Posted on 11/29/2006 6:25:04 PM PST by mylife
US, India forging global partnership: Burns
Arun Kumar (IANS)
Washington, November 29, 2006
The United States and India are forging a "natural global partnership" economically, militarily and culturally in one of the most significant shifts in US global policy in a decade, says a senior US official.
While the US-India civil nuclear accord has received the most public attention, there is actually an "ambitious agenda" of cooperative efforts under way through official government channels, private businesses and non-profit organisations, said Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R Nicholas Burns.
In a speech to the Asia Society in New York Nov 27, he said that the United States and India finally "have found each other" and are now "increasingly close partners in global politics" on a range of interests that flow from both the "bright side" and "darker forces" of globalisation.
"We can safely say, I think, that we'll be partners in global economics and trade and investment. We're also going to have a very strong military relationship between our two countries," Burns said according to an official report of the meeting.
He cited a litany of joint projects that included supporting the emergence of democratic institutions in countries around the world; cooperating in science and technology, engineering, agriculture, communications and global climate change; and fighting illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in women and children and global terrorist organizations.
"We've never seen this kind of intensity of effort and purpose in the US-India relationship. It is absolutely what the United States should be doing to effect the kind of relationship we want to have with India," he said.
Burns said he will be visiting India in early December to ensure that all US initiatives are going as planned.
The cooperation between the Indian and US navies and air forces to help the victims of the 2004 tsunami demonstrated that the two governments could play a role in bringing relief to victims of natural disasters and might be relied on in other common security interests, Burns added.
All the countries of South Asia are now a priority for US foreign policy in what is a shift in attention over the last eight years during the Clinton and Bush administrations, Burns said.
"For the first time in decades, American policymakers of both political parties in the Congress and certainly in [the Bush] Administration believe that what happens in South Asia is vital to the future security interests of the United States itself," the official said.
Pakistan is "a key ally with which we are building ever stronger relations," Burns said.
Because of the significant number of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists remaining in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, there is "no more important partner in the fight against global terrorism than Pakistan," he said.
But, while counterterrorism efforts have been a focus of Washington's engagement, the US commitment to Pakistan "is much broader" especially in the area of energy, poverty alleviation and business growth.
"We support President [Pervez] Musharraf's vision of a strong and moderate and prosperous Pakistan," he said.
The United States has "two great friends in the region" in India and Pakistan, Burns said. "One is not more important than the other, just different. The United States seeks a priority relationship with both."
Reflecting the United States "newly energetic role" in South Asia, Washington is now engaged in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh "to help each overcome serious internal crises in ways we had never been before," the under secretary said.
In Nepal, the United States will support "an agreement between the government and Maoists that safeguards the aspirations of the Nepali people," he said. "This means violence, intimidation and criminal acts by the Maoists must end. We will be watching closely."
The United States also will remain involved to help stop the civil war in Sri Lanka, he added. The United States hosted a meeting of the Sri Lanka Donors Group which called on both the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to engage in cease-fire agreement implementation talks.
Concerned about the political violence in Bangladesh, Burns urged the political parties to resolve their difference through dialogue.
"Bangladesh is a pivotal country in South Asia, its future is important to the entire region," Burns said. "It has the advantage of size, a growing economy, and a talented population. Can its leadership put aside their differences to lead the country forward in peace?"
That is not the answer to my question. I asked you what do you know about Nepalese history and Nepalese governmental structure? Do you understand English? Or should I ask you in Nepalese (because I can speak that as well)?
I don't think citing Nepal of all places is exactly lending credence to your "India is America's friend" argument.
I never cited Nepal as an example of "India is America's friend" argument. In fact to an extant I agree with you, America is not exactly India's friend. Its only a marriage of convenience as you say. My contention is over your claim about Pommy influence over Nepal.
Reread that sentence then tell me again who's the moron.
You. Without doubt. Ever been through High School?
Grunting and pointing does not constitute a "language."
Yeah I need to learn about "language" from YOU. /sarc
Maybe. But you don't speak it WELL enough to communicate much except puerile insults and nonsensical, specious logical leaps.
Nah, I just reply to gratuitous condescension in kind. Well someone needs to prick a needle to your egoistical hot air balloon.
Do your fine debating skills also include making my point for me?
As a matter of fact YES! Cuz you are incapable of making any point even for yourself except for contemptuous vituperation and other such excrement ejecting out of your stinking mouth.
Since our interests coincide for the time being, the implication is that they are not permanent. In other words, they are subject to flux, to renegotiation, to abrogation on any pretext. For instance, when a wealthier squire comes calling ...
Yes sir. That's how its always is. My point is that India isn't the only country to do that (as you are trying to make it sound). In fact US is a master in the above game. In fact its US that has a world wide reputation for whatever you described, not India.
