Before I even finish reading your post I have to say, that is one fly map. What a beautiful projection. I wish people would use it for less grisly subjects as well. Go Scientific American!

…by allowing India to buy uranium on the open market, the pact will let India divert all of its domestic uranium supplies to weapons production. That would allow it to produce up to 1,000 warheads, making it the third largest arsenal in the world behind the United States and Russia.

But that's the upward bound estimate, right? B/c India would have to spend the money to buy that much international-uranium for domestic markets anyway.

I'm not too keen on more nuclear bombs, anywhere, but I'm also worried about the brown cloud and India's sucking need for energy. That's a lot of carbon she's going to be pumping into the air.

So many modes of analysis to balance.

BTW did you clean up the map in photoshop?

BTW, the cartographer was Bryan Christie and he's got some beautiful maps.

What a beautiful projection. I wish people would use it for less grisly subjects as well. Go Scientific American!

speaking of nuclear weapons around the world... check this cartoon out:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

tis the end of the world as we know it...

Mixed-metaphor alert –

“…the normally homogenous Republicans are showing signs of a spine again…”

Whether a political party holds one view or many has no relation on their willingness to be united or not.

As to the thrust of Hallinan’s article, if this is what passes for analysis of Indo-US relations, then the taxpayers of California should ask for their money back. Lets go one by one:

1. The protests on Sept 30 were primarily for protecting public sector workers. Any reference to India’s votes on the IAEA were tangential. Ask the average Indian voter what the IAEA is, and you are likely to be met with a blank stare. As Gandhi said, their’s is the politics of bread and salt. If you ask the average Indian about Japan and South Korea, they are more likely to express their admiration in their standard of living than comment on their military alliances with the U.S.

2. The strike affected West Bengal the worst (surprise), but the rest of the country was able to manage, by developing country standards anyway.

3. The gas pipeline was facing obstacles within India, who did not want to spend billions of dollars for building infrastructure in Pakistan, and then giving Pakistan leverage over Indian energy supplies that they currently do not have.

4. India is running out of uranium, and the nuclear plants are aging. Yet, India had no hope of modernizing its nuclear infrastructure without being able to buy such materials in the open market. At a time when developed economies are trying to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, it makes little sense for India to import more oil to promote last century’s technology.

5. Even if India is capable of producing 1000 warheads (dubious at best), there is no need to produce that many. India has said time and again that it views nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

6. India knows that Iran is a pariah, but befriending the mullahs would not bring anything to the table. India was not getting a discount on the oil, Pakistan was proving prickly as a potential partner. In fact, India abandoned plans of running a natural gas pipeline from Myanmar through Bangladesh, because it is discovering that bringing third-party countries is proving to be a headache. Simply put, India had plenty of reasons, aside from the U.S.. to drop the pipeline deal.

The Acorn had a thorough review of this matter a while back, which can be read here.

http://opinion.paifamily.com/?p=1604

This stands out:

“India is a member of the IAEA board. Unlike China, Russia and the United States, it is not a member of the UN Security Council. By that token, the burden of actually imposing sanctions on Iran will lie on China, Russia and France. India should let them have the privilege of defending a nuclear bad boy at the United Nations. The permanent five, including the United States, are not keen to admit India as one among them. So why should India allow them to escape the responsibility that comes with their position?”

I've gotta say that the Indian foreign policy seems to be made by some incredibly smart people. The degree of sophistication displayed by them in playing this game is quite fascinating. They are managing to do a very complicated dance with US, China, Iran and EU to advance their agenda of making India a nuclear super power. I am all for India acquiring more nukes and missiles. India must become strong enough to stare down the ravaging hordes of commies from China and acquiring enough nukes and misslies to demonstrate a very credible threat of being able to smoke out Beijing or Shanghai has to be a part of India's security agenda. I don't think the US is naively playing along. With aging populations of Russia and China, there is no other regional power that can stand down the Chinese, and, as always, Americans would rather have Indians shed blood when the war happens than good ol' boys from Arkansas and Alabama.

"...Americans would rather have Indians shed blood when the war happens than good ol' boys from Arkansas and Alabama."

