barring to check the communist expansion in the region. However, the recent shifts in
global power relationships have made South Asia an important region not to ignore. The situation after September 11 and
the Indo-U.S. strategic cooperation have changed the relationship pattern between the U.S. and South Asia. Present
involvement of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Indo-Pak rivalry, concerns about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, combating terrorism, and growing presence of Chinese influence in the region has significantly increased the
strategic importance of South Asia in the U.S. policy making circles. It is in this back drop the paper attempts to examine
the U.S. interests and thereby it policies in the region from Cold War era to the recent U.S. Rebalancing Strategy. While
doing so, a descriptive-historical method has been used to study and present the facts with optimum level of objectivity.

Keywords: The U.S., South Asia, foreign policy, interests, India, Pakistan, China.

Introduction world. Thereafter, the U.S. involvement in the South Asia grew
as a result of the political, military, and ideological competition
The term "South Asia" is now used for what, in colonial days with the Soviet Union. The principle determinant of the U.S.
was commonly recognized as the "Indian Sub-Continent" - a policy toward South Asia was the U.S. perception of region's
varied blend of British India and a range of kingdoms with relevance to the pursuit of its wider global geo-political and
varying degree of subservience to the colonial powers1. As per strategic goals. The U.S. interests in South Asia were governed
the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional by the region's geostrategic location in the proximity of major
Cooperation) definition, the region primarily includes India, powers like China and the Soviet Union. This significance was
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. also governed by the fact that South Asia is a region that
Lately, in 2005 Afghanistan was also included in this group of overlooks the vital sea lanes of communication in the Indian
nations. Ocean where it connects the two politically volatile and
economically critical regions of Asia - The Gulf and South East
South Asia is a huge land mass home to about one quarter of the Asia3. Thus the U.S. interests in South Asia instead of being
world's population. It has assumed much importance in direct and economically motivated, were governed by the
international politics today. Strategically located at the cross strategic competition with the Soviet Union and her drive of
roads of Asia, this region lies on the perimeter to China. It is maintaining superiority viz-a-viz the rest of the powers.
separated by a narrow strip of Afghan territory (the Wakhan)
from Central Asia2. Furthermore, it links the Middle East with Though the U.S. viewed South Asia as an area of marginal
South East Asia and forms the most important strategic area strategic importance (other than to check the expansion of
bordering the Indian Ocean. In this context, the U.S. as the sole communism during the Cold War period), the recent shifts in
Super power has some vital interests in this dynamic region. global power relationships has made South Asia an important
region not to ignore. The situation after September 11 and the
In retrospect, the U.S. did not see South Asia as an area of Indo-U.S. strategic cooperation have changed the relationship
strategic importance. Before Second World War, the U.S. pattern between U.S. and South Asia. Present involvement of
interests in South Asia were very limited and were primarily the U.S. in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Indo-Pak rivalry, concerns
commercial in nature. The American Tobacco Company was about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, fight against
making trade with South Asia and many educational, cultural terrorism, and the growing influence of China in the region have
and religious links were maintained between the U.S. and the significantly increased the strategic importance of South Asia in
South Asian region as a whole. After 1945, the U.S. left its the U.S. policy making circles4. Thus seen in this context, today
traditional policy of "isolationism" and joined the world affairs the U.S. policy interest is not anchored on a single set of issues -
mainly to check the expansion of Soviet Communism in the but on a set of core issues. These include counter-terrorism

