United States-India Defense Cooperation Act of 2024: To Whom It May Concern

On July 25, American Republican Senator, Marco Rubio proposed bill titled ‘United States-India Defense Cooperation Act of 2024’ which lays out a structured framework for augmentation of the United States.- India defense relations in addition to existing four foundational agreements – GSOMIA, LSA, CISMOA and BECA. The bill is aimed at strengthening India’s deterrence capabilities. However, the bill has ambiguity with respect to whom the impact of this legislation may concern.

In the structured framework for strengthened defense ties, the bill prioritizes transfer of the US’ Excess Defense Articles to India equivalently to the United States’ other allies of NATO and North Korea under section 516 (c) (2), Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, however, remaining within the partnership categorization which indicates why the US went into the alliance-based QUAD framework with Philippines over the previous QUAD with India. Yet India has the partnership edge as under the ‘exception for sanctionable transactions provision’, India receives waivers for importing from Russia – that is where a significant portion of India’s defense equipment originate from. This waiver extends to any equipment that pertains to India’s existing capabilities of Russian origin, ensuring that no sanctions are imposed on such transactions. This precedent was established with India’s acquisition of the S-400 surface-to-air missile system from Russia. Generally, any country purchasing Russian defense equipment falls under article 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), since it financially supports Russian defense sector against the US. However, the United States imposed sanctions on Türkiye for a similar purchase by banning all the U.S. export licenses and authorizations, and it granted India a waiver under special conditions.

There is nothing new proposed in assistance to India since US-India interoperability and technology exchange is already taking place. Under the auspices of this agreement also, India is still expected to operate within its foreign policy limitations as far as integrated deterrence strategy of the United States for ‘Indo-Pacific’ is concerned; India would go for logistical support and tankers service, repairing and refueling services. Yet, the question remains that in case of a conflict in the Pacific, would India participate militarily?

The bill also delineates India’s land and maritime borders as recognized by the United States, and notably, not as per the United Nations, indicating a significant shift in the U.S.’ policy towards Kashmir by identifying the territory as ‘Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.’ In such a case in future, under section 2, (a) (2), if any allegations like the Uri, Pathankot, and Pulwama are levelled by India against Pakistan, US Congress is liable to intervene and also any assistance to Pakistan by the United States may be suspended. Supposedly, this is the case then if anything happens in Jammu and Kashmir will be blamed on Pakistan; thereby indicating that a third party intervention can most probably lead to a crisis, as amid Pulwama-Balakot incident, influencing the deterrence stability that has been carefully managed till date in South Asia, bilaterally by the two nuclear capable states and adversaries. South Asian security dynamics are not as simple as assumed by the proponents of the bill.

But what makes referencing Pakistan necessary? Interestingly, entire section 9 is Pakistan centric, however, it manifests policy persistence in the U.S.’ foreign policy towards Pakistan, with the ‘do more’ cliché in the American and significantly in the Indian interests. The provisions call for combat against the alleged terrorist groups who once attacked in Afghanistan the U.S. forces’ or on the other hand, the Indian territory by recognizing Indian allegations of attacks from Pakistani territory in India. In favour of the United States, if Pakistan does the combat, it would further deteriorate already tensed relations between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban government wherein the two may come into direct clash. With reference to the mention of FATA, Quetta, and Muridke, Jadhav’s confession is on record with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), witnessing India’s funding of the banned organizations in Pakistan. As far as FATA is concerned, the United States has consistently pressurized Pakistan against Pakistan’s deportation strategy of Afghans to counter terrorism in Pakistan by the terrorists of the Afghan origin. Pakistan has a history of carrying out military operations domestically and internationally, both in assistance to the U.S.’ war against terrorism and in the interest of Pakistan’s national security. Lastly, Muridke is associated with Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Jamaat-ul-Da’awa (JuD) and it indicates a mere cliché and persistence of policy since Interior Ministry of Pakistan has clearly included Jamaat-ul-Da’awa (JuD) and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba into the list of proscribed entities by NACTA; and has stamped out their financial sources investigated and confirmed before Pakistan’s exit from the FATF grey list. The Muridke complex of JuD is in the possession of the government of Pakistan’s and used for public welfare. The provisions stressing for dismantling of supplier networks of nuclear materials pose allegations of the existence of such nationals carrying out nuclear proliferation, however, with no such recent incident in record.  IAEA recognizes Pakistan’s strengthened nuclear and radiation safety and Nuclear Security Index (NTI) in 2023 ranks Pakistan well above India in handling and security of its nuclear Material against theft.

But its prospects for becoming a law with a few amendments would be politically motivated. Politically, it is time crucial since United States is going for elections and Biden may leave a legacy for India before leaving. In particular, Indian lobby in the U.S. government is strong and the Indian caucus in the U.S. Congress is the biggest, followed by Israelis backing India. Any election candidate seeking campaign funding and support from Indians would consider it an appeasement act by passing anti-Pakistan legislation. One such bill titled ‘Afghanistan Counterterrorism, Oversight, and Accountability Act’, having huge allegations against Pakistan, was moved in September 2021 in the U.S. Senate however dropped off because of the denunciation.