Right - cause in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Lebanaon, Kuwait, Iraq, thousands of troops stationed as nuclear tripwires in West Germany and South Korea - the U.S. has proved time and again they want others to do their fighting for them.

Your criticism would carry greater weight if it was directed at Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea - which benefited mightily from having the U.S. taking on the burden of defending these nations.

I think we also need to look at the bigger picture here. If this deal goes through, it will mean bigger and better things to come ahead for the two countries. And so this deal should not be looked upon as an end to itself, and as a mere first step.
The bush administration realizes that separation from civilian and military use is not entirely possible and is sorta turning a blind eye to it, in the interest of the future - and so it is but natural to ask just how big of a future? I say a really big one.

India is already a nuclear power, the Americans tacitly accept it, and making them accept this more openly makes little difference.

The idea also that bulding up a huge arsenal of weapons will allow them to stare down China is based on fallacy. You only need about 20 nukes each to kill everyone and make the ground unliveable for thousands of years. Any more and it just becomes a "my dick is bigger than yours" contest.

I was very annoyed that India bowed into American pressure and gave up Iran. Iran has already said it may review its energy policy and I wouldn't be surprised if they cold-shouldered India in the future. The bloody spineless Indian govt didn't even get any proper concessions out of USA before agreeing.

They seem to be behaving like a dog that will do anything to please its master and is now wagging its tale looking for more goodies. That security council seat ain't coming anytime soon.

They should have refused to get involved in that situation and let the Chinese, Russians and Americans battle it out.

KXB,

Please spare me your sanctimonious outrage. If it weren't for Pearl Harbor and begging by Churchill, the US may never even have joined WWII, or "The War in Europe" as the Congress referred to it. Even then, it was the English empire including a huge number of Indians that bore the brunt of the war and casualties, not the Americans. Post WWII, and charging the host countries for its services (check your facts on who was paying for troop deployments in Japan and Korea, for example) US was merely posturing for effect in the Cold War era or taking on poor little runts like Grenada. When it came to real, bloody conflicts like in Cambodia, Afghanistan or Nicaragua, the US always used local mercenaries or dictators.

Sunny,
I don't think this is about caving in to US but it's about cold, calcualted protection of interests. The mullahs in Iran have done nothing for India but created trouble on the Kashmir issue and supported Pakistan against India. Dumping Iran is a no-brainer, it's good riddance to bad rubbish. That's exactly the beauty of this: India dumped good-for-nothing Iranians to extract vitally important Uranium and nuclear technologies out of the US. I don't know if it's going to take 20 or 200 nukes to flatten China, I just want India to have enough nukes to scare the s**t out of the Chinese.

"...excessively benefits India and undermines international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons."

Who ARE these wide-eyed innocents who believe that India has (or will have) greater effect on the spread of nuclear weapons than existing rogue nations? Even as a non-signatory of the NPT, India's been more mindful of proliferation concerns than a certain original NPT signatory (Read: China, without whom Pakistan would not have nuclear capability, without whom Iran and North Korea wouldn't have capability). Consigning India to nuclear Siberia is a non-starter morally speaking. But more importantly for real politik purposes, the US has a far more eager and stable ally in India than the losers that previous administrations have repeatedly chosen to reward.

I don't agree that this is about Iran. This is more about the mental inertia of Washington's non-proliferation establishment (the non-proliferation ayotallahs, as Nitin Pai calls them).

I was very annoyed that India bowed into American pressure and gave up Iran

Sunny- I think India made the right decision, and for a variety of reasons, as KXB points out. It's not a dog wagging its tail - it simply has to push for its promised quid pro quo.

What good does it do for India to snub the US and have a pipeline through Pakistan, a country that isn't able to safeguard its own pipelines, let alone that of its despised neighbor?

As always, there is a new variable coming into play:

India is interested in exporting natural gas as LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) via tankers. They are multiple options/ negotiations/ offers in the pipeline.

Australia is one of them, stepping in as a new partner to India.

There are some new players in the town.

I mean

LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) and LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) same in a broader sense.

