Helping India Become “a major world power”

Posted on by

MD writes in with this article in the Weekly Standard about recent developments in US-India policy –

WITH THE NEWS from Iraq relegated to the back pages recently, last Friday’s State Department briefing–especially since it was not devoted to Condoleezza Rice’s latest fashion statements–attracted little attention. The subject: the evolving strategic partnership between the United States and India. The news? It is the “goal” of the Bush administration “to help India become a major world power in the 21st century.” …A U.S.-India strategic partnership, if fully developed, would be the single most important step toward an alliance capable of meeting the 21st century’s principal challenges: radical Islam and rising China. Unlike our almost erstwhile allies in western Europe, India shares an equal strategic concern with both these challenges. Perhaps even more important, India shares a commitment to democracy that transcends ethnic nationalism–Hindu nationalism, in this case, will not suffice to govern a state that includes 120 million Muslims–and an understanding of the necessity for armed strength. India’s position in South Asia puts it in an essential geostrategic location from both a continental and maritime perspective. In sum, the United States could hardly dream up a more ideal strategic partner.

The article dismisses the sale of F-16s to Pakistan as a symbolic gesture relative to the far larger balance of power issues (truth be told, I hold the minority opinion on the Sepia Mutiny editorial staff – I actually tend to agree with folks like Blank/Weapon Nerd about their lack of real import).

17 thoughts on “Helping India Become “a major world power””

  1. I love how the conservative rag misspells ‘seriousness’ in its headline. It’s like dating profiles where someone says s/he’s looking for ‘inteligance.’

    By helping India become “a major world power,” the administration is showing the global seriuosness of the Bush Doctrine.

  2. It’s like dating profiles where someone says s/he’s looking for ‘inteligance.’

    It isn’t a proper analogy. It wasn’t the serious administration/state-dept which had made that spelling mistake.

    Vinod: I too agree the sale of F16s is not of any military significance to India; but the neo-cons’ take on this about the sale being all about stabilizing Pakistan and taking Indo-US relationships to a “new level” seems to be a bit simplistic too.

  3. It wasn’t the serious administration/state-dept which had made that spelling mistake.

    It indicts the rag, not the administration, Mr. Libertarian-Leaning. What indicts the administration is when Bush runs around calling people Pakis 😉

  4. They did mispell seriousness. Tee hee.

    Still an interesting article – as for indicting the rag, I shall now endeavor to search for similar ‘type-setting’ errors in the Atlantic Monthly and the American Prospect, Mr. Smarty-Pants Vij…..

    PS, did anyone see the link to Razib’s (Gene Expression) masterpiece blog post, er, linked to by 2Blowhards? Hmm, you mean I have to find the url and link it myself. Sigh, later, later. Work to do now!

  5. “It indicts the rag, not the administration, Mr. Libertarian-Leaning. What indicts the administration is when Bush runs around calling people Pakis ;)”

    Seeing how Bush is forgiving most of Pakistan’s debt and running a screen over their proliferation record, they can’t complain too much about name calling.

  7. It indicts the rag, not the administration, Mr. Libertarian-Leaning

    Sure. My point was that the ‘inteligance’ analogy did not apply here, that’s all. In this situation, the dating profile did not mispell intelligence but somebody writing about the dating profile did. So the irony-factor does not apply.

    ya, I know, as if being libertarian-leaning was not evil enough, this fellow also seems to be a pedantic bastard 😉

  8. Dude, I hear ya.

    Interesting thing about this whole saga is that you see reactions all over the board.

    Some people claim, as retaliation for the sale, India should sell nukes to Iran or their Brahmos Missle to Venezuela. On the other end some people want to immediately jump at anything offered by the United States.

    In both cases, the thoughts are immature and those proclaiming such ideas do not comprehend the non-linear nature of post cold war international politics.

    More likely than not, India and the United States’ relationship will develop more along the lines of the French. Tonnes of trade, exchange of information, major competitors, but still somewhat civil.

    Stable democracies have rarely attacked each other, they disagree, stomp their feet, and play their frustrations out through other venues.

    Each side wants something and are willing to give up something. Where that point exists is upto leaders of these nations to determine. For the most part, cool and pratical heads need to prevail.

    In such cases, even though I’m not a big fan of their leadership, the cold, methodical, and pragmatic approach of the Chinese tends yield results for them on the global stage. Damn they are good.

  10. Seeing how Bush is forgiving most of Pakistan’s debt…

    What the freaking hell ?! Are they (Pakistan) getting YET ANOTHER billion dollar handout from the US ? For what !?

