USA Thinktank: We don't need the Indians as much as they think we do

[ejazr]

Just my 2 cents on Bharat Karnaud and the session at HEritage Foundation.

Karnaud is an interesting "hawk". His idea that China is the main problem not Pakistan for India is more accurate although most Indians don't understand this strategic reality.

However, the most important point to note is that if you want China to take India seriously. Then India will have to develop its relations with US and take it to a higher level. For example, it was not the 1998 nuke tests that made China to talk more carefully about India but the 2005 civil nuke deal and defense deals that made the change.

But there are two points I can't agree with
(1) nukes of Vietnam can't work because of the NPT regime. The idea that we provide nukes links us to nuclear proliferation issues and that can make it very difficult for India. If he meant providing civil nuclear assistance e.t.c. then that is a different story
(2) The justifications he gave about NOT signing CISMOA, LSA did not get. It just sounds like they are still paranoid that the US would take control of India or attack India. We have to get out of this mistrust with the US. When we do become self-sufficient and the China issue becomes less pressing, then we can withdraw if needed.
(3) The Tibet issue can only be used as an irritant and the fact that we host the Tibetan govt. in exile is probably in itself proof that GoI want this Tibet card in their hand. Otherwise, this would have been shutdown completely.

And personally, I think the main areas of concerns is above military, its things like Chinese cyber attacks and espionage. Its about out outmaneuvering India economically from its traditional strongholds like the GCC or its neighbours like the SAARC region or emerging economies like ASEAN , Africa and Latin America.


Although Karnaud was jumping a bit here and there but the basic premise of his agument makes sense. Its time for India to build a basic strategy of containment for China. But this will not be a Soviet style containment because India will need to engage with China at the same time as well.
It would be worthwile to combine the ideas of Containment and Sustainment made out by US analysts to build one uniquely for India with regards to China. In any case, discussing this is for another thread but some links to read on these concepts.
George Kennan "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" (1946)
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/A National Strategic Narrative.pdf

 

[Mr.Ryu]

Thats absolutely right now our govt got the go signal now we should change all our policy to favor Russia Brazil China and South Africa and let their a$$ burn, We cant trust US any time.

 

[pmaitra]

I think it is a flawed premise to assume that the interests of the Indian-Americans are the same as that of India and Indians. If they do vote for Democrats, they must be doing so with their interest in mindnot Indias.

No, of course they are not. That is what I said in my earlier post.

 

[ejazr]

George Pekrovich has been working since 2010 on advocating a downgrade on US-India ties

Here is a 2010 paper on why he thinks this has to be done at the link below
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/realistic_us_india_relations.pdf

Summary below

As President Obama prepares to visit India next month, he faces criticism that his administration has done too little to enhance U.S.-India relations. George Perkovich argues that expectations for a partnership between the two countries in the near term are unrealistically high and overlook how their interests, policies, and diplomatic style will often diverge. U.S. policy cannot do much to help India's rise, but it can inflict major damage on global problem-solving efforts if it defers too readily to the narrow, often mercantile demands of the current relationship.
Key Conclusions

Interests are divergent. Careful analysis of U.S. and Indian interests does not show a close convergence in some key areas, and in cases such as China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, they differ in how to pursue shared interests even when both states benefit from each other's successes.

Democracy can divide. Shared democracy is said to make the United States and India "natural allies," but domestic politics and economics often keep each state from adopting policies that would befit a partnership.

Bilateral relations should not be used to contain China. Emphasizing military competition with China, as some do, is counterproductive. For the foreseeable future, the United States, India, and China will operate in a triangular relationship that mixes cooperation with competition and pressure and none will be close partners of the others. Economic development and effective governance are the keys to countering China's rising strength.

Nuclear energy cannot transform the relationship. The civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the two countries has not turned the relationship into a partnership, as envisioned. But it has undermined U.S. leadership credibility in trying to strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.

Global problem solving is the priority. The United States can contribute only marginally to India's success or failure. Washington should focus on global issues—such as trade, nuclear security, peace in Asia, and climate change—that will also affect India's longer-term interests.

"Rather than maintaining the pretense of partnership, a truly pro-India policy would acknowledge that India has different near-term needs and interests as a developing country than does the United States, even as it recognizes that each will benefit in the long run from the success of the other," writes Perkovich. "Most of what the U.S. government can do for India lies in the broader global arena, and most of what India needs at home it must do for itself."

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Isn't GOP republican ?

It is. The Grand Old Party.

 

[asianobserve]

Wait a second where are the America-philes? Adux, asianobserve ... you guys in hibernation?

Defining partnership of the century , my ass.

You need me to spice up your day huh?

Well, this is an American perspective. But the point is a relationship is always a 2-way affair, or in America's case more tilted in their favour. Why? They are in power. In this dizzying strategic power dance in Asia the gate is flung wide open again by the US to India in the same manner that it was flung open by Kennedy in the 60's. Nehru did not take it then and instead Nixon closed it and made a wide opening to China, which was grabbed by Mao and taken advantaged of by succeeding Chinese premieres. (I wonder if you can claim that the Chinese degenerated in the course of the alliance or reduced to mere lap dogs...)