The mullahs in Iran have done nothing for India but created trouble on the Kashmir issue and supported Pakistan against India.

Err no. That's Saudi Arabia. Iran has no love lost for Pakistan since the latter is Sunni and does nothing to protect its Shia minority. Iran is largely Shia. The two supported opposite sides in Afghanistan.

Secondly, there is little point in scaring the shit out of the Chinese, it makes more sense to have them as friends and strengthen economic ties. Viewing them as enemies is a fool's game.

I don't agree with KXB's analysis either. It focuses more on India building military capabilities than strengthening economic and political ties.

To view Iran simply as a country of Mullahs is too reductionist IMO.

Sunny,

You are right, even Pakistan and Iran have never got along. In fact, Iran always tries to point out that Pakistan is a nuclear mercenary not them. Pakistan and Iran are also jockeying for influence in Afghanistan.

I do think India should keep channels open with Iran always for many reasons - natural gas (shipped if not through pipeline because they are having problems finding insurance underwriters for a pipeline deal too, Afghanistan, long term interest in Middle East like exploration business through ONGC and Reliance Energy).

By the way, that article Abhi linked is also interesting. It is obviously from an American perspective and brings in another angle.

I paraphrase:
Does this mean India joins the U.S. alliance against China? The answer to that question is a good deal more complex.

In April of this year India and China signed a “Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity,” and trade between the two up-and-coming Asian giants is projected to reach $20 billion by 2008.

Following the July agreement with the United States, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reported to Parliament that “we see new horizons in our relationship with China,” and that the pact “is not at the cost of China.”

In fact, in the end the United States may just end up getting snookered. The Indians feel they need to modernize their military in order to become more than a regional power. If the Americans will help them do it, fine. But that doesn't mean signing on for the whole program.

The USA is playing a game whereby India gets to build weapons and at the same time joins an alliance against China and Iran.

Like I said, a fool's game on two levels.

Firstly it means India's defence spending goes up when that money could be better spent on education. And there's less transparency in defence spending too.

Secondly, it puts India on course for a local arms race against China and needlessly worsens relations with neighbours. Why want that? It makes much much more sense to trade like mad with China and Iran, strengthen local ties and increase prosperity.

That articles gives me some hope. Manmohan Singh ain't as stupid as I thought.

The west gave up dicksize-comparing contests ages ago and has since stuck to increasing propsperity. Now they want India in their little game and I'm glad it isn't being dragged into it.

Doh! I ended the italicised thingy a bit early. It finishes at "....for the whole program."

This is a good deal for India. Iran will not stop selling India energy--how can it limit the number of its customers further without suffering from a price squeeze? It is also a natural ally in the Kautilyan scheme, being the neighbor of India's "enemy", Pakistan.

Yes, the US can snivel out of the deal (which if it all works out could eventually reduce India's dependence on fossil fuels), but then, so can India. And with India's economy burgeoning as it never has in recent history, we can be sure that there are many orders coming for aircraft, weaponry, heavy machinery.--the few things that America can make decently! Thats the type of thing the Americans will have to take notice of in the future.

"which if it all works out could eventually reduce India's dependence on fossil fuels"

That is not happening soon for India, or for that matter for any country. I do not think in the current Asia-Middle East geopolitical ballroom dance, that is even a variable right now or will ever be.

France dervives 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy (from some 59 reactors), so I do not think that pursuing the nuclear alternative is necessarily chimerical.

Yes, the long-term fossil fuel picture looks scary, especially if we consider that it is well-nigh impossible for the masses of China or India to have a western-style first world life style-- because the oil does not exist.

But nuclear energy is one way forward, and the deal comes--to my mind-- at little cost to India.

"France dervives 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy"

It is only France, only France. Even France, keeps their presence in Middle East very firm

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/France/Oil.html

"Despite its lack of domestic crude oil supplies, France is very active in international oil production. The French oil company Total SA is one of the world's largest oil-producing companies. Formed as TotalFinaElf in 2000 by the merger of French Total, Belgian Petrofina, and French Elf Aquitaine, Total is the fourth-largest private oil producer in the world, with substantial operations in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East."