International Science Congress Association 5

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

(where intelligence agencies have particular influence), Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Afghanistan (where military has a significant say), Pakistan
(where counter terrorism, Afghanistan and non-proliferation Nuclear non-proliferation has been a cornerstone of the U.S.
communities converge), India (where commerce and diplomatic foreign policy and this policy has somewhat engaged the U.S. in
interests dominate), and the broader "rebalancing” towards Asia South Asian affairs. In South Asia the main concern comes from
(where the greatest concern comes from China)5. A brief the tensions between India and Pakistan (potentially leading to
description of these issues and also how they affect or constitute nuclear attack), and the way nuclear energy and weaponry are
the U.S. vital interests, are discussed in the fallowing developed, stored, transported, and used10. On 11 and 13 May
paragraphs. 1998, India conducted five underground nuclear tests and on 28
and 30 May 1998, Pakistan fallowed the suit by conducting six
Counter Terrorism nuclear tests. These tests created a global storm of criticism, and
a serious setback for prolonged U.S. nuclear non-proliferation
In South Asia, terrorism and the related violent activities are not efforts in the region. On 13 May, 1998 the U.S. president
new phenomena. In fact, various groups have been using Clinton imposed military and economic sanctions on India,
terrorism as an instrument to advance their respective causes mandated by section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act
such as national self-determination, separatism, militant (AECA), and on 30 May the same sanctions were extended to
religious extremism, so on and so forth. However, it is the Pakistan 11. However in the subsequent years, these sanctions
increasingly global nature of terrorism that is playing a were lifted as they could not persuade India and Pakistan to halt
significant role in altering the rhetoric and challenges in South their nuclear weapons program.
Asia6. Every state in South Asia is currently a victim of or has
fallen victim to the terrorism related activities. In this regard, The issue of nuclear proliferation in South Asia is part of a
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are presently affected by chain of rivalries wherein India is trying to attain deterrence
terrorism and extremist violence on their soil7. Other regional against China, and Pakistan seeking to achieve an "equalizer"
states like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka also face the against a traditionally stronger India. The U.S. considers the
nuisance of terrorism either in the form of ethnic turmoil and current arms race between India and Pakistan very dangerous as
religious or political schism8. there is every possibility that it can end up in the nuclear
confrontation between these two South Asian rivals. In a
The region of South Asia is Indo-centric and all other South statement on 12 November, 1998 the U.S. Deputy Secretary,
Asian states are located around India. Due to this close Strobe Talbot presented fallowing three concerns of the U.S.
geographical proximity between South Asian states, the terrorist government. i. To prevent the nuclear and missile race in the
groups are exploiting cross-border ethnic ties, globalised region, ii. Making the global non-proliferation regime more
financial networks, and widely available communication strong; and iii. Promoting the good relations between India and
technologies to advance their influence beyond the local to the Pakistan and the resolution of Kashmir issue12.
national, regional, and even international levels. The lack of
governmental capacity to check the menace of widespread A nuclear attack by one side or the other would be devastating
corruption and socio-economic inequality makes South Asia a to regional peace and security which has raised the worries of
fertile breeding ground for terrorist organizations. Furthermore, U.S. in the region. Moreover, the U.S. concerns about nuclear
mistrust, suspicion, and hostility that characterize the political weapons in Pakistan are focused not only on preventing their
relationship between states have been a major hurdle in the way intentional or accidental use against India but also on Pakistan's
of effective regional cooperation in South Asia. security structures and controls of those weapons. This is
because of the fact that Pakistan was identified as a source of
Although, the SAARC has endeavored at several occasions to nuclear proliferation when in December 2003 A.Q. Khan (the
create regional responses to common challenges posed by father of Pakistan's atom bomb) and his associates were alleged
terrorism, its efficacy is often held hostage to the political to have sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea 13.
hostility between the two main South Asian actors - India and Later on, in an article published in January 2006 entitled, "A
Pakistan. Since the initiation of 'War on Terror' by the U.S. in World Free of Nuclear Weapons", former high ranking U.S.
Afghanistan, South Asia has become a breeding ground of officials William Perry, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, and
international terrorism. It can be asserted without any doubt that San Nun asserted that "the world is entering into a new nuclear
the emergence of terrorism as a destabilizing factor in South era, with nuclear know-how proliferating and non-state terrorist
Asia has put in danger the whole quest for peace and progress9. groups seeking to obtain and use weapons of mass
destruction14." Thus the prevention of the proliferation of
Thus, the menace of terrorism and terrorism related activities Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)
will remain an important threat to the U.S. interests in the region weapons and material, and the prevention of nuclear attack
and also to the South Asian states. In this context, the U.S. has a (intentional or accidental) between the two nuclear powered
long term interests and strategy in the region regarding the states in South Asia - India and Pakistan, is the vital interest of
threats posed by terrorist organizations. U.S. policy makers in the South Asian.