Anyway, to quote an old cliche in politics: "there are no premanent friends only permanent interests." Now, do you think it is in India's interest to ally closely with the US or not, taking into consideration the most pressing strategic concern of India? - I don't know which strategic consideration you give more weight, Pakistan or China... (in my opinion your choice between this two considerations reflect how you look at the level of India)

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Do "think tanks" ever produce anything useful? It seems more like the purpose of their existence is to employ chattering eggheads.

 

[Ray]

I dont care much about media hypes. I have heard about the new missile been called China killer. I have learned to ignore such boastings.

May you have heard that it is a China Killer in China because people are scared.

It is not so known in India.

It is just another missile in India with a range of 5000 kms!

That is about all!

 

[Bhadra]

I disagree with bold part. Playing in XINJIANG is like hodling duel edged sword, no matter what you do at the end of the day you are sure to bleed. It is thousand times better to concentrate on Tibet and let Islamists of Pakistan play in Xinjiang.

Well You have a point. However Western Turkistan (Xinjiang) is a little far off to impact India directly. But by inderect effect on AfPak, exterimism is bad. For China Xinjiang is their soft Ar$$e which should be on fire....

 

[The Messiah]

You need me to spice up your day huh?

Well, this is an American perspective. But the point is a relationship is always a 2-way affair, or in America's case more tilted in their favour. Why? They are in power. In this dizzying strategic power dance in Asia the gate is flung wide open again by the US to India in the same manner that it was flung open by Kennedy in the 60's. Nehru did not take it then and instead Nixon closed it and made a wide opening to China, which was grabbed by Mao and taken advantaged of by succeeding Chinese premieres. (I wonder if you can claim that the Chinese degenerated in the course of the alliance or reduced to mere lap dogs...)

Anyway, to quote an old cliche in politics: "there are no premanent friends only permanent interests." Now, do you think it is in India's interest to ally closely with the US or not, taking into consideration the most pressing strategic concern of India? - I don't know which strategic consideration you give more weight, Pakistan or China... (in my opinion your choice between this two considerations reflect how you look at the level of India)

I was wondering how long would it take you to leapfrog into this rant with yankee bootlicking

 

[ice berg]

India successfully tests nuclear-capable missile dubbed 'China killer' - Asia - World - The Independent

May you have heard that it is a China Killer in China because people are scared.

It is not so known in India.

It is just another missile in India with a range of 5000 kms!

That is about all!

It is so known in India:

 

[LurkerBaba]

India successfully tests nuclear-capable missile dubbed 'China killer' - Asia - World - The Independent

It is so known in India

It isn't

Independent.co.uk is saying that it's dubbed as the "China Killer"

That word is never used in mainstream Indian mainstream media. Here are Google searches of the two most popular English media outlets in India

Google (Times of India)

"china killer" site:hindustantimes.com - Google Search (Hindustan Times)

 

[ice berg]

World News - India test-fires 'China killer' missile capable of reaching Beijing, Europe

It isn't

Independent.co.uk is saying that it's dubbed as the "China Killer"

That word is never used in mainstream Indian mainstream media. Here are Google searches of the two most popular English media outlets in India

Google (Times of India)

"china killer" site:hindustantimes.com - Google Search (Hindustan Times)

There is another article:

"However, it said the missile had been dubbed the "China killer" by the Indian press. "

I dont read indian newspapers so I cant tell.

 

[Ray]

There is no such term used.

It is merely figment of imagination of the foreign press or they want to sensationalise.

 

[Ray]

China, Paradise for Scumbag Teachers and Bottom Feeders?

China, Paradise for Scumbag Teachers and Bottom Feeders? - Guangzhou Stuff

Do you really feel that China has only scumbags to teach them from abroad?

If so, then they are passing on the education that makes Chinese scumbags.

Do you want us to believe that just because it is written?

 

[LurkerBaba]

World News - India test-fires 'China killer' missile capable of reaching Beijing, Europe

There is another article:

"However, it said the missile had been dubbed the "China killer" by the Indian press. "

I dont read indian newspapers so I cant tell.

No, it hasn't been dubbed as "China Killer" by the press.

 

[Yusuf]

The west was more excited about the "China Killer". The term came from western press.

 

[Ray]

Let the West rejoice that the Indian missile is a 'China Killer'.

It is merely another weapon system and that is about all.

At best, it increases India's reach.

 

[Iamanidiot]

The Chinese getting agitated after hearing western press opinion about Indian missile is funny .The Indians themselves haven't said much as a China killer or what not.This seems more like a case of imagined enemies

 

[panduranghari]

LF, I get the impression there is a schism between the interests of Indian Americans and those of Indians.

I am not particularly hopeful that Indian Americans will see any particular justification to migrate to the GOP en masse. Furthermore, whenever Indians become Indian-Americans, their priorities change, with exceptions of course, due to close ties that most share with their homeland.

How do you envisage the changes in the thinking and actions of Indian-Americans in light of terrible economic turmoil in the US?