Are U.S.-India relations oversold?

[ajtr]

Are U.S.-India relations oversold?​

The biggest disappointment of President Barack Obama's Asia trip was his failure to strike an agreement on the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement in Seoul. His biggest success was his embrace of a transformative partnership with India. The president can now claim ownership of a relationship that has been on the rocks since he took office, and he deserves considerable credit for arguing that India's rise and success as a future democratic superpower is a core interest of the United States.

The president's vision of a far-reaching partnership with India -- to manage global diplomatic and security challenges, tie the two countries together in a mutually beneficial economic embrace, and promote freedom and rule of law in Asia and beyond -- was bracing. Obama's warm reception by the Indian parliament, commentariat, and public bodes well for future ties between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracies.

In New Delhi, Obama made a strong case for strengthening Indo-U.S. ties -- and to create an "indispensable" partnership that would help define the course of the 21st century:

Now, India is not the only emerging power in the world. But the relationship between our countries is unique. For we are two strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same revolutionary words -- the same revolutionary words -- "We the people." We are two great republics dedicated to the liberty and justice and equality of all people. And we are two free market economies where people have the freedom to pursue ideas and innovation that can change the world. And that's why I believe that India and America are indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time… The United States not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it, and we have worked to help make it a reality… [P]romoting shared prosperity, preserving peace and security, strengthening democratic governance and human rights -- these are the responsibilities of leadership. And as global partners, this is the leadership that the United States and India can offer in the 21st century.

Obama's expressed ambitions for Indo-U.S. ties came just in time to check a growing chorus in Washington of pessimism toward the relationship. Most prominent among the skeptics is George Perkovich, the esteemed vice president for studies of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, whose foundational book on India's development of nuclear weapons was an inspiration for this author, and many others, to embrace the study of India. Dr. Perkovich was an India expert long before it was popular, so his arguments carry great weight. That is why his recent Carnegie report arguing that India cannot be the partner the United States wants it to be -- and that ambitions of the kind Obama expressed for the relationship are actually harmful to it -- deserves attention.

In brief, Perkovich argues for a more "realistic" Indo-U.S. relationship that treats India in many ways as the impoverished, non-aligned, defensive, and even hostile country it once was. India does not want to be an Asian balancer, the report maintains; alleged U.S. efforts to maneuver India into position as a counterweight to China will only create discord between Asia's giants and upset China's peaceful rise. Indian and U.S. interests diverge on a host of important issues, from climate change to Iran. The best thing India can do for the world is not partner with the United States to fuel its rise and shape an international system tilted toward freedom, but instead to make its own economy an example for other developing powers. The United States' embrace of India is actually detrimental (for instance, by alienating China and Pakistan, or by upending the established global nuclear order) or only marginally useful. By this logic, both countries therefore should scale back their visions for global partnership, and Washington should invest more in relations with Beijing and other emerging powers rather than lavish such policy attention on India. At the end of the day, India will set its own course, often in ways that do not align with U.S. interests -- and Americans will need to live with that.

Eminent Indian strategist C. Raja Mohan implicitly takes on this argument in an important new paper for the German Marshall Fund. Rather than being only a peripheral or even harmful influence on India's great power future, Mohan argues that the nature of U.S. engagement with India will decisively shape its ability to lead the subcontinent to peace and prosperity; contribute to stability and balance in Asia; develop a framework for use of force abroad; participate constructively in the making of a new international order; and recast its own international identity. Mohan convincingly argues that India's embrace of the enlightenment tradition in its domestic politics, and the country's geopolitical interests and ambitions, align it with the Western-led global community of democracies -- not with its Third World and anti-Western fellow travelers of yesteryear, and not with the BRICS -- as China is emerging as India's global competitor. In light of this shift in Indian power, identity, and aspirations, Mohan provocatively maintains that India may be considered a "Western" power rather than an Asian one -- and that intensive U.S. engagement will fundamentally impact India's own diplomatic, developmental, and strategic choices.