International Science Congress Association 6

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

Specific U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives for Key Second, preventing sate Failure: Today the U.S. is much more
Actors in the South Asian region concerned about the possible effects of armed violence on the
stability of Afghan state. The U.S. has worked to build Afghan
India: During the period of Cold War, the U.S. perception government's capacity, legitimacy and good governance. In all
about India was very low and therefore, often ignored it. The these fields, progress has been significant, but not strategically
closed and weak economy of India gave it little influence in decisive. Thus, the main challenges for the U.S. strategists
global markets, and its non-aligned foreign policy caused remain shaping the future of Afghanistan, protect gains made in
periodic tensions with Washington15. However, today with its nation building, and preventing a return to civil war fuelled by
billion-plus population, democratic institutions and values, Afghanistan's neighbors as was the case in the early 1990 when
steady growing economy and substantial defense establishment, the Soviet Union left Afghanistan.
India represents a partner of great value. In few years, it will
become one of the world's largest economies, and an important China: Though China is not located in South Asia, but it is
factor for the region's security and stability16. In this regard, the always there due to its alliance with Pakistan and its rivalry with
U.S. key interests in India include: i. Supporting India as India17. Moreover, China shares borders with five (Afghanistan,
counterweight to China by deepening strategic ties with it. ii. Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan) out of eight South Asian
Supporting the emergence of India as a pro-Western regional states, making it an integral part of South Asia18. In this context,
power. iii. Strengthening India’s “Look East” policy and its China perceives South Asia as its natural dominion where it is
presence in East Asia. iv. Seeking India's support for a destined to play a crucial role and has therefore, taken dynamic
prolonged U.S. presence in the region. v. To gain more and steps to enhance its role as an influential actor in the region.
more access to India’s markets and other sectors.
China's main strategic interests in the region of South Asia
Pakistan: The U.S.’ main strategic objectives in Pakistan are to consist of gaining access to markets and raw materials, securing
make Pakistan a stable and strong state which remains in control safe Sea Lanes of Communications (SLC) in the Indian Ocean
of its territory and nuclear capabilities, and also averts the Region (IOR) where bulk of its oil passes, and preventing the
export and development of extremist elements/organizations. region from emerging as a source of anti-China activities
The U.S. also expects that Pakistan should improve its relations (implicitly or explicitly by the Indo-U.S. nexus)19.
with India in a comprehensive manner so that both the states
could focus their attention on the socio-economic development According to China White Paper on National Defense 2002,
of their respective countries. More broadly, the U.S.' interests in China has done fallowing activities to counter the Indo-U.S.
Pakistan include: influence in the South Asia: i. Increase the People's Liberation
Army's (PLAs) activity in the IOR by constructing ports,
Supporting secular and democratic governments in Pakistan establishing electronic intelligence facilities, and ship visits for
with a pro-U.S. outlook. Working with Islamabad to: i. Save securing the SLCs, ii. Strengthening Pakistan's nuclear and
Pakistan from becoming a base for terrorist organizations. ii. missile arsenals, and also helping to make Pakistan's military
Defeat, dismantle, and disrupt al-Qaida and other terrorist and defense capabilities more robust and dynamic. iii.
organizations. iii. Working with Pakistani government to meet Enhancing military relations with Nepal by supplying arms and
its social, political, economic, and military needs for reducing other defense equipments. iv. Strengthening military
the inclination of masses towards violence. Making Pakistan’s cooperation with Myanmar by developing Myanmar’s overland
nuclear arsenal safe and secure from extremists. Seeking transport and maritime sectors. v. Enhancing defense
Pakistan's support in maintaining peace and stability in cooperation with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and developing
Afghanistan. strategic ports there and vi. Intensify the efforts to make
diplomatic relations with Bhutan normal.
Afghanistan: In Afghanistan, the U.S. has tried to improve the
capacity and legitimacy of Afghan state and institutions, both All these assertive moves by China in South Asia are a cause of
military and civilian, as part of an overall effort to foster concern for the U.S. strategists. Just as the U.S. policy towards
stability, reduce extremism and defeat Taliban. In this regard, China will have consequence for U.S. relations with South
the U.S interests in the region are based on the two pronged Asian states, China's policy towards South Asia will have
strategy, such as: consequences for Washington's interests. Thus the U.S. interests
in South Asia as for as China is concerned include: i. To
First, fight against terrorism: The main reason for entering working with China in maintaining regional and global security
Afghanistan, the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. soil, (but not at the expanse of the U.S. interests or strategic
will remain the main motivation for continuing to engage with dominance). ii. To enhance Confidence Building Measures
Afghanistan as long as there is possibility of return of (CBMs) with Chinese military, but also acting to contain its
international terrorists. Though, the U.S. does not face defeat in military expansionism (perceived or actual).
Afghanistan, but at the same time, there has not been any
concrete political and military success so far.

