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."

What? India? What bout Lichtenstein, Andorra and Luxembourg?

On a side note, you want to drive an Indian nuts or at least get him/her thinking, present the following hypothesis:-

It was Clive and later the Raj, that for all its faults, stemmed the inexorable tide of Muslim takeover and conversion of the Hindus. At least one factor among many; even tho' Hindus were present in the Mughal Courts, their existence was defined by the whims and vagaries of the current ruler; consider the openness of Akbar with his Hindu wives and Hindu scholars in his court and studying of Hindu texts with the fiery islam of Aurangzeb, repressing and rolling back the tolerance of Akbar, both Mughal Emperorors of Northern India, ruling the North one after the other.

If not for the British influence, would the islamis have taken over the Hindu kingdoms near Bombay and points south. A historical hypothesis, but has caused rather heated discussions at dinners when i've brought it up as a change from the ad infinitum dotcom discussions so prevalent here a couple of years ago.

Whatever Lord Mountbatten's machinations in India, he did NOT deserve to be blown up by the IRA.

Lets look at this from an Indian perspective. India's experience with the US over the past 55 years hasn't been very good :-
1. In 1947 Pak invaded Kashmir using tribals & irregulars. After evicting them from most of Kashmir India took the issue to the UN hoping to have Pak declared as an agressor - but USA & Britain ganged up & got aresolution passed equating both parties.
2. In the 50's & 60's the US armed Pak (giving them weapons free of cost) so that Pak launched Op Gibraltar into Kashmir. India hit back by invading Pak Punjab.
3. In 1971 when the Indian Army was in the process of liberating Bangladesh after the atrocities commited by the Pak Army on their own people, the US threatened India by moving their 7th Fleet into the Indian Ocean.
4. During the 80's Pak was fermenting trouble in Indian Punjab & the US wa supplying them with arms (incl Stinger missiles).
5. Even today the US turns a blind eye to terrorism perpetrated by Pak in Kashmir while professing to fight a war against terror.

Considering that background, India would have to extremely cautious before committing herself to a serious tie-up wth the US.

Any religion can be mocked. You can mock 33 gods, but I can mock the idiocy of the bible that says you must have seen Christ (who wandered a shitty little strip of desert for 30 years) to go to heaven, when about 300 million people in the world didn't see him. Does the red sea parting sound any less ridiculous than 33 gods? AT least hindu priests don't rape little boys like christian priests do! And at least hindus don't knock on your door handing out stupid bible readings to try to get you to convert. SO before you mock other religions, look at your own outdated faith. You should be a jihadi, since you have their same irrational religious fervor.

Well, why should Hollywood portray your country and your beliefs accurately? Don't you have your own multi-million Bollywood movie industry to tell your side of the story? Why are you guys instead wasting out on that opportunity and influence by being more interested in doing song and dance numbers? And girls dancing and seducing people in the rain?

Why not have the guts to make movies about how the Moslem invaders butchered your unarmed Hindu religious people and beliefs, or how the Christians raped and plundered your people during the colonial rule?

Why? Because you people are divided and a pathetic lot. Your weakness is the reason why your Hindu nations has been attacked and conquered time and time again. And it's not changed. And even now, the psuedo-secularist Hindus themselves are involved in Hindu bashing.

Holloywood would never make a movie deemed anti-Jew. Why? Because the finances of that country are in their hands.

Hollowood would also never make an anti-Christian movie. Why? Because that's the country's fundamental belief system. No matter how much we deny it, church and state are one and the same.

Holloywood would also never make an anti-Moslem movie. Why? The violent nature and fanatical followers of the faith will make sure fatwas are issued faster than you can say "action".

Since you Hindus are divided and getting bashed by your own fellow Hindus, who would rather step on their own tolerant religion to protect religious minorities in your country, you are obviously fair game indeed.

The President of the US is not shy of his Christian roots. They have breakfast prayer meetings, and no one says anything. You guys on the other hand are so ashamed of your own Hindu religion, you dare not even have the Prime Minister so much as utter any quotes from your holy book, or be caught have any similar official breakfast prayer meetings in a temple.

So until your country and your religion is willing to stand proud on its own two feet, without being ashamed of being actually the only religion in the world besides the Buddhist to never have had any organized and systematic killing or converting of people of other faiths, by sword or violence, you should all just shut-up and get your act together.

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.