I'll do that if you promise to repeat your vapid jabber to the charge nurse at Hari Kari Institute.
Hey pssssssss its not Hari Kari. Its HARA KIRI ..............which you just committed. ROTFL!
BTW even Nepal with its communist ascension is a better example of democracy the Iraq. At least Nepal and Bangladesh aren't dysfunctional countries.
Jack Murtha, is that you?
Sweetie, Iraq is lost, all America now has to work on are the terms of retreat and the level of humiliation.
You listen to CNN too much. But the Democrats have a lot of experience in retreat and humiliation, so expect to see both ... in spades.
India is following its own self interest in a pragmatic realpolitik manner, which all nationstates do, including America.
I rest my case.
>>I rest my case.
What case was that, pray tell.
I don't how you rest a hypothesis that makes no sense.
You didn't work for the CPA, did you?
QED.
And I told you that Nepal is a parliamentary monarchy. Of course, there is some doubt on that score, since nobody knows exactly what powers the king retains. Kind of like England ...
Its only a marriage of convenience as you say. My contention is over your claim about Pommy influence over Nepal.
That's not exactly the subject of this thread though, is it?
You. Without doubt.
Maybe in your mind ... Further evidence of your own stupidity.
Ever been through High School?
I visited one once ... But the girls' gym teacher called the cops ...
Yeah I need to learn about "language" from YOU.
You're right. There's no way I'd have the patience. I got frustrated teaching my cocker spaniel to beg.
Nah, I just reply to gratuitous condescension in kind. Well someone needs to prick a needle to your egoistical hot air balloon.
And that someone is going to be some unwashed illiterate who abuses the language so badly Amnesty International stepped in? I think not.
As a matter of fact YES! Cuz you are incapable of making any point even for yourself except for contemptuous vituperation and other such excrement ejecting out of your stinking mouth.
No, it's because I always let the hired help do my light work.
Yes sir. That's how its always is. My point is that India isn't the only country to do that (as you are trying to make it sound). In fact US is a master in the above game. In fact its US that has a world wide reputation for whatever you described, not India.
Then we're agreed on the fact that India is nothing but a purchased "friend."
Hey pssssssss its not Hari Kari. Its HARA KIRI
I took a chance with that post, hoping beyond hope that you would catch the subtlety there too. You see, you said something about "John Kerry Institute," so I played off the "Kerry" sound by using the common American vernacular for ritual disembowelment, "Hari Kari (Kerry)". Get it, idiot?
Pearls before swine, I tell ya.
BTW even Nepal with its communist ascension is a better example of democracy the Iraq. At least Nepal and Bangladesh aren't dysfunctional countries.
By what stretch of the imagination AREN'T they "dysfunctional?" The CIA Factbook can't even say what form of government Nepal has, because it hasn't made up its mind yet.
Google Bangladesh: [from Wikipedia] "Among Bangladesh’s most significant obstacles to growth are poor governance and weak public institutions."
Yep. THERE'S a classic example of a successful democracy. Thirteen different heads of state and at least four military coups since what, 1971?
If that's the quality of democracy India is exporting, then it is to government what Yugoslavia is to fine automobiles.
My thesis was that India's relationship with the United States is a marriage of convenience, and that it has no firmer foundation than mutual exploitation. You explicitly AGREED with me!
I don't how you rest a hypothesis that makes no sense.
How does it not make sense???? For cripes' sake, you echoed the sentiment not five posts ago! Or was that your alter ego?
>>India's relationship with the United States is a marriage of convenience
As are most relations between states.
You put forth a high handed critique of India that the US applies to no other country. Your dislike of America's relationship with India was based on India's cold blooded evaluation of her interests that has led to the current close relations. I don't see anything wrong with that.
You do.
And my point being, what is wrong with that?
>>India's relationship with the United States is a marriage of convenience
As are most relations between states.
You put forth a high handed critique of India that the US applies to no other country. Your dislike of America's relationship with India was based on India's cold blooded evaluation of her interests that has led to the current close relations. I don't see anything wrong with that.
You do.
And my point being, what is wrong with that?
>> the quality of democracy India is exporting
worry about the quality of "democracy" the US has brought to Irak, lol.
That word is now discredited in the Muddled East due to the bangup job America has done in "liberating" Iraq.
Don't think the world can handle any more generous gestures by the US if Irak is anything to go by.
You can badmouth India all you want, but after 911 it was theonly country to offer 400K troops to clean up Pakistan.
Instead, what does the USA do; play footsie and swap spit with one of the perpetrators of 911, Pakistan.
Now tell me who's into these whoring marriages of convenience - how much has the US paid Pakistan for AQ types - billions.
First of all, "high-handed" is all in your perspective. My observation was meant as a statement of opinion. I am not employed by the US Department of State, nor are my opinions official US policy.
Your dislike of America's relationship with India was based on India's cold blooded evaluation of her interests that has led to the current close relations. I don't see anything wrong with that. You do.
"Wrong?" Not really. As you've pointed out repeatedly, that is standard operating procedure with nations; they sleep with whoever does them the most good. I did not exempt the United States. Our relations with foreign governments has been a history of manipulation, exploitation, and superficial, ad hoc partnerships.
And my point being, what is wrong with that?
Not a thing. I never said there was.
worry about the quality of "democracy" the US has brought to Irak, lol.
I'm plenty worried about it. But that democracy is going to become more and more the responsibility of the Iraqis, who, if the truth were known, are growing in their capability to exercise it.
That word is now discredited in the Muddled East due to the bangup job America has done in "liberating" Iraq.
Wow. I had no idea I was talking to one of the world's foremost experts on the Middle East. You have your finger THAT close to the pulse that you know that the whole concept of democracy is now "discredited?!!" I'll have to defer to your vast expertise then. I'm a mere babe in the woods next to you and Condoleeza Rice.
Don't think the world can handle any more generous gestures by the US if Irak is anything to go by.
Well, as you say, nations look out for their OWN interests as well as those of their "friends." Our interest in Iraq also applies to Iran, North Korea, and a growing number of South American states with troubling leadership. So generosity schmenerosity. We defeat our enemies, wherever they are.
You can badmouth India all you want, but after 911 it was theonly country to offer 400K troops to clean up Pakistan.
Uh huh. And they did that for US, didn't they? There's never been any bad blood between India and Pakistan that India might be using its alliance with the US to cover, is there? India doesn't stand to benefit from mollifying Kashmir at all, does it? And India's "cleanup" of Pakistan was about as successful as you seem to think America's triumph in Iraq has been, since the madrassahs are still open, the Taliban still moves openly in the border areas, and Musharaff needs to tread carefully or he'll be the next in a long line of Indi/Paki leaders who was reincarnated before his time.
Instead, what does the USA do; play footsie and swap spit with one of the perpetrators of 911, Pakistan.
You'd need to talk to George Bush about that. He's the one who is also still doing business with the House of Saud, rulers of the homeland of 18 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. He didn't ask for my approval, by the way.
Nothing you've said in any way weakens my thesis that India and the US are allies only so long as it benefits one or the other. In this case, the benefit is economic and financial for India, and of some (dubious) military value to the United States.
At this point, I would say the USA needs all the friends she can get.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but I will say I'm surprised to hear such a yearning for Kumbaya in inter state relations.
You express certain common fallacies and equivalencies concerning India and Pakistan; they are conventionally accepted by the foreign policy structures of America and are based on the history of the past 50 years.
>>And India's "cleanup" of Pakistan was about as successful as you seem to think America's triumph in Iraq has been, since the madrassahs are still open, the Taliban still moves openly in the border areas, and Musharaff needs to tread
When did India take the cleanup job of Pakistan. That's what the US is paying Pakistan for. And that certainly has been money well spent seeing what a good job Mush has done in closing madrassahs.
What a brilliant US policy, after all this money, the US in now paying Pakistan to train jihadis will equipment paid by the US.
Simply brilliant, old chap.
You've been sitting too close to the speakers. It's making you hear things. While I believe there is a firmer foundation for international relations than money or convenience, I challenge you to cite the post where I mentioned -- or even hinted at -- "Kumbaya."
You express certain common fallacies and equivalencies concerning India and Pakistan; they are conventionally accepted by the foreign policy structures of America and are based on the history of the past 50 years.
Uh huh. My perceptions of India and Pakistan are all wrong, but YOUR perceptions of American and Iraq are spot on. You bet.
When did India take the cleanup job of Pakistan.
You need to listen when you talk. Reread your own post #49:
after 911 it was theonly country to offer 400K troops to clean up Pakistan.
YOU'RE the one who volunteered the suggestion that India was doing some housekeeping ...
That's what the US is paying Pakistan for. And that certainly has been money well spent seeing what a good job Mush has done in closing madrassahs.
Any money spent in Pakistan is a waste. Money spent in India isn't much better. Neither nation deserves our trust.
Simply brilliant, old chap.
Whatever mistakes we're making in Pakistan, it doesn't forgive the mistakes we're making in India. India wants to use the US as a counterweight to Paksitan, and the US is using India as a counterbalance for China, and a side door into South Asia. This arrangement has evolved much more to India's benefit than to the US's.
>.When did India take the cleanup job of Pakistan.
You need to listen when you talk. Reread your own post #49:
after 911 it was theonly country to offer 400K troops to clean up Pakistan
An offer REJECTED by the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.