Renowned India expert Ashley Tellis also weighs in on this debate with a superb report for the Carnegie Endowment making a grand strategic case for an Indo-U.S. partnership that shapes an Asian balance conducive to the interests of both countries, anchors an international system that is peaceful and pluralistic rather than hierarchic and conflict-ridden, promotes prosperity and an open international economy, and catalyzes the dynamism and prosperity of Indian and American societies in mutually reinforcing ways. Tellis cites a National Intelligence Council estimate that India will be the world's third most powerful state by 2026 to argue convincingly that smart American engagement with New Delhi is necessary now to frame a partnership with a country whose impact on the international system is already dramatic. (As Obama put it, India is not just rising -- it has risen.) And rather than diverging, Indian and U.S. interests across the spectrum -- from defeating terrorism to maintaining equilibrium in Asia to securing the freedom of the global commons to strengthening a liberal international economic and political order -- are strikingly convergent, and will only become more so as India's capabilities and strategic horizons expand.

But it is Senator John McCain who said it best:

India and the United States share common values… It is for this reason that we are confident that the ongoing rise of democratic India as a great power -- whether tomorrow or 25 years from now -- will be peaceful, and thus can advance critical U.S. national interests. Furthermore, it is because of our shared values that we view the rise of India as inherently good in itself. At a time when many have become enamored with an authoritarian model of state capitalism and its ability to generate wealth and power, there can be no greater demonstration that political pluralism, free markets, and the rule of law are a morally and materially superior way to organize diverse societies than the success of democratic India. Who can believe in "Asian values" or doubt the universality of democratic capitalism in a world where India exists? Therefore, contrary to the old dictates of realpolitik, we seek not to limit or diminish India's rise, but to bolster and catalyze it -- economically, geopolitically, and yes, militarily. In short, the United States has a compelling stake in the success of India.

 

[ajtr]

U.S. and India take their relationship beyond South Asia​

Posted By Josh Rogin Monday, November 15, 2010 - 2:51 PM Share
President Obama's 10-day trip to Asia kicked off with a three-day stay in India - and that's no accident. The administration has been expanding its cooperation with India on a range of issues outside the South Asian subcontinent since this spring, when it began a high-level dialogue led by the State Department regarding how the two countries could collaborate in East Asia.

The effort, led jointly by the State Department's East Asia and Pacific (EAP) and South and Central Asia (SCA) affairs bureaus, has involved two high-level meetings between U.S. and Indian officials. The first meeting, held in New Delhi last spring, was led by Assistant Secretary of State for EAP Kurt Campbell but also included Derek Chollet, deputy director for policy planning, and SCA's Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Owens. The second round, which took place in Washington in September, also included Assistant Secretary of State for SCA Robert Blake. Defense Department and National Security Council officials participated as well.

The U.S.-India dialogue on East Asia is the first of a series of new consultations between the United States and India. Two State Department officials tell The Cable that similarly structured dialogues are planned for coordinating U.S. and Indian policy on Afghanistan, Africa, and elsewhere. But the East Asia-focused dialogue is the first and the only one that has had formal meetings so far.

"One of the reasons the president went to India is to consecrate this notion of India as a global power," one State Department official said. "Asia is one of the key areas where we see India increasing its role and its influence and its engagements overall."

Along with Obama's endorsement of India for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, the joint statement issued by Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh codified the idea that the U.S.-India relationship was expanding to tackle global problems, specifically those in East Asia.

"The two leaders agreed to deepen existing regular strategic consultations on developments in East Asia, and decided to expand and intensify their strategic consultations to cover regional and global issues of mutual interest, including Central and West Asia," the statement read.

The officials made it clear that the U.S.-India dialogue on East Asia is not meant solely to devise strategies for combating China's political and military rise.

"Both the Indians and the U.S. would 100 percent agree with the idea that the most important thing we have to do is we have to get China right. But this is not some conspiracy theory on containing China," one official said. But he did say that "India's role can become very important when it comes to managing a variety of shifts that are taking place in the Asia-Pacific."

So far, the discussions have centered around how the U.S. and Indian approach to regional organizations like the East Asia Summit, and how the two countries can cooperate on issues like climate change, humanitarian assistance, and disaster response.

Many East Asia experts, however, suspect that the dialogue's primary purpose is ultimately related to China's growing power.

"It all comes down to China," said Patrick Cronin, director of the Asia Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. "China is right now an absolute ascendant power, even to the point where people are over projecting China's rise. If you can deny China its two ocean strategy, you have the potential to enlarge the chess pieces."

The move is part of an overall administration effort to develop a more cohesive U.S. strategy in Asia, Cronin said.

"What the State Department has done is break down the previous geographical barrier that was raised between East and South Asia," said Cronin. "India just gives you so much more maneuvering room. State is trying to take advantage of that, deliberately so and wisely so."

He warned that the Indians might not be able to move toward such seamless coordination as quickly as those in the United States might want them to.

"There's a massive hedging going on in Asia both for and against the U.S. and China. The Indians don't want to be drawn into a tight alignment against China. They want to play it both ways," Cronin said.

Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed that the dialogue represented "a significant change" in the countries' cooperation in East Asia.

"India not only wants to be part of that game, they want to make sure the United States is. The United States is very interested in having India being part of that game," she said. "This is a shift of emphasis for both countries."

 

[illusion8]

CHINESE PERCEPTION OF INDIA IN THE FRAME OF SINO-US STRATEGIC GAME

By Bhaskar Roy

The “China threat” theory which emanated from the west, and China’s strategic understanding that the West co-opted India are coming into increasing conflict especially in the Asian frame work. It would not help the stability of this vast and expanding map including the Asia-Pacific region especially when mixed with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sponsored ultra-nationalism campaign.

There is no doubt several theories of the late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping in the foreign policy area are being seriously questioned. One of them is Deng’s advice to avoid conflict in the neighbourhood.

Looking at developments on the ground, it appears that China’s foreign policy in the neighbourhood is being increasingly influenced by the hard line ambitious theories of equally influential senior strategists who advise the government and the CCP. One theory that emanated in 2004 was China’s writ should run from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific region. The other is a more recent, 2009, theory that Asia is China’s backyard and the country’s prime priority. This has to be achieved at any cost with both soft and hard approach.

A recent (June 23, 2009) commentary in the official newspaper, the Global Times, analysing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s observation (June 17, 2009) that the new administration looks at India as one of its few global partners and raises the relationship to level-3, again saw a US move to co-opt a willing India into a China containment strategy. The writer, Zhang Jie, is the Director of the study cell on security and diplomacy in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Assessing level-3 relationship coined by Ms. Clinton in preparation for her India visit in July, Zhang Jie opines that this was because of India’s high status in “global strategies”. He noted two characteristics India has which are important to the US: one was India’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean, highly significant in the USA’s energy transhipment; the other is India’s huge Muslim population which President Barack Obama could use in his effort to reach out to the Muslim world. But Zhang put an anti-China alliance between the USA and India as the highest priority in USA’s India alliance strategy.

China may have reasons to be apprehensive of an US led coalition to limit China’s challenge to eventually emerge as the world’s leading power if not in 50 years, then in a 100 years. The Chinese sense of history today is seamless through centuries. They have self-hypnotised themselves as the bearers of the mandate of heaven. This has been driven into the minds of the Chinese people through Communist propaganda. Another is the Chinese people have two brains whereas the rest have only one. A third was to teach children in primary schools not to trust foreigners, and foreigners are evil. These and many other psychological manipulations were done to unite people into a dedicated force of nationalists. Today, the country has opened to the outside world, but the basic sense of the Chinese emperor as the son of heaven is still very much there. The Party Central Committee is today’s emperor. While the emperor’s ruling method is beginning to be questioned inside the country, in external issues there will be little change in the foreseeable future.

China is a large country with a population which should be at least 1.4 billion or more and still growing, with natural resources not commensurate to sustain this burden especially when its global ambition is what it now emphatically projects. Hence, it has to depend on external resources, especially for energy and minerals like iron ore, nickel and aluminium. Hence, building China has to be at the cost of others, and the CCP’s view is that the world owes them. Here may lie the roots of the conflict.

The George W. Bush administration from 2001 started with discussions on engaging China economically, and countering China militarily. One of these propositions was a quadrangular co-operative arrangement between the USA, Japan, Australia and India to counter China’s aggressive power projection with military backing. Beijing’s Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) to create an information and computer based offensive force was taken into consideration. Japan articulated the proposition obliquely, but it never took off. It neverwould.

The cold war era is past. But alarm bells rang in China. Therefore, a new proposal from Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, considered Beijing’s close friend, to create an Asian arrangement of China, India, Japan, Australia and the USA is suspect in China’s eyes. Apparently, Beijing feels its inclusion in the arrangement would hinder its independent control of the smaller countries of South East Asia. Inclusion of India in the arrangement is another concern for China, as it is watching the growing interactions between India and Japan as a new inimical development. The recent Indian interest in the potential instability in the Korean peninsula during the South Korean Foreign Minister’s visit to India would add to China’s calculations about India.

When India signed the 20-year Friendship Treaty with the Soviet Union in 1970 just ahead of the Bangladesh liberation war, the US and its allies saw New Delhi as firmly in the Soviet camp. India’s position in the Afghan war further strengthened this. Following US-China breakthrough in 1972 a strong China-Pakistan-US axis emerged to counter the Indo-Soviet partnership.

But the end of the cold war, the 1989 Tien An Men massacre of pro-democracy activists in Beijing and the break-up of the Soviet Union reorganized the global equations, but also the above axis. Unfortunately, many cold warriors in the USA live on with the same old myopic vision of India.

India’s self-propelled development under successive governments brought about a change in India’s regional and global profile making a rising player which the international community could not ignore. This upset Beijing’s calculations to keep India squeezed inside South Asia through its policy of encircling India. With Chinese assistance, Pakistan became its frontline nuclear power state. But there was no stopping India. This is why Prof. Zhang Jie notes that India got a higher status in the US global strategies.

The May 1998 nuclear tests by India forced open de facto the nuclear boundary. India’s nuclear status is still not acceptable to Beijing. And it blames the US primarily for it, and sees in it a US-led western agenda to strengthen India against China. The new India-US military and high technology co-operation, the ground, air and sea exercises between the two countries, and the Indo-US nuclear deal are perceived as new steps in an Indo-US alliance. This, in Beijing’s strategic perspective would increasingly challenge its domination of an extended Asia. Added to this is the new relationship with Japan especially Japan sidestepping voting against India at Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meet in Vienna in 2008 despite its nuclear policy constraints.

In recent times, in spite of vastly improved bilateral relations, China took two initiatives trying to strike at India’s strategic and development efforts. First was its last ditch effort at the NSG meeting to block the Indo-US nuclear deal, knowing very well India’s dire need for nuclear energy. The next was the very recent event at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) trying to block a tranche from the bank for some development projects in Arunachal Pradesh. China took the position that the state was a disputed territory between the two countries. China is clearly trying to persuade or force India to accept Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territory, while India has clear sovereignty and control over the region.

At both NSG and the ADB the US played critical roles to counter China. This has made China anxious about the US-India strategic partnership and how it would affect them.

Sino-US relations is a virtual moveable feast, much like Ernest Hemingway’s novel based on the literary society in Paris. Neither can give up the relationship nor stay away from conflicts. But there is one difference. China wants a close relationship with the only super power at the exclusion of others. They have always tried to promote a situation of conflict between the US and others to create a situation where Washington may have to opt for non-confrontational and compromising relationship with Beijing. This was successful during the cold war. Increasingly, however, most major powers especially Russia are seeing what is in their respective interests. Moscow has restarted its military sales relation with Vietnam including kilo-class submarines and SU-30 multi-role aircraft. China has already signalled it is not comfortable with such developments.

Therefore, India with its large size, geostrategic location, a comparable knowledge based population can take quantum leaps with US co-operation. Failure to block the ADB loan to India has serious implications on China’s territorial claims against India and border negotiations.

Recently, there has been a sharp barrage of Chinese official and semi-official opinion through their state and party controlled media on the border issue. This, particularly, is a development of concern for India. And that India is no longer willing to roll over to China’s intransigence is also worrying for China. It may ratchet up more bullying media and official attacks. But if India stands firm as Russian President Vladimir Putin did in the boundary issue in the Eastern Sector with China, especially in the Maritime Region, Beijing may see sense.
The encirclement of India geographically and more is not likely to cease in the forseeable future.

Chinese Perception of India in the Frame Work of Sino-US Strategic Game

 

[DarK-LorD]

Lol a 'ajtr' thread.

 

[illusion8]

Lol a 'ajtr' thread.

not aware what the joke is about.

 

[DarK-LorD]

not aware what the joke is about.

ajtr was a very pro India member.:blink2:
Anyway this is a 1 year old thread.

 

[illusion8]

ajtr was a very pro India member.:blink2:
Anyway this is a 1 year old thread.

Yes and the paper i posted is a 2 year old one, but puts a lot of current happenings in perspective.

I didn't want to start a new thread with a 2 year old article so jus' posted here.