India important for US to limit Chinese influence: Nicholas Burns

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
25,628
Likes
25,949
Country flag
India important for US to limit Chinese influence: Nicholas Burns - Economic Times


WASHINGTON: Noting India's strategic importance in American efforts to limit the Chinese influence, a former top diplomat today said the United States should include New Delhi in its East-Asia policy.

"Given China's challenge to America's 60-year domination of the Asia-Pacific region, Obama was smart to announce a reinvigoration of US alliances with Japan and South Korea and the stationing of US Marines in northern Australia as well as a new trade partnership for the region's democracies," Nicholas Burns wrote in The Boston Globe.

But Obama's pivot to East Asia will be incomplete if it does not include South Asia and India as well. US officials seem reluctant to link India to this policy. They should do so as a signal to New Delhi of strategic commitment and to Beijing that we are serious about maintaining a US presence in Asia for decades to come," he wrote.

If coping with a more powerful China will be the great challenge for the United States in the next half century, India may be the great opportunity, Burns said, adding that India is of immense strategic importance to the United States.

"It can help in limiting possible future Chinese expansion as we seek to maintain a preponderance of military power by the democratic countries of Asia - one of the most important American global objectives," Burns said.

India, he said, has helped the US to support the embattled President Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan.

India's booming high-tech economy is a source of growing trade and investment for American companies. It has one of the world's most admired leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all worked to build this partnership in rare bipartisan fashion, he said.

However, Burns observed, that India can also be a frustrating partner. Its diplomats have dueled with the United States unproductively on global trade talks and on other issues at the United Nations.

"It has stalled in implementing the nuclear deal with the United States and disappointed expectations it would open its economy further to foreign investment. It has not supported tough US and European sanctions against Iran and criticized NATO's successful intervention in Libya last spring," he said.

"Working with India is not easy, and some in Washington are impatient that it has, in some ways, failed to meet its obvious potential to lead globally. Our problem may not be an India that is too strong but one that is too weak and uncertain," Burns wrote.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
What I keep repeating over and over again.

For the US we are only a hedge against China, never a partner. If half of China's and India's resources are directed at each other, American can remain strategically relevant in 30 years.

In fact the US does not have an alternative. Japan and South Korea were OK in the last century, not anymore.

Our relations with US must be restricted to trade.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
25,628
Likes
25,949
Country flag
What I keep repeating over and over again.

For the US we are only a hedge against China, never a partner. If half of China's and India's resources are directed at each other, American can remain strategically relevant in 30 years.

In fact the US does not have an alternative. Japan and South Korea were OK in the last century, not anymore.

Our relations with US must be restricted to trade.

I don't think India or china even utilize 5% in that role?? China is using pakistan as a proxy
against India to free itself up against USA. With USA also on the pakistani side best thing India
should do is let the #1 and #2 fight it out. China is not stupid they will wait until Europe (NATO)
is further economically weakened before getting more aggressive with USA.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,573
However, Burns observed, that India can also be a frustrating partner. Its diplomats have dueled with the United States unproductively on global trade talks and on other issues at the United Nations.

"It has stalled in implementing the nuclear deal with the United States and disappointed expectations it would open its economy further to foreign investment. It has not supported tough US and European sanctions against Iran and criticized NATO's successful intervention in Libya last spring," he said.

"Working with India is not easy, and some in Washington are impatient that it has, in some ways, failed to meet its obvious potential to lead globally."
Why can't those Indians just do what Uncle Sam says, hmmm?:rolleyes:
 

satish007

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
1,458
Likes
203
That Indian most respected point by around the world. India is leader of nonalignment. while Indian civilization was blooming thousands years ago, US ancestors may just sheeprearing beside mediterranean
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,729
There is no doubt that if the US wants to maintain its predominant position in the Asia Pacific region, it has to re-engineer its attitude towards India.
 

Aditya Mookerjee

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
25
Likes
3
Where will India limit Chinese influence? Perhaps, Indian influence is not associated with Chinese influence. Indian influence on Myanmar is not connected to Chinese influence on Myanmar. India has a friendship with Bangladesh, and China has one too. If China asks Myanmar to keep distance from India, Myanmar would mind. If India did the same in relation to China, Myanmar would also mind. And, Bangladesh is not interested in United States, as also is Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. China does not threaten the sovereignty of any nation mentioned. India is not, I believe, threatened by China. In this situation, India will try to build up good relations with China. Can China make Canada contain the United States? If not, then what is the reason?
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,810
Likes
4,610
What I keep repeating over and over again.

For the US we are only a hedge against China, never a partner. If half of China's and India's resources are directed at each other, American can remain strategically relevant in 30 years.

In fact the US does not have an alternative. Japan and South Korea were OK in the last century, not anymore.

Our relations with US must be restricted to trade.
Wise words!

Why can't those Indians just do what Uncle Sam says, hmmm?:rolleyes:
Because most of the diplomats share my view and dont trust usa govt one bit :che:
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
Ewald you're very funny man, but you are an average American who thinks global policing is your moral right and obviously cannot see how ludicrous the above article is to the average Indian.

If anyone in South Block had as much as a hint of self respect or self esteem they would issue a demarche to the US official for making such offensive statements. I mean seriously, look at that statement. It literally translates to - If we had our way, we intend to use India to fck with China. But the Indians are playing hard ball.

I dont give a shit about Security Council reforms. It is anyway a bipolar world with Russia and China opposing anything that the West puts on the table and vice versa. And when this happens, the NATO, in complete defiance of UN authority go about bombing whoever the fk they want to. So whats the point in appeasing the US or anyone else to get in as a permanent member in the security council. When America makes such stupid statements, our leaders must publicly chastise them.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
Where will India limit Chinese influence? Perhaps, Indian influence is not associated with Chinese influence. Indian influence on Myanmar is not connected to Chinese influence on Myanmar. India has a friendship with Bangladesh, and China has one too. If China asks Myanmar to keep distance from India, Myanmar would mind. If India did the same in relation to China, Myanmar would also mind. And, Bangladesh is not interested in United States, as also is Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. China does not threaten the sovereignty of any nation mentioned. India is not, I believe, threatened by China. In this situation, India will try to build up good relations with China. Can China make Canada contain the United States? If not, then what is the reason?
1. India IS threatened by china, what world are you living in? It has huge claims over our lands, which you obviously seem to have forgotten.
2. Canada does not have border claims with USA, so dont compare apples and oranges.


But unfortunately we cant trust the US (or any one else for that matter) atleast now. How can we? Do they think we will turn a blind eye to their part 60yrs of diplomatic , militaristic support to the PURE LAND OF Pakistan. Leave the past, what about the Billions of dollors of aid flowing there even as we speak. Not to mention their best efforts to block any action we could have taken towards those cowards following their cowardly acts inside our country.

And in any future Sino- Indian conflicts, they will only remain neutral observars, so that both of us destroy each other and never challenge the US hegimony for the centuries to come. So we are on our own, at least Vis a Vis China
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top