-
O Pakistan
May 14, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Where Is Joan Baez When We Need Her?
April 4, 2013 | 34 comments
-
We Are Family
February 20, 2013 | 14 comments
-
We Are All Mayans
December 28, 2012 | 24 comments
-
The Person of the Year Can Be a Thing
December 12, 2012 | 34 comments
At Large
From India With Unrequited Love
Secretary Panetta’s recent visit went okay, not that he received anything more than a cool reception.
Deep within the psyche of America is the desire to be loved. Never a colonial power in the traditional sense, and with a New World cheerfulness unlike the cynicism of so-called Old Europe, America predictably seeks to provide aid monies, investment capital, cultural exchanges, armaments, goodwill, and in the case of India — even nuclear fuel and civilian reactors. While America has a vested interest in making these offerings to ensure a benign world order, at times we are perplexed when generosity is not met with warm display.
The recent visit of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to New Delhi was a constructive effort to enhance a military relationship, also aimed at pressuring the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India’s historical archrival, to open blocked overland supply routes to support current NATO operations and the future withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That Secretary Panetta was received with limited enthusiasm, while disappointing, should come as no surprise.
It is easy to become infatuated with perceived commonalities between the U.S. and India. Parliamentary democracy, the English language, equality before the law, and free markets are part of the tapestry of shared values that India conveys to us. Not only that, the U.S. is often the first choice of Indians seeking study abroad or careers in technology, medicine, and finance for example — and it is quite unusual to meet an Indian who wants to study in Russia, the successor to India’s erstwhile Cold War sponsor.
Seen in strategic terms, and noting the British statesman, Lord Palmerston’s 19th century maxim that “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they have only permanent interests,” India’s value to the U.S. is threefold. First, it is an offset to the ascent of Chinese economic influence and regional naval aspirations from the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca; an estimated 66 percent to over 80 percent of all seaborne oil crosses the expanse of the Indian Ocean. Second, as a secular and highly diverse country including 161 million Muslims, India is a critical block to the spread of Islamist radicalism. Third, with a rising middle class estimated from 30 million to 300 million out of a population of 1.2 billion, and with a GDP of $4.5 trillion, India is viewed as a vast market for American consumer and industrial products. (There is a McKinsey & Company projection from 2007 that India’s middle class will increase from 5 percent of the population to 40 percent over the next two decades.).
However, in spite of these optics and the new partnership with India, based on the “U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement” signed into law near the end of the Bush Administration in 2008, the U.S. must recognize that India will rigorously pursue its self-interest, depending on the issue and its pragmatism at the time, and there will be much frustration as well as finite limits to the relationship.
For example, India’s record on nuclear non-proliferation is acknowledged to be good, yet the country will not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Further, India recently selected the French made Rafale fighter aircraft over the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F/A-18 in a $12 billion deal, most likely to avoid the operational and political liability of too much reliance on the U.S. as an arms supplier. Moreover, frustration in recent memory is India’s emphasis on per capita emissions, arguing that the atmosphere is an equal entitlement for every person on earth, as well as its protectionist posture at the Doha talks of the World Trade Organization, in which India and several other countries caused a collapse of the negotiations.
Further, while the U.S. has encouraged rapprochement between India and Pakistan over the years regarding the Kashmir dispute, in substance India remains fundamentally intransigent, noting that it is favored by the standoff which is the status quo.
India has an ambivalent relationship with China, and closer alignment with the U.S. could antagonize Beijing. While India has disputed borders arising from the 1962 war with China, it is India’s leading source of imports and third largest export partner.
More recently, India, the world’s fourth largest oil consuming country, has been slow to join the U.S. and Europe in efforts to isolate Iran, which provides an estimated 12 percent of India’s oil imports. In an accommodation, several months ago Iran and India agreed to settle some of India’s oil import bill in the Rupee, a currency of limited convertibility. (India’s May announcement that it would cut Iranian oil imports by 11 percent is a modest concession to intense pressure from the West.) India’s historical, religious, and linguistic affinity for Iran are well-known, and isolating Iran would run counter to India’s energy needs.
Of late, the U.S. is encouraging Indian “strategic depth” in Afghanistan in the form of training the Afghan military, a concept that the U.S. had not sanctioned previously, believing it would be an irritant to Pakistan.
America’s expectations of India must be well-tempered and realistic: we should also view the partnership through Indian eyes. There is skepticism in Indian public opinion about the U.S. as a dependable ally, and no doubt some of this is rooted in the many decades of chill-out between Washington and New Delhi during the Cold War, and U.S. support for Pakistan. The strategic value of India to the U.S. is compelling, but the country will be fickle — and the love will be unrequited.
About the Author
Frank Schell is a business consultant and former international banking executive. He serves on the Dean’s International Council of the Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, where he is a lecturer, and on the editorial board of the Chicago-based National Strategy Forum, which focuses on national security issues.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Frank Schell
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/14/from-india-with-unrequited-lov
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- The Vast and the Tiny
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
TLP| 6.14.12 @ 6:26AM
On those French made Planes. Did India choose those Planes, over ours, BEFORE, or after Obama told Taiwan to Go Screw?
And, perhaps Secretary Leon Political Hack was given the Bums Rush, because NOBODY Trusts these MFers in President Big Mouth's Administration, to keep their traps shut.
Maybe India is just like all of our Traditional Allies? They have EYES, and they can see The Muslim for what he is.
An ENEMY of The West.
Sometimes a Cigar is just that. A Cigar. Unless Bill Clinton's in the room, and then you might wanna do an "Up the Skirt" on all the Fat Girls.
irish19| 6.14.12 @ 8:45PM
"then you might wanna do an "Up the Skirt" on all the Fat Girls."
