What's new

India and USA

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
48,460
Reaction score
57
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
from: India and America: Less than allies, more than friends | The Economist

India and America
Less than allies, more than friends
America and India try to define a new sort of relationship
Jun 16th 2012 | DELHI | from the print edition


“Two cities where people rarely agree on much of anything” was how Robert Blake, an assistant secretary at the American State Department, described Washington and Delhi this month. It was a joke but, in context, was rather close to the bone. Touting a blossoming friendship, America and India still find plenty to bicker about.

His speech was looking forward to the third annual US-India “Strategic Dialogue”, which brought together senior figures from both countries in Washington, DC, on June 13th. This is a celebration of a partnership by which both countries set great store. Yet the list of issues on which they are at odds is dispiritingly long: Afghanistan, Iran, nuclear trade, climate change, market access, arms sales and more. If this is partnership, some in both capitals ask, what would rivalry look like?

The impetus seems to have gone out of a relationship in which America invested so much under George W Bush. His decision, in 2005, to press for international acceptance of India’s civil nuclear programme, ending a ban on foreign assistance imposed because of India’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was meant to usher in a new era of co-operation and trust. Some of that evaporated early in the presidency of Barack Obama. India resented and successfully resisted his appointment of an envoy with a brief to meddle in India’s dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. And it was alarmed by his effort to recast relations with China, and talk of a “G2”.

In America, meanwhile, the prizes won by Mr Bush’s huge concession to India can seem at best disappointing. Indian legislation about the liability for nuclear accidents in effect closes to American companies the very market Mr Bush sacrificed so much to prise open. Disgruntlement grew last year when American firms lost their bid to supply India with 126 jetfighters—India’s biggest-ever defence contract—to European competitors. Both sides have moved on, but still, says Daniel Twining, of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think-tank in Washington, “even the most ebullient supporters” of the partnership in America are “a bit depressed”.

Mr Twining, who worked on the partnership in the Bush administration, says that both sides remain confident in its long-term benefits—perhaps so confident that they neglect the mundane business of actually building it. Two factors, however, are pushing America to reinvigorate ties with India. The near-collapse in its relations with Pakistan gives India an even greater significance in America’s hopes for stability in Afghanistan when most NATO troops leave in 2014. And America’s aspirations for co-operative relations with China have degenerated into a more blatant if undeclared form of strategic competition, as America rebalances its entire military posture towards Asia.

So American leaders are again talking up the India relationship. In Delhi this month Leon Panetta, the defence secretary, called India a “linchpin” of the “rebalancing” strategy. After this week’s dialogue, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, noted that “the strategic fundamentals of our relationship are pushing our two countries’ interests into closer convergence.”

But India fears being left in the lurch as NATO skedaddles out of Afghanistan. Its security priority is to receive credible reassurances on plans for stabilising Afghanistan and ensuring it never again becomes a Talibanised client of Pakistan.

America, for its part, wants to see India further reduce imports of oil from Iran, with which Indian leaders like to boast of their “civilisational” ties. But on the eve of the dialogue, Mrs Clinton announced that India, unlike China or even Singapore, had already done enough to earn a waiver from American sanctions.

Hopes that something concrete might emerge from the dialogue were largely invested in economics. The two sides agreed to work on a bilateral investment treaty to unlock the huge potential for co-operation. In fact the one area where ties are flourishing—the jetfighter disappointment aside —is defence. India has become the world’s largest arms importer, and American exporters are benefiting, with more than $8 billion in sales in recent years.

Overall, however, America’s economic ties with India do not come close to the huge, symbiotic relations it has with China. India itself now does more trade with China ($74 billion in 2011) than it does with America ($58 billion). American officials would like to see the balance tip more in their country’s favour.

The unstated logic in both America and India behind the drive for closer relations is as a warning to China not to overreach itself and drive them into a fully fledged military alliance. It is still far short of that—more like a mutual feeling that India and America are closer in strategic and political outlook to each other than they are to China. For that reason, America has no qualms about India’s “Look East” policy of engagement with the rest of Asia, or even with its contemplating membership of the China-led regional security grouping focused on Central Asia, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.

Experience elsewhere in Asia suggests that America’s confidence in the long-term strength of its partnership with India need not be shaken even if China’s economic links with India continue to outpace its own. The great paradox of Asian strategy today is that the closer countries find themselves bound up with China economically, the more they seek the reassurance of American security.
 
^^^ I think this has been posted earlier Vcheng.
 
The unstated logic in both America and India behind the drive for closer relations is as a warning to China not to overreach itself and drive them into a fully fledged military alliance. It is still far short of that—more like a mutual feeling that India and America are closer in strategic and political outlook to each other than they are to China

True.. And they are equally unsure on how to treat China- a partner or a rival- a force of stability or a destabilising influence. Recent events suggest that China may have extended its core interests to include SCS. And so Washington is scouting around for partners. India on the other hand, in the words of Jack Sparrow- "Take everything, and give nothing back".
 
Its fairly simple.

Treat us as equals and we will treat you the same.

Acknowledge our interests and formulate your policy for the region , while giving our interests priority.

Do not engage in double dealing tactics, and we won't either.
 
I fear that the US-India relationship is fast falling into cushy complacency.India's diplomatic gymnastics in keeping with the intended ambition on playing a bigger role on the international arena isn't going to go unnoticed in Washington.

Egged on by it's desires to notch up a UNSC membership,India has lost no opportunity to raise up the rhetoric against the United States even on issues that primarily do not concern New Delhi (intervention in Libya,Cuba's embargo etc.). This might lead to some brownie points(from other nations) for India but it comes at the assumption that it's relationship with the United States has solidified enough to withstand such shocks. That certainly isn't the case; For one,India adopting harsh stances will embolden other players to do the same.The rationale "If New Delhi can do it,so can we" is already started to bear fruit in other nations.

It was only a matter of time for the US to recognize India as the tip of the spear and single it out for punishment.The culmination of which can be seen in the case of India's import of Iranian oil. India chose to ignore the sanctions even while thicker friends of the US like Japan applied for waivers.India had to beat a hasty retreat as the United States put it's foot down. Trust the mandarins in New Delhi to make the best out of a bad situation by getting a barter mechanism in place but the resultant fallout was entirely avoidable.
 
If posted earlier, then this can be merged or deleted as the Mods decide.

==================================

I think that the strongest undercurrent is going to be access to the Indian domestic market to western conglomerates. If protectionism wins the day, then India will not have smooth sailing on the foreign policy front. If the domestic markets are opened up truly and fairly, then India will find itself being able to project its foreign policy goals much more productively.
 
The whole process of India - US bilateral ties was planned and implemented over a period of ten years - it was not a random decision. It was well planned and formulated and will only grow stronger through the years, all parties in both the countries are ready and willing to do that.

Most recent decision mirror that:

Obama nominates Indian-American Sri Srinivasan to second highest court in US - Times Of India

Indian American appointed to top Yale position - World News - IBNLive

Washington, Jun 12 - Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Co-Chairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, issued the following statement previewing the third U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, an annual meeting to discuss important bilateral issues:

"This third Strategic Dialogue reminds us of the deep ties that bind the U.S. and India. There is much work to be done to ensure that the U.S. and India are moving forward together. We can't take progress for granted.

"We should build on success, particularly on counterterrorism cooperation and cyber security, and set aggressive goals. Let’s challenge each other to see how much progress can be made, because we share common and very serious threats.

"As the current chair of the House India Caucus - active since its beginning - I have worked to strengthen the relationship between Washington and Delhi for years. This Dialogue should keep the momentum going.

"With any relationship, there are challenges. How quick you can bounce back and stay on course proves the strength of the relationship. Market access issues and regulatory hurdles are too common. We need to tackle these commercial challenges before they become a serious distraction.

"This high-level attention given to India solidifies its place in the upper tier of U.S. partnerships."

Royce Previews U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue : U.S. Congressman Ed Royce
 
Back
Top Bottom