    India has for the better part earned every penny she’s got, rather than our premiers looking up to the western powers for spare change.

    Sheesh! Have some self-respect already!

  11. If you are hinting at the Pakistani involvement in Kargil, then you are using a poor example.

    Historically, Pakistan along with a host of nations have not been stable democracies. Also the seeds of discontent were sown during colonial times, when neither were free.

    If you want to go the proxy/clandestine route, hell, the some of most active espionage carried out against the USA has been sponsered by Israel and France. Thats a pretty big deal.

    I am not going to sit here and say anyone has clean hands. No one does. However, there is a big difference between cold era politics vs today’s realities. Many little nations were caught in the fight between dictatorship socialists and the western capitalists. Not that there aren’t residual effects, however the game has fundamentally changed.

    It is a very recent occurance that most nations in the world operate under some form of democratic governments. Many of these countries are infants when it comes to the institutions and ideas of a representative republic being a way of life. It takes time to mature. I only see India, despite its almost 60 year post-colonial existence, having reached a maturity in the past 15 years. For the United States it took its bloodiest battle/fratricide in the civil war to evolve into a true union. Each nation has its own test.

    Think of it this way, in the Korean War when the Chinese jumped in, the United Nations was literally fighing Red China. If Truman listned to McArthur, they would have nuked China to hell. From a military commanders viewpoint, he was right. Chinese are attacking Americans, why not fight back and conclusively win.

    Cooler heads previaled (especially Truman). Sure it sucks, and for sure American blood was spilled by Chinese. However you don’t see each side playing a reactionary game with it each other. Its more about positioning yourself in a situation to benefit your people over the long run. The parties who get emotional about it are like boxers who loose their cool in the bout. Unfocused, inefficient, and ultimately get the shorter end of the stick.

  12. What U.S needs is not a true partner – but someone whose arms can be twisted easily – and Pakistan would fit that role nicely. It is ridiculous to expect fairness or consistency in U.S. foreign policy – time and again, they have shown that they don’t look beyond the immediate needs, nor do they genuinely care about democracy. They would favor a friendly dictator over a hostile or neural democracy. It is as simple as that..

  13. To najeeb that not true. The US had the marshall plan for Europe after WWII and they help put down communist insergencies in western Europe. The US helped Europe to become a world power, why ? enlightened self interest. The US fought a very nasty war with imperial Japan and nuked them into surrender. As victors they could have dismembered Japan and punish it for its crimes. Instead they helped Japan become a world power, why ? enlightened self interest.

    There is also a negative side to US foreign policy I need not elaborate.

    The reason why the US want to help India become a world power is out of “enlightened self interest”.

    US and India culture is very different that why there is a lot of scope for miss-understandings. I don’t think Indian appreciate the enlighted self interest often shown by the US, they remember more the Nixon era and the cold war animosity. Nehru for some reason aligned with the Soviet Union and was hell bent on appeasing Mao. Nehru was a man of great vision but on his own admission was living in a fantasy world for most of the time.

    All in all I recommend a open mind and pragmatism to overture from the US.

    The US role in Pakistan should be welcomed. I beleive Bush is using his influence to transform Pakistan into a peaceful and democratic society, and Mussasaraf will cooperate. Would you prefer Pakistan has a new master China or Saudi Arabia ?

  14. to “what the” why do you insist in hypenating India and Pakistan ? India’s economy is growing and is in a different position than Pakistan.

    Pakistan is suffering as it has been the centre of global jihad for a long time. The billion dollar hand out could help alleviate povery and suffering in Pakistan, this is good for its own sake and good for India as an unstable Pakistan next door will be a disaster.

  15. you guys are funny why the hell would we want another, mostly India to be another supper power.

  16. Обдумываю систему отопления для коттеджа загородного дома , какая из них на ваш взгляд практичнее?

  17. I need your help! Has anybody been in Russia? What’s your opinion? I’m going to go there in spring but still I need more information. All I’m familiar with is Moscow… Can you suggest me something? What to visit? Or probably, you can advise some really interesting places especially which are situated far away from big cities? Any ideas about travel agencies that hone in on some outstanding or off the wall tourist activities? I visited such web sites as  (gotorussia.com, russia-travel.com, dovisit.com, russia.com, etc.), they really offer such tours but I’m not sure they are reliable enough… I really appreciate your help and advices. Thanks a lot, Michael