>>It is only France, only France. Even France, keeps their presence in Middle East very firm

Well if ten Americans get radiated in a meltdown, the whole country goes into a tizzy. How can anyone develop anything in that type of an environment?

Its also cheaper for big, fat America to buy up all the oil out of the ground right now.

In fact, the US nuclear program is importing nuclear technology from France. Its fallen way behind.

The "American model" means relying on oil in a bunch of theocratic and/or failed states.

I never said India should not pursue oil in every banana republic--in the Middle East or elsewhere--just that its interests won't be materially hurt with this deal.

The idea also that bulding up a huge arsenal of weapons will allow them to stare down China is based on fallacy. You only need about 20 nukes each to kill everyone and make the ground unliveable for thousands of years. Any more and it just becomes a "my dick is bigger than yours" contest.

Of course details on the size of the bomb is missing in this site.

P1eople are still inhabiting hiroshima and nagasaki it hasnt been thousands of years since fatboy was dropped.

“Please spare me your sanctimonious outrage. If it weren't for Pearl Harbor and begging by Churchill, the US may never even have joined WWII, or "The War in Europe" as the Congress referred to it. Even then, it was the English empire including a huge number of Indians that bore the brunt of the war and casualties, not the Americans. Post WWII, and charging the host countries for its services (check your facts on who was paying for troop deployments in Japan and Korea, for example) US was merely posturing for effect in the Cold War era or taking on poor little runts like Grenada. When it came to real, bloody conflicts like in Cambodia, Afghanistan or Nicaragua, the US always used local mercenaries or dictators.”

If it weren’t – blah, blah, blah. It’s kind of pointless to discuss the outcomes of war scenarios that did not take place. As for the role that Indian soldiers played – yes, they are overlooked in most Western history texts. And while their individual bravery was no doubt large, they were not particularly effective, to which I mostly blame Churchill. Eisenhower often complained that Churchill thought he was a soldier, suggesting plans that made no sense. But Truman assured Eisenhower that Churchill could talk, but would have no impact on decisionmaking.

The Americans understood that there was no secret method to beat the Germans, that it would be grueling, bloody affair – so they, quite sensibly, let the Soviets bear that cost. 2 out of every 3 Germans killed in WWII died on the Eastern front. The Soviets, not the English Empire, bore the brunt.

As for troop deployments in the Cold War era – even if the host country paid a modest amount, the host’s benefit was greater. Stalin must have thought American troops in Western Europe were more than posturing, when he blockaded Berlin. The main reason the USSR stationed nuclear weapons in Cuba was a belief it would put pressure on the U.S. to pull out of Western Europe.

In the 1970’s, when Carter was considered cutting the number of troops we had in South Korea, Seoul panicked, and started drawing up plans for a nuclear weapon. To keep the South from going nuclear, Carter cancelled his plans to lower the deployment.

Last year, when the U.S. announced it was going to close down a number of bases in Germany, Chancellor Schroeder took a break from his America-bashing to plead with the U.S. not to close the bases, otherwise the towns that depended on those bases would suffer economically. We saw the scene repeat itself last year in South Korea when the U.S. announced it was going to move the U.S. troops back about a hundred miles or so.

Is the U.S. exhibiting self-interest in its new relationship with India? Of course, but so is India. Through fits and starts, India is trying to jettison the failed NAM strategy of the past, which yielded a lot of rhetoric but no concrete results for India. The U.S. is trying to navigate the subcontinent as best it can. It too gets pulled in different directions, such as the non-proliferation hawks or those who insist on grouping it with Pakistan. Neither side is going to get 100% of what it wants.

Although this maybe a retread, Robert Blackwill elaborates on the new relationship between the U.S. and India in The National Interest

“The India Imperative”

And on Foreign Exchange, Fareed Zakaria interviewed Ashley Tellis, an Indian American who used to sit on Bush’s NSC

Oh, and for those who believe that a Sunni -majority Pakistan would not get along with a Shia Iran:

"... information Iran has provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, in recent weeks has strengthened suspicions that Pakistan sold Iran key nuclear secrets, including how to build uranium-enrichment centrifuges. A 10 November 2003 report by IAEA Director-General Mohammed El-Baradei on Iran's nuclear program stated that Tehran had received nuclear assistance from "several external sources."