Let's not.
OP4| 6.14.12 @ 10:50PM
India made the selection the way we used to select equipment. They invited everyone interested in selling them fighters to send samples - then they flew the hell out of them - then they negotiated.
No F-35 money-pit boondoggles for them.
Von Mises Jr| 6.14.12 @ 8:50AM
Jim Rogers, the famous investor moved to China since they were moving dramatically towards free trade and prosperity with supply side economics. While at the same time, if ObaMao is re-elected, the United States economy, financial markets and monetary system may very well collapse.
Let's face it. India has lived in the neighborhood with the USSR and shared a boundary with Mao's China. They know what communism is and the threat of the aggression. Let's be realistic. If ObaMao is re-elected, India would be better off taking their chances with China as did Jim Rogers.
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/.....-to-china/
Harry the Horrible| 6.14.12 @ 9:59AM
Since Federal Government has been throwing our allies to the wolves lately, I have to agree.
At least the Soviets, er, Russians and the PRC seem to be constant in both their enmities and alliances.
davelnaf| 6.14.12 @ 11:32AM
I agree with much of what is in the article. Americans routinely see every democratic country as a potential ally when the ‘shared values’ thing is at best a limited commodity. In the case of India both its internal and external politics are left of center—in the UN it routinely sides with the pack against the US or demurs (which is about the same thing). Also, American administrations should understand, but often don’t, that foreigners see their relationship with the US as something that SHOULD benefit them far more than it benefits us and at the same time they see any cooperation with us as being worth far more than its weight in gold. But when they get in big trouble they always put a call into the US 911 and the US comes running. And as long as all of this is conventional wisdom overseas countries will never be as cooperative with us as we would like them to be.
PolishKnight| 6.14.12 @ 12:16PM
A survey of the world about whether they wanted Obama to win reelection showed the Frogs and Germans had a 90% majority wanting Obama re-elected with half and half in Poland. Yet... when Poles were interviewed as to whether the USA had Poland's interests, they voted a staggering 30%!!!
India and the USA are "trading partners" in that H1B visas are granted for cheap (and usually low quality) IT and other labor to flood into the USA and manufacturing is outsourced to dirty factories in India. Almost NONE of the H1B's vote Republican and all expect racial perks as a member of the non-white male Democrat voting bloc. If they call for tearing down the mansions of wealthy IT shop owners and selling their children into slavery, I won't get in their way. The oligarchs have it coming. Chai ho!
Occam's Tool| 6.14.12 @ 6:44PM
One must tread carefully in foreign parts. With very few exceptions (Israel, Australia, Canada, Guatemala (where my children are from)) I have no interest in visiting any of them. I also buy American whenever possible.
redwolf6911| 6.14.12 @ 6:53PM
Panetta is certainly no diplomat and is in over his head in his current role. Obama has placed very few qualified people in key roles.
irish19| 6.14.12 @ 8:47PM
"India's historical, religious, and linguistic affinity for Iran are well-known,"
I am curious as to what these affinities might be-especially the religious angle.
Frank| 6.15.12 @ 10:47AM
Dear Irish19,
Let me add something about the religious affinity. Clearly, Iran is Muslim and India has 161 million Muslims. In the former country, which is a theocracy, they are mainly Shi’ite and in the latter which is secular they are Sunni. But the religious affinity extends to the ancient world. In Sindh and Punjab of what is now Pakistan (formerly India), there were two “hub” settlements in Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. Animist practices and engraved seals suggest the influence of Mesopotamia – in fact, originating from Khuzestan which is in southwest Iran and was part of Mesopotamia. About 1000 AD, Turkic (Muslim) tribes entered what is now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and ruled from Ghazni, Afghanistan. Mahmud of Ghazni is claimed as a great Persian leader by the Iranians and the seal of the former government of Iran bears the seal of Mahmud of Ghazni. Later, the Persian Safavid dynasty was contemporaneous with the also Muslim Mughal empire which extended from much of Afghanistan all the way to what is now Bangladesh. Religion and culture are hard to separate. The Persian practices of the court – the Islamic art, customs, scholarship, architecture, poetry, and science were emulated by the Mughals. Complicated but hope it helps.
Frank Schell
Frank| 6.15.12 @ 10:52AM
Dear Irish19,
I meant to send this version below!
Let me comment. Iran is Muslim and India has 161 million Muslims. In the former theocracy, they are mainly Shi’ite and in the latter which is secular they are Sunni. But the religious affinity extends to the ancient world. In Sindh and Punjab of what is now Pakistan (formerly India), there were two “hub” settlements in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa about 2500 – 1500 BC. Animist practices and engraved seals discovered suggest influence of Mesopotamia – originating from Khuzestan which is southwest Iran and was part of Mesopotamia. About 1000 AD, Turkic (Muslim) tribes entered what is now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and ruled the region from Ghazni, Afghanistan. Mahmud of Ghazni is claimed as a great Persian leader by the Iranians and the seal of the former government of Iran (the Shah of Iran) bears the seal of Mahmud of Ghazni (lion with Zoroastrian sun). Later, Persian Safavid dynasty was contemporaneous with also Muslim Mughal empire of India which extended from much of Afghanistan all the way to what is now Bangladesh. Other religious affinities include the Zoroastrians who migrated from Persia to India (known as Parsees there) and Sufi sect of Islam which did the same. Religion and culture are hard to separate. The Persian practices of the court – the Islamic art, customs, scholarship, architecture, poetry, and science were emulated by the Mughals. Complicated but hope it helps.
Frank Schell