International Science Congress Association 7

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

U.S. Policy towards South Asia However, the U.S. involvement in the South Asia began to
change in the late 1960s as a result of global changes and
Cold War Period: There are several factors that affect the developments within the region leading to reassessment and
conduct of the U.S. foreign policy in any particular region. shift from a period of engagement to disengagement. The most
These factors include the level of continuity of the U.S. important global factors were the development of Sino-Soviet
interests, the attention, amount and quality of information rift, the emergence of oil diplomacy, and the Vietnam War. In
available at various levels of government, the constraints that line with its disengagement from the region, the U.S. adopted a
exist on the U.S. government and the constraints that exist with neutral stance between the Indo-Pak Wars in 1965 and 1971.
the region, and the type of influence and number of non- Greater challenges to the U.S. neutrality occurred during the
governmental interests that are found in the region20. In this Indo-Pak War in 1971, because the Soviet-India Partnership and
framework, the U.S.' South Asia policy can be termed as a the Treaty of 1971 successfully neutralized the U.S. and China.
series of ups and downs or a periods of engagement and periods It was during this time that the Sino-U.S. rapprochement
of disengagement. These patterns have been based on different occurred due to the efforts of Pakistan. Moreover, there were
calculations of what constitutes the U.S. interests. several other factors that reinforced those who argued for policy
of disengagement from the region. The feeling was that the U.S.
In the post Second World War period, the U.S. does not have interests would be served by the situation that existed and
vital interests in South Asia unlike the U.S. interests in the therefore, the U.S. should maintain a low profile politically,
Persian Gulf, the Caribbean or in East Asia where oil, economically, and militarily because: i. Politically, the argument
geographic proximity or enormous trade defined U.S. interests. was that the Soviet Union has assumed a basic responsibility for
South Asia does not possess the resources, location, or markets India's security and this would help to contain Chinese pressure
vital to the U.S. intrests21. Thus, during the Cold War, the U.S. but this in turn would also create problems for Sino-Soviet
trading and investment involvement in the South Asian region relations which as for as the Americans were concerned was all
was negligible. The principle determinant of U.S. policy to the good. ii. Economically, the argument was that South Asia
towards South Asia as mentioned earlier was the perception of was of little economic importance as there was very little by
region's relevance to the pursuit of its wider global geopolitical way of trade, investment or other such factors and those
and strategic goals. The major U.S. interest was to prevent the development problems in South Asia were so enormous that the
absorption of the area into the communist orbit. Former U.S. no matter what its resources would not be really effective.
Secretary of Defense Mc Namaro, for example remarked: iii. Militarily, there was also criticism that the arms that had
been supplied had been used by countries within the region
"South Asia has become with a combination of circumstance against each other rather than to check the communist
and geography a vital strategic area in the present context expansionism within the region.
between expansionist and non-expansionist power centers. In
friendly hands or as non-alliance states, South Asia can be a These three factors compelled the Americans to reassess their
bridge between Europe and the Far East and a major physical policies towards South Asia which subsequently led her to
barrier to the southwest expansion of China and the Soviet disengagement from the region. However, this process of
Union. In the hostile hands, it will seal the long term hope of disengagement was brought to a sudden halt when the Soviet
building a free Asian coalition able to provide adequate counter- Union invaded Afghanistan. The advent of Soviets in
weights to an expansionist China22." Afghanistan renewed the fear of Western countries led by U.S.
about the menace of communism in South Asia. Pakistan once
Due to this only geostrategic significance at the initial phase of again emerged as a frontline state in the U.S. policy making
Cold War, there was some degree of the U.S. involvement in the circles to check or overthrow the communists from Afghanistan.
South Asian regional security environment. In this context,
India's image in the eyes of U.S. policy makers was that it was Thus from the above description it can be asserted that the U.S.
not capable of providing leadership to South Asia in the fight policy towards South Asia during the Cold War period has been
against communism. Pakistan in their perception appeared well basically inconsistent, confused, and reactive rather than a long
placed to deal with this problem because of its religious affinity term and calculated one. The continued absence of direct
with Middle Eastern Muslim countries, its geographical material interests has helped to limit the U.S. involvement in the
closeness to oil rich Persian Gulf and to communist adversaries region. Instead, the U.S. has been guided in its South Asia
like Soviet Union and China, and more particularly its policy by its global interests and has, therefore, tended to view
willingness to balance India influence was indeed tempting in regional conflicts largely from global perspectives.
the eyes of the U.S policy makers23. Subsequently, the military
alliance of U.S. with Pakistan was perceived in India 'as a friend Post Cold War Period
of Pakistan and opposed to India.' The U.S. military aid to
Pakistan alienated India and pushed it towards the Soviet Union. In the post Cold War era, things again began to change, and if
there was a reassessment of the U.S. policies in the late 1960s
which led to a process of engagement to a process of