From Globalsecurity.org: Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons

Err no. That's Saudi Arabia. Iran has no love lost for Pakistan since the latter is Sunni and does nothing to protect its Shia minority. Iran is largely Shia

Ooops, it should read:

"But FDR assured Eisenhower that Churchill could talk, but would have no impact on decisionmaking."

Well if ten Americans get radiated in a meltdown, the whole country goes into a tizzy. How can anyone develop anything in that type of an environment?

Gujjubhai, are you for real? The Americans lost plenty of precious blood and treasure for a war they sure as hell didn't start. I mean, if you regret the loss of Indian life, why not American? Petty is as petty does. Plenty of good old boys from Alabama, etc. have always been the ones to fight (why, even now). How utterly repugnant to show such little sympathy for that loss. It's not a zero-sum game. You can recognize that the Russians and Indians and Americans, Brits, etc, etc lost a lot of precious life in WWII. What is it with the automatic anti-americanism around here?

Bush has staked a lot on moving the relationship with India forward: the future relationships between Japan, India, Australia, and the US is key.

Oh, and I agree with the other commenters that it's not a more nuclear armed India that people are worried about: it's Iran and the flow of information.

MD,

I agree with you : blood was shed by many people and I most certainly recognize the toll on American lives. However, what I absolutely refuse to accept is "we saved Europe's ass" or "you'd all be speaking German without us defending your freedom" kinda tone that I detect in KXB's post which is also the norm in the US public discourse of its history. US did not participate in the war out of any desire to defend freedom, nor was its sacrifice the greatest. While KXB may dismiss "if it weren't.." as blah blah blah, the reality is that the US did not enter the war until 1941, a full two years into the conflict and only when its hand was forced by Japan. Nor were the US's sacrifces the greatest by any stretch of imagnination: Europe owes a lot more to Russians and the Commonwealth troops than it owes to US.

Indeed, Bush has staked a lot on building the relationship with India. However, both parties are going into this with their national interests in mind, there're no naive fools here. Indians know that the US will discard them in the blink of an eye as soon as their usefulness to Amercians is over. This is why they are hedging their bets by building relationships with EU, China and even Iran. Similarly, the US clearly has only two interests: oil and containment of China. US captured Iraq for oil, and is now betting on India to fight against China. So they will allow India to arm itself to the teeth, which also serves India's interest of projecting power in SE Asia and defend itself against China. I am not making any moral judgements here, this is just the reality of international power politics.

Those who would like to think of China as friends to India are missing one critical fact: China does not see India as a friend, but as an inferior power that must be subjugated. The Chinese construction of history has always seen them as the master race of Asia destined to rule over everyone else. Their jingoism will continue to compel them to seek territorial hegemony including land claims on India in Kashmir and NE. This is why China has tactially cultivated Pakistan to keep India tied on the Western front while it continues to put pressure on the northern front. This clearly indicates that those desiring friendship between India and China are living in fool's paradise. Of course, they'll have Indian commies to keep themselves company.

Nor were the US's sacrifces the greatest by any stretch of imagnination

Typical lefty, valuing "sacrifice" over contribution just as Marx valued "effort" over results.

Without the US, the Allies would have lost. Without the Indian troops, there would have been no substantive difference in outcome. Quite a few Indians fought for the Germans, FYI:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document2004_indians_comments.shtml

"It reveals how thousands of Indian soldiers who had joined Britain in the fight against fascism swapped their oaths to the British king for others to Adolf Hitler"

More:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm

Now, 17 years early, the BBC's Document programme has been given special access to this secret file.

It reveals how thousands of Indian soldiers who had joined Britain in the fight against fascism swapped their oaths to the British king for others to Adolf Hitler - an astonishing tale of loyalty, despair and betrayal that threatened to rock British rule in India, known as the Raj.

