More good FA news. American Future blog
America and India on the Same Page
By Marc Schulman on US Foreign Policy
Writing in today's Wall Street Journal,[$] Raja Mohan, professor of South Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, explains why the US and India have drawn closer to each other during the past four years.
Mohan's perceptive commentary begins by pointing out a role reversal involving India and Europe:
While Europe continues to hold its nose at the decisive triumph of George W. Bush, the Indian establishment is quietly savoring the outcome of the recent elections in America. India and Europe, one might say, have traded places in the global arena. India, once nonaligned, used to be the first to throw stones at Washington on any issue during the Cold War; today, it sees America as a natural ally. Europe, on the other hand, now speaks the language of "nonalignment," and holds that nothing is ever right with U.S. foreign policy.
There's a straightforward explanation for India's enthusiasm for the Bush administration:
New Delhi has transacted more political business with Washington in the last four years than in the previous four decades. After nearly half a century of estrangement, India and the U.S. rapidly drew closer under the first Bush administration. Whether it is the commitment to the war against terrorism or the exploration of missile defense, Mr. Bush has found a partner in Delhi.
The Bush administration has elevated India's importance in world politics:
. . . most important for New Delhi is the strategic decision by the Bush administration to view India as an emerging global power and a potential partner in the management of the global order. For earlier administrations, India was merely a part of a political nuisance in South Asia.
The US and India see eye-to-eye on the UN:
To be accorded its rightful place in the global order, India needs a drastic revision of existing international rules -- from those relating to non-proliferation to the management of international peace and security. The Bush administration, pursuing its objectives in the global war on terror, is determined to engineer changes in the spheres that are of greatest import to India.
( . . . )
Very few countries in the world share the Bush administration's contempt for the U.N. when it comes to maintenance of international security. India is one of them. India went to the Security Council in 1948, to find a way out of its impasse with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir after the messy Partition of the Subcontinent in 1947. Although India has never stopped regretting its decision, its experience at the U.N. has cured New Delhi of all illusions about collective security in the international system.
Much like American conservatives who believe that U.S. national security is too important to be left to consensus politics in Turtle Bay, India underlines the fact that peace and stability in the Subcontinent cannot be left to the mercy of the U.N. Security Council. While Indian diplomats often mouth the virtues of multilateralism, they have little desire to see the pious forces of liberal internationalism, bereft of all strategic content, create a Brussels on the East River. Like the Bush administration, New Delhi does not want to cede national control over decisionmaking on war and peace to unelected bureaucrats in a "supranational" U.N. In democracies, those decisions must lie with elected governments, accountable to their own people.
The two countries share an antipathy toward the International Criminal Court:
Given its firm commitment to national sovereignty, India, not surprisingly, also found itself with the Bush administration in the global debate on the International Criminal Court. The examples of Indo-U.S. political convergence during Bush years abound -- including counterproliferation strategies, and pre-emption against terrorist groups and states.
India endorses Bush's Middle East policies:
Having been the biggest victim of terrorism sponsored against it by a nuclear-armed Pakistan over the last 15 years, India had little difficulty in understanding the imperatives of Mr. Bush after 9/11. And with its 150 million Muslims, India has a big stake in the success of Mr. Bush's project for the modernization and democratization of the Islamic Middle East.
India will cooperate with Washington on non-proliferation:
On nonproliferation, India believes that the vacuous legalism of the current nonproliferation regime will lead the world nowhere. Effective nonproliferation requires a new set of rules which India is willing to develop along with the U.S.
Finally, with regard to the shifting sands of geopolitics,
. . . in defining a new world order, Mr. Bush will have to move away from the traditional American emphasis on the Euro-Atlantic world and recognize the power shift to Asia. New Delhi would surely stand with Mr. Bush in the configuration of a new global equilibrium, one that takes into account the return of India to the center stage of global affairs.
Prior to reading Mohan's commentary, I wasn't aware of the many interests that the US and India share. If Bush were to reverse course by appeasing Europe (i.e., France and Germany), relations between the US and India would cool. Looking at the long term (and that's what second-term presidencies are about), ask yourself whether this would make the world safer or more dangerous.
For the first time, both Pakistan and India are our allies. This should have at least two positive consequences: (1) it reduces the risk of war between Pakistan and India, and (2) it strengthens our position vis-a-vis China. |