International Science Congress Association 8

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

disengagement, in the 1990s there was a renewed assessment number of reasons for the Clinton administration to advance
and again events developed which led to a new assessment relations with India which David S. Chou has categorized as
about engagement and disengagement. The end of Afghan War follows: i. The disintegration of Soviet Union had shattered the
in 1989 and the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 have all foundation of India's foreign policy and defense. India could no
combined to alter the U.S. global, regional, and bilateral longer use Moscow as a counter weight to Washington. ii. The
relations not just with South Asia, but with the entire world. The strategic value of Pakistan in the U.S. eyes also declined after
post Cold War period was marked with the remarkable shift in the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. As the predominant
the patterns of relationships among the nations in international power in Sub-Continent, India became more important to the
politics. Thus a new strategic scenario was witnessed with the U.S. for maintaining regional peace and stability. iii. So far as
collapse of Soviet Union and the end of Cold War24. shared values are concerned, the U.S. had a closer resemblance
to India than to Pakistan. iv. The India's economic reforms
According to Guihong, with the end of Cold War, the U.S. has during 1990s have changed her economy from central planning
to change its South Asia policy in two ways. First, the Soviet to market one. Washington viewed India as a vast future market
Union was no longer a decisive factor in its policy formulation for the U.S. goods, capital, and technology. v. Finally,
toward South Asia; instead the U.S. started to perceive the Sub- geopolitics considerations were also taken into account in
Continent from a regional context and began to treat India and Clinton’s policy towards India. Though he promoted a strategic
Pakistan differently. Second, the U.S. held that the threats to its partnership with China, yet at the same time he considered India
interests in South Asia came from within rather than outside the as a counter weight to China28.
region. Non-proliferation, economic liberalization, and
promotion of democratic values became impotent U.S. policy All these factors compelled the U.S policy makers to lean more
goals in South Asia25. towards India viz-a-viz Pakistan. Moreover, the Clinton
administration also tried to prevent the proliferation of Weapons
More broadly, according to Cohen and Dasgupta, the U.S. had of Mass Destruction (WMD) in South Asia. On 11 May, 1998
several identifiable interests in South Asia during the immediate India conducted nuclear tests using China thereat as an excuse.
phase of the post Cold War era. These were: i. Developing a On 28 May, Pakistan also claimed that it had set off five nuclear
strong economic and strategic relationship with India. ii. devices; followed by further tests on 30 May. Responding to
Preserving the integrity of Pakistan. iii. Curbing Islamic these tests, the U.S. administration under Clinton instantly
extremism. iv. Containing terrorist activity in Pakistan and extended military and economic sanctions against both these
Afghanistan. v. Preventing a potentially dangerous arms race on countries. However, since there was no impact of these
the Sub-Continent. vi. Promoting peace process between India sanctions on the mind set of India and Pakistan to change the
and Pakistan relating to Kashmir issue26. nuclear policy, the Clinton administration had to back down. On
15 July, 1998 the Congress passed the India-Pakistan Relief
Thus, in the post Cold War period the significance of South Act, commonly known as Brownback Amendment that relaxed
Asia for the U.S. increased. It was in this context that the South sanctions on both of these countries. Thus the Clinton
Asia Bureau was formed in 1992 through legislation supported administration's nuclear policy towards South Asia was not so
by Steven Solaez (Congressman) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan effective that it could check the further nuclear tests by India
(Senator) to focus more and more on this vital region in the and Pakistan in future.
Department of State (DoS) 27. Responsible for the U.S. relations
with South Asian countries, the Bureau coordinated the When G.W. Bush was elected as the U.S. president in late 2000,
initiatives that expanded the U.S. involvement in the region. In his administration began to take an "India First" policy like the
early 1997, a National Security Policy Review of South Asia previous administration of Clinton. It was because of the fact
was conducted, which culminated with the U.S president’s that India has emerged as a rising world power with great
historic visit in March 2000, the first presidential trip to South potential for emerging as global market. Thus, it was within the
Asia in over two decades. context of these developments that the Republican
administration tried hard to improve and upgrade its ties with
It must be mentioned here that President Clinton initially did not India.
considered South Asia as an important area. However, from
1994 onwards, he readjusted the U.S. policy towards South Unlike the Clinton administration who sought to forge a friendly
Asia. Along with Pakistan, he enhanced the economic and relationship with China, the Bush administration instead of
military relations with India. Like the previous administration, calling China as a strategic partner, began to treat it as a
Clinton also tried to check India and Pakistan from acquiring strategic rival. His administration believed that China was the
nuclear weapons and to reduce the tension between them over future challenger to the U.S. in Indo-Pacific region. That is why,
Kashmir issue. China was treated as an important part of Bush's policy towards
South Asia. It was widely recognized that only India could serve
After 1994, the Clinton administration initiated various as a counter weight to China. The border issues are still alive
measures to improve the relations with India. There were a between China and India on which they have already fought a