The story the German officers told their interrogators began in Berlin on 3 April 1941. This was the date that the left-wing Indian revolutionary leader, Subhas Chandra Bose, arrived in the German capital.

Bose, who had been arrested 11 times by the British in India, had fled the Raj with one mission in mind. That was to seek Hitler's help in pushing the British out of India...

By the end of 1941, Hitler's regime officially recognised his provisional "Free India Government" in exile, and even agreed to help Chandra Bose raise an army to fight for his cause. It was to be called "The Free India Legion".

Bose hoped to raise a force of about 100,000 men which, when armed and kitted out by the Germans, could be used to invade British India.

He decided to raise them by going on recruiting visits to Prisoner-of-War camps in Germany which, at that time, were home to tens of thousands of Indian soldiers captured by Rommel in North Africa...

After D-Day, the Free India Legion, which had now been drafted into Himmler's Waffen SS, were in headlong retreat through France, along with regular German units.

It was during this time that they gained a wild and loathsome reputation amongst the civilian population.

The former French Resistance fighter, Henri Gendreaux, remembers the Legion passing through his home town of Ruffec: "I do remember several cases of rape. A lady and her two daughters were raped and in another case they even shot dead a little two-year-old girl."

Finally, instead of driving the British from India, the Free India Legion were themselves driven from France and then Germany.

But I'm sure you'd prefer to forget that part of the story...

Gujjubhai:

My apologies. I fired off the previous comment without reading your last paragraph:

Those who would like to think of China as friends to India are missing one critical fact: China does not see India as a friend, but as an inferior power that must be subjugated. The Chinese construction of history has always seen them as the master race of Asia destined to rule over everyone else. Their jingoism will continue to compel them to seek territorial hegemony including land claims on India in Kashmir and NE. This is why China has tactially cultivated Pakistan to keep India tied on the Western front while it continues to put pressure on the northern front. This clearly indicates that those desiring friendship between India and China are living in fool's paradise. Of course, they'll have Indian commies to keep themselves company.

So it seems like you are an Indian nationalist rather than a lefty. That's fine (so long as you're an Indian rather than American citizen). Basically, KXB and I are American nationalists. As long as you don't disparage good ol' boys from Arkansas, we don't have to cast aspersions on Indian martial valor. There's no reason that nationalists can't cooperate when common interests are at stake, and containment of China is one such issue.

gc wrote:

The story the German officers told their interrogators began in Berlin on 3 April 1941. This was the date that the left-wing Indian revolutionary leader, Subhas Chandra Bose, arrived in the German capital.

That Subash Chandra Bose did that is a source of immense PRIDE to Indians. He may be the most revered Bengali of all time (even more so than Tagore), and one of the most revered modern Indians.

He was impatient with British rule and sought a millitary solution to the British occupation of India--until he fell out with the Gandhians. He made alliances with the Japanese and the Germans. He disappeared in a plane crash in Asia and some still believe he will one day return.

There is nothing to forget there.

You are right, even Pakistan and Iran have never got along.

Ofcourse!! From my experience Shiite Pakistanis are not fans of Pakistan as they are constantly under attack. Iran is the base for Shiite islam, so obviously Pak and Iran will have that little tention between them.

Rediff had articles from two Indian Foreign Service officials (retd) about how Iran had helped India in its time of need and India betrayed them in theirs.

Oh, and for those who believe that a Sunni -majority Pakistan would not get along with a Shia Iran:

Europe owes a lot more to Russians and the Commonwealth troops than it owes to US.

It is certainly true that the Soviets bore a heavier loss in human lives than the US as they were facing much larger forces and more ruthless policies. It would be wrong to dismiss the overwhelming contribution of the US to the ultimate victory. On the Western front the US supplied nearly 70% of the forces and by and large equipped Commonwealth forces. Though they were later loath to admit it, the Red Army was able to achieve as much as it did from Stalingrad onward because of US supplies, following through Murmansk and Iran. Wikipedia has a good information on this in an article on the Red Army. US strategic bombing reduced Germany's industrial production dramatically, crippling their ability to wