U.S. looks increasingly to India as it explores new allies

In contrast to the apparent growing strain in U.S. ties with many nations, including traditional allies, it appears that the U.S. and India are cementing their ever-closer relationship.

The looming war with Iraq has created serious divisions between the U.S. and plenty of other nations. This has led to U.S. officials questioning whether Washington can continue to rely on some "old" long-time friends.

In contrast, there is a growing belief in Washington that India is rapidly becoming a "new" ally that can be relied on. While the U.S. and India are far from being in lock step over Iraq, New Delhi has not acted in an obstructionist way and has recently been moving closer to the U.S. position on the issue of confronting Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, the two nations are continuing to deepen their overall relationship, which some observers contend is developing into a strategic alliance.

In this regard, Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington has called for an "out with the old, in with the new" approach to U.S. alliances. "The cheek-to-cheek relationship between America and her principle Cold War partners has soured, with perhaps a permanent breakup in the offing. Even if U.S.-European affairs can be patched up, it is time for the Bush Administration to play the field and come up with new geopolitical partners…Perhaps the most alluring partner for the United States in the coming century is India."

American foreign policy strategists are recognizing the need to "woo India," as Donnelly added. Indeed, the current U.S. chatter over giving India a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council illustrates the high regard for New Delhi in U.S. foreign policy circles.

"While the debate over authorizing war on Iraq puts the United Nations center stage, forces are converging offstage to change the UN Security Council for the better by giving India a permanent seat," said Richard Wilcox, a former director of United Nations affairs on President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council. "The result could be a permanent Security Council seat for the world’s largest democracy, which governs the affairs of one in six human beings. Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more representative and democratic -- more so than, say, a seat for Japan or Germany, two of the other perennial candidates. With India as a member, the council would be a more legitimate and thus more effective body for American multilateral leadership."

Well-regarded New York Times foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman also recently advocated a permanent place for India on the UN Security Council, replacing France.

"Why replace France with India? Because India is the world’s biggest democracy, the world’s largest Hindu nation and the world’s second-largest Muslim nation, and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious than France these days. France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it’s become silly. India has grown out of that game. India may be ambivalent about war in Iraq, but it comes to its ambivalence honestly. Also, France can’t see how the world has changed since the end of the cold war. India can."

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer makes a similar call. "As soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council -- with India and Japan as new permanent members -- to dilute France’s disproportionate and anachronistic influence," he suggested.

More broadly, Krauthammer said that the U.S. should start laying the foundations for a new alliance structure -- including with India -- to replace the obsolete Cold War alliances. "Its nucleus should be the ‘coalition of the willing’ now forming around us…You have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do: threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction."

Wilcox pointed to India’s values, as well as its more practical attributes, that makes it a natural U.S. ally. Another reason for the deepening of ties is the growing presence and clout of the Indian-American community in the U.S., he noted. "India shares fundamental democratic values with the United States. It has a sizable and competent military and a rapidly emerging technological capacity, and it has been willing to share the burden of peacekeeping in some of the world’s most dangerous places."

The U.S. has already recognized India’s improving military by deepening bilateral defense ties in the last couple of years. It was recently announced that the U.S. and Indian militaries are planning to conduct their first joint exercise with fighter aircraft, further intensifying the joint defense ties. The new exercise, which will probably take place late this year, will likely involve the U.S. Air Force’s F-15C fighters and the Russian-made Su-30s that India started acquiring in 1997.

Other productive joint exercises in the last year included Indian paratroopers working with their U.S. counterparts in Alaska, a U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo aircraft flying to the large Indian air base near Agra for an exercise in military airlift operations, and the Indian and U.S. navies conducting a number of exercises that included anti-submarine training and combating piracy.

More recently, American and Indian military personnel took part in the Shanti Path 03 peace-keeping exercises in India, along with a host of other nations.

At the same time as this military cooperation, defense trade between the two countries also appears to be taking off. Since President George W. Bush lifted the nuclear sanctions in 2001, U.S. military sales to India "jumped from near zero" to more than $190 million today, according to U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, speaking at the opening of the U.S. pavilion at the Indian air show in Bangalore recently. "Indian and American democratic principles -- a common respect for individual freedom, the rule of law, the importance of civil society and peaceful state-to-state relations -- bind us, and our overlapping vital national interests -- promoting peace and freedom in Asia, combating international terrorism and slowing the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- give concrete purpose to our military-to-military assistance and to our defense sales," Blackwill said.

Blackwill promised that the U.S. would be a "reliable provider" of arms and other defense items. "While joint exercises, reciprocal visits and bilateral exchanges are key building blocks for future interoperability, we believe that India also naturally views U.S. defense sales as a way of increasing its access to the best weapons systems and defense technologies available on the international market," he said.

Related to this, an Indo-U.S. high technology cooperation group was set up recently to improve exchange on dual use technology, civilian nuclear and space issues -- sensitive areas that have long been troublesome in bilateral ties.

U.S. Government sources say that the group -- which is the first of its kind that the U.S. has created with any trade partner -- should be viewed for its importance in the strategic relations between the U.S. and India.

Similarly, the new level of trust between the two nations was evident with this month’s U.S. delegation in India to discuss nuclear cooperation -- the first such meeting since Washington suspended cooperation in the wake of India’s 1998 atomic tests.

The U.S. and India agreed to boost joint civil nuclear safety efforts -- the latest sign of strengthening links between Washington and New Delhi, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Meserve, who led the U.S. team in India.

Certainly, the closer practical cooperation is part of what Lloyd Richardson, a former State Department official, calls the long-over effort to "reevaluate U.S.-India ties."

The two nations have now more "compelling common interests" brought on by strategic changes in Asia, especially regarding a rising China, according to Richardson, who was speaking at a recent American Enterprise Institute seminar on bilateral U.S.-India ties.

Advocates of closer U.S.-India ties point to the nations’ common concern over China. U.S. foreign policy players see India as a counterweight to China’s growing regional power. India would also like to see China’s power checked, given the traditional Indo-China competition and animosity. China’s strategy in Asia is partly designed to "surround" India, according to Richardson.

Indo-China relations are also strained because of Beijing’s support for Islamabad. "China, which supplies one-third of Pakistan’s weapons, finds it useful to help Pakistan in keeping India bogged down in South Asia," noted Husain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

India recently reiterated its "deep concern" over China’s alleged continued support of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and missile programs. China’s help in the 1980s and 1990s was thought to be critical in Pakistan’s emergence as a nuclear weapons state. However, it is believed that China is still using third-party conduits to provide further help to Pakistan, notably via North Korea. The Bush Administration last year also expressed worry that Pakistan was providing uranium enrichment technology to North Korea in exchange for support on Islamabad’s ballistic missile program.

Of course, the progress in building stronger relations between the U.S. and India is not without plenty of obstacles.

Economic ties are seen as the weakest link in the deepening U.S.-India relationship. "This modernization of U.S.-India economic interaction based on Indian economic reform is the missing piece in our transforming bilateral relationship," Blackwill said

The U.S. sees India’s problematic economy not only in terms of impeding bilateral trade and investment, but also as a wider strategic concern. India’s economy is holding back the South Asian power from fulfilling its potential as a major player on the international stage, Washington argues. The U.S. also says it is crucial for the developing bilateral strategic ties that commercial relations be expanded -- a move that requires India to undertake critical economic reforms.

"America’s strategic interests would be significantly served if India -- through a new wave of economic reforms -- climbs firmly aboard the globalizing train," Blackwill said. "Put simply, the United States has major strategic stakes in India’s economic success. An India that takes full advantage of its extraordinary human capital to boost its economy would be a more effective strategic partner of the U.S. over the next decades, including in promoting peace, stability and freedom in Asia. An India that enters into a full fledged series of second generation domestic economic reforms would inevitably play an increasingly influential role in international affairs across the board, and that too would be beneficial for the United States."

Another obstacle in the deepening of U.S.-India relations is Pakistan. Washington worries that India is overly preoccupied with Pakistan to the detriment of its wider strategic interests, including boosting ties with the U.S.

The tensions over Kashmir are a case in point. Although Washington now contends that Pakistani-backed terrorists are mostly to blame for the situation, there is some frustration in Washington that India has been inflexible on finding a solution to the problem. Likewise, there is frustration in New Delhi that Washington -- for fear of upsetting its ally in the anti-terror campaign Pakistan -- has not been supportive enough in India’s hard-line effort to quash cross-border terror.

Thus, a U.S. Government source warned that a major challenge for the U.S. is to develop relations with India in a way that they are not affected by U.S.-Pakistan relations. "This is difficult because Indians want U.S. support in the India-Pakistan dispute. No responsible U.S. administration can provide this without endangering important interests in Pakistan."

Overall, there is a concern, one informed U.S. source said, "that India cannot be an adequate strategic partner, particularly as a counterweight to China if it is continually distracted by the Kashmir dispute."

Closer Indian ties with Iran -- which are drawing concern in Washington -- are also driven in part by India’s effort to find new ways to counter Pakistan. India and Iran unveiled a strategic partnership during President Mohammed Khatami’s recent visit. The new relationship includes closer economic ties -- with India interested in Iran’s energy supplies -- and also more military cooperation. The latter includes India getting access to Iranian military bases in the event of war with Pakistan, while Iran will get access to advanced Indian military technology.

However, this relationship between New Delhi and Tehran is potentially, a major friction point between the U.S. and India, one U.S. source said. A U.S. official also warned that the New Delhi-Tehran alliance could "raise obstacles in our burgeoning defense ties" with India.

Despite these obstacles to deepening U.S.-India ties, one senior U.S. Government official noted that the bilateral relationship is currently "stronger than it has ever been and that it will continue to follow an upward trend."

Similarly, Blackwill said that the progress in the last couple of years has laid-down the foundations for a long-term alliance. "The U.S. and India have given historic impulse to our efforts at building a close relationship in all fields of bilateral interaction, including diplomatic collaboration, counter terrorism, counter proliferation, defense and military-to-military teamwork, intelligence exchange, and law enforcement.

"In my view, these supportive relations between America and India will endure over the long run most importantly because of the convergence of their democratic values and vital national interests. Indeed, I am confident that historians will look back and regard the transformation of U.S.-India relations as one of the most important strategic developments of the first decade of this new century."

Oh no, you are back. The Chinese Communist net spy who loves to eat "bacon sandwiches." You Chi-coms will do anything to denigrate India, your arch-foe.

India is going to clean your Commie clock.

Which religion is more evil?

In my opinion most people in most religions are good, but it is hard to ignore that Muslims attempt to conquer by violence on all of their borders. Hindus, except for the few fanatical idiots you will find in any religion, do not do that. One of their fundamental tenents is Ahimsa, or non-violence.

Just my view, but I would not write off a billion souls as evil because they do not share my religion.

"India has a ...large Muslim minority"

----

"...Are you kidding?
Why in the world would you think anything good could possibly come from a nation filled with Muslims? "

----

OK.. my point is that we are looking forward very soon to helping to establish a new government in Iraq.

We would like it to be a civil, grown-up, well-behaved government. Iraq has three major, quite different ethnic groups.

India is that model. (except that it is a real democracy, and has dozens of religions and hundreds of languages).

I would, on the other hand. Man-made religions with man-made salvation is a bit over the top don't you think?

Well, Hindus do not believe their religion to be man-made any more than Christians do.

I don't know about that. I have very conservative Hindu friends, the kind who are ultranationalists and don't like Christian missionaries but remain tolerant of Christianity just as long as it isn't thrown in their face, or have their belief systems trashed, which is what a lot of these nuts do in the course of their so-called "witnessing".

India, through all its faults has done a much better job at promoting "tolerance" than anyone else. It comes with their religion, which has suffered greatly from Muslim invasions over the centuries.

I beg you to tell me you're not serious, and that you don't take Hindu's seriously...

tidbit:

The origins of Kundalini Yoga (sometimes called Raja or roya Yoga) come from the form of Hinduism known as Kashmir Shavism. This form of yoga comes from the Kashmir region of India and the god these Hindus worship is Shiva. Shiva was the Hindu god represented in the movie "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." Hindu depiction Of A Chakra: Wheel of spinning Energy Kundalini Yoga "the serpent power." Sanskrit kund, "to burn"; kunda, "to coil or to spiral": a concentrated field of intelligent, cosmic invisible energy absolutely vital to life; beginning in the base of the spine as a man or woman begins to evolve in their first incarnation; fed by the chakras along the spine and by the cosmic energy entering through the feet ...

...seriously now, can you really take these people "seriously"?

I'm not interested in convincing anyone that any religion that is man-made is over the top. I simply see them as transparently deceived.
Tell me, do you personally take Hindus seriously?

tidbit:

The 33 "gods of the Vedas":

They are not very popular. Although the Vedas comprise the most sacred literature of Hinduism, the divine pantheon in them is essentially ignored in daily life. Only one god important is Agni, who is both the god of fire, and the sacred fire itself. He continues to be worshipped in the daily rituals of each Hindu home. Every morning, an offering of clarified butter (ghee) and some grain cakes is shared communion-style between Agni (i.e., the fire) and the members of the household
Prajapati is the father of the gods and of the devils (asuras). Indra, the warrior god, with his band of Maruts, defeats the demons of darkness each morning so that the sun could rise. There is also the sky god Dyaus and a few goddesses, such as Aditi and Ushas.

Yes, I respect them. You, presumably as a Christian, tell me your religion comes from God and Hinduism is man-made. A Hindu will tell me his religion comes from God. Just because you are closer to me geographically and culturally, I see no reason to favor your argument. If you had been born in India you would likely be taking the other side.

Regarding the passages you quote on their beliefs, I'm sure an Indian commentator's take on some aspects of Christianity would seem equally weird to people in the East.

By the way, for all their gods, Hindus believe in one almighty God above all. They share that with Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

You don't seem to have caught on yet so let's try again.

India is a Hindu country with both Muslim and Christian minorities. They have been fighting wars against Muslims for most of the last thousand years, under went several hundred years of a brutal Muslim occupation, are arch enemies of that part of ancient India which had a Muslim majority (it's called Pakistan), and they have no love for Islam.

Besides Pakistan, their other chief strategic enemy is China. Also, they are the largest representative democracy on Earth with a population of over 1 billion people. Poor and relatively under developed, they nonetheless are now self sufficient in food. Their colleges and universities provide much of the software development expertise used by American companies like Microsoft.

If you get the chance to speak with an Indian they might tell you that they knew all along what we are just now learning about the "religion of peace". All of this makes them natural allies of the United States.

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.