International Science Congress Association 9

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

war in 1962. Under these circumstances, it was natural for the Obama and His Rebalancing Strategy
Bush administration to fortify strategic relations with India so
that it can act as a counter weight to China. Bush also down It is widely believed that the rise of Asia would have profound
played the cornerstone of Clinton's non-proliferation policy in implications for the future of U.S. That is why the strategic
South Asia. For cementing the strategic relations with India, the rebalancing initiated by Obama seeks to deepen the U.S.
Bush administration sought to lift the sanctions which Clinton engagement with the region at various important levels. The
administration had imposed on India and Pakistan in 1998. main purpose of this strategy is to support the rise of prosperous
Thereafter, the U.S. enhanced the military cooperation with and peaceful Asia. A dynamic and prosperous Asia, integrated
India in a comprehensive way. with the global economy is central to the U.S. interests
particularly to the U.S. economy30. In this context, expanding
Post September 11 Period the rebalancing to include South Asia is not just indispensable,
it is also vital in the U.S. foreign policy calculations. The
The terrorist attacks on the twin towers of World Trade Centre significance of South Asia lies in the fact that a peaceful and
and Pentagon on 11 September, 2001 altered significantly the stable South Asia that joins East Asia's production networks will
U.S. global strategy. The global war on terrorism became the offer counter point to the predominance of China's economic
first strategic priority for the U.S. policy makers and all other expansion in the region and produce additional impetus and
priorities were receded to secondary status including the "China resilience to Asia's rise. Thus, by extending the strategic
threat". For example, Christina Rocca the Assistant Secretary rebalancing to South Asia, the U.S. indicates a timely signal to
for South Asia told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in its long term commitment to the region.
March 2004, that the top U.S. foreign policy goals in the South
Asian region would be fighting terrorism and the eradicating China-India Policy
conditions that breed terror in the frontline states of Afghanistan
and Pakistan. These terrorist attacks changed the dynamics of Under Obama administration, the U.S policy towards South
regional security in South Asia by bringing Pakistan to the Asia has displayed more continuity than change. Thus, Obama's
centre stage and putting parts of the Indo-U.S. agenda on the stewardship of the U.S. foreign policy is continuing his
hold. In this regard, two factors contributed to Pakistan’s predecessor’s success in maintaining regional stability and the
renewed significance in the U.S. eyes. i. First, Pakistan had U.S. preeminence in the South Asian region. In line with this
close geographical affinity with Afghanistan and at the same strategy, Obama while continues to build a cooperative
time has cultivated diplomatic relations with the Taliban relationship with China but at the same time hedges against its
government. ii. Second, in the U.S. eyes Pakistan itself growing military power, all the while forging a strategic
combined the two major security threat: WMD and the partnership with India31.
perceived links with terrorism.
Obama, like Bush supports the emergence of India as an
The U.S. and Pakistan diversified their cooperation which emerging power. During the term of Bush administration, the
included supporting and strengthening Pakistan’s law U.S. recognized that India would be a major power in 21st
enforcement agencies and countering terrorism capabilities, century. Therefore, the Bush administration accorded defacto
coordination of intelligence agencies in tracing out of al Qaeda recognition of India's acquisition of nuclear weapons and
members and other terrorists within Pakistan, and more thereafter both the states have diversified the areas of
particularly coordinating with military and law enforcement cooperation including defense, security, economics and other
agencies along the borders of Afghanistan. Thus, by resorting areas. Likewise, Obama administration despite focusing on
Pakistan to frontline status in a "War against Terrorism” after Pakistan as the key partner in the war against terrorism,
September 11, challenged the Clinton's policy of treating continues toIndia as a valuable strategic partner.
Pakistan as a failing state and recognizing India as the
hegemonic state. Soon after September 11, in its war against Af-Pak Policy
terrorism in Afghanistan, the Bush administration restored
Pakistan to its role as a frontline state29. One of the first foreign policy initiatives that Obama undertook
immediately upon his assumption of office in 2009 was to
The U.S.' close cooperation with Pakistan has led to bitterness address the deteriorating situation in the Afghanistan and
in Indo-U.S. relations in the short term. However, this bitterness Pakistan border region or Af-Pak. This historically 'wild' area
between the U.S. and India over Pakistan were not to affect a with a porous border has been identified as the safe haven for
long term convergence emanating from security cooperation, the Taliban, al Qaeda and similar other terrorist groups. Obama
trade and commercial interests, and democratic values cherishe had promised during presidential election to make 'Af-Pak'
by both the U.S. and India. theater his number one priority, down grading the Iraqi theater
of 'War on Terror'32. Thus, shortly after President Obama took
office, he announced the creation of special envoy for the 'Af-
Pak' region. The U.S. also directed a major review of policy and

International Science Congress Association 10

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan that 'regionalized' the 6. Rosand Eric, Naureen Chowdhury Fink and Jasan Ipe,
policy, closely linking the U.S. approach to both33. The security Countering Terrorism in South Asia: Strengthening
agenda are/will remain paramount in the U.S. objectives in this Multilateral Engagement, Centre for Global Counter
region, and giving the ongoing flow of Taliban and other Terrorism Cooperation and International Peace Institute,
militants across the Durand Line, will irrevocably bind the two New York, 2 (2009)
nations together.
7. Abeyagoonasekar Asanga, Iromi Dharmawardhane and
Charuni Ranawera, South Asia: Overcoming Terror with
In Afghanistan, the U.S. and International Security Assistance Regional Commitment to Peace, Paper presented to
Forces (ISAFs) will remain focused on training the Afghan ICWA-ASS Asian Conference on Transforming South
National Security Forces (ANSFs) so that they can maintain
Asia: Imperatives for Action, 9-10 March, New Delhi, 6
peace when the international coalition forces led by the U.S.
(2012)
leave Afghanistan. While in Pakistan, the U.S. is increasingly
focused on counter-terrorism, non-proliferation and ensuring the 8. Ahmar Moonis, South Asian Response to the War on
security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Terrorism, Journal of Political Studies, 11, 1-9 (2007)
9. Ahmad Ishtiaq, Terrorism in South Asia: Retrospect and
Conclusion Prospect, Paper Presented at International Seminar on
Terrorism in Retrospect and Prospect, Organized by
Thus from the above description of the U.S.' core interests and
London Institute of South Asia (LISA) on 12 July, (2011)
policies towards South Asia from the Cold War era to Strategic
Rebalancing, it can be asserted that this region has remained a 10. Lamb Robert D., Sadika Hameed and Kathryn Mixon,
dynamic area where the U.S.' interests and thereby its foreign South Asia Regional Dynamics and Strategic Concerns: A
policy priorities has been oscillating with ups and downs or Framework for U.S. Policy and Strategy in South Asia
engagements and disengagements. Nevertheless, it is also 2014-2026, A Report of the CSIS Program on Crisis,
observed that the strategic interests have been most important Conflict and Cooperation, Centre for Strategic and
factor for the U.S. policy towards South Asia. Such a policy has International Studies (CSIS), 3 (2014)
remained an important part of the U.S. global strategy that 11. Blood Peter R., Indo-U.S. Relations, CRS Issue Brief for
wants to see Europe or Asia free from domination by any hostile Congress, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, 6-
power. In the U.S. policy calculations, during the cold war era 5 (2002)
the Soviet Union was that power and in the 21st century China is
emerging such a power. Thus as long as the shadow of "China 12. Jain Rashmi (ed.), The United States and Pakistan 1947-
Threat" remains in the minds of the U.S. policy makers; the U.S. 2006, Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, (2007)
will treat India as its mutual partner in the South Asian region. 13. Javaid Umbreen and Qamar Fatima, U.S. Foreign Policy
At the same time, as long as the terrorism is not eliminated and Parameters towards Pakistan and India (2001-2008),
Afghanistan is not transformed into a peaceful and stable Journal of Political Studies, 19 (2), 21-40 (2012)
country free from terrorism, the U.S. will try to maintain its
current balanced policy towards India and Pakistan. 14. Inderfurth Karl F., U.S.-India Relations, in America's Role
in Asia: Asian and American Views, Report prepared by
The Asia Foundation, 253-269 (2008)
References
15. Feigendaun Evan A., India's Rise, America's Interest: The
1. Singh Nirvikar, The Idea of South Asia and its Middle Fate of the U.S.-Indian Partnership, Foreign Affairs, 89(2),
Class, Paper presented at the Conference Marking the 76-91 (2010)
launch of Institute for South Asian Studies at the National
University of Singapore from 27-28 January, Paper No., 16. Wisner II Frank G. (et.al.), New Priorities in South Asia:
(243), 1 (2005) U.S. Policy towards India, Pakistan and Afghanistan,
Report of an Independent Task Force, Co-Sponsored by
2. Hasan Zubeida, South Asia as a Region, Pakistan Horizon, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society,
17(2), 161-167 (1964) New York, 12 (2003)
3. Kumar Madhurendra, American Strategy in South Asia 17. Xun Sun, New Nuclear Triangle and China's Role in South
From Cold War to Post-Cold War, The Indian Journal of Asia, RCSS Policy Studies 32, Colombo, 19 (2005)
Political Science, 67(3), 605-616 (2006)
18. Malik J. Mohan, South Asia in China's Foreign Relations,
4. Ganguly Shivaji, U.S. Policy towards South Asia, Pacific Review, 13(1), 73-90 (2001)
Westview Press, Boulder Co., 27 (1990)
19. Hassan Saadat, Indo-U.S. Nuclear/Strategic Cooperation:
5. Evans Alexander, The United States and South Asia After Chinese Response, Strategic Studies, xxxi(4), 44-88 (2012)
Afghanistan, Asia Society, New York, 2 (2012)
20. Kochanek Stanely A., The U.S. Foreign Policy in South
Asia, Pakistan Horizon, 46(3), 17-25 (1993)

International Science Congress Association 11

Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities___________________________________________ ISSN 2348-6252
Vol. 2(4), 5-12, April (2015) Res. J. Lang. Lit. Humanities

21. Grinter Lawrence E., The United States and South Asia: 28. Chou David S., U.S. Policy towards India and Pakistan in
New Challenges, New Opportunities, Asian Affairs, 20 the Post Cold War, Tamking Journal of International
(2), 101-119 (1993) Relations, 8(3), 27-56 (2005)
22. Kochanek Stanely A., The U.S. Foreign Policy in South 29. Rudolph Lloyd I. and Susanne Hoeber Rudolp, The
Asia", Pakistan Horizon, 46 (3), 19 (1993) Making of Foreign Policy for South Asia: Offshore
23. Hilali A.Z., U.S.-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Balancing in Historical Perspective, Economic and
Afghanistan, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Burlington, 14 Political Weekly, 41(8), 703-709 (2006)
(2005) 30. Nehru Vikram, The Rebalancing to Asia: Why South Asia
Matters, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
24. Crockkatt Richard, The End of Cold War, in Steve Smith
(ed.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford Washington, 1 (2013)
University Press, Oxford, 89 (1997) 31. Rahawestri Mayong A., Obama's Foreign Policy in Asia,
More Continuity than Change, Security Challenges, 6 (1),
25. Guihong Zhang, U.S. Security Policy towards South Asia
109-120 (2010)
after September 11 and its Implications for China: A
Chinese Perspective, Strategic Analysis, 27(2) (2003) 32. Bannerjee Jyotirmay, Obama's Af-Pak Dilemma, Indian
Journal of South Asian Affairs, 23(1), 21-40 (2010)
26. Cohen Stephen P. and Sunil Dasgupta, U.S.-South Asia:
Relations under Bush, Brookings Oxford, Analttica, 2 33. Dormandy Xenia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Xenia
(2001) Dormandy (ed.), The Next Chapter: President Obama's
Second Term Foreign Policy, Chatham House, The Royal
27. History of the Department of State During the Clinton
Institute of International Affairs, London, 54 (2013)
Presidency (1993-2001), U.S. Department of State,
Retrieved 21 January 2015 (2001)

International Science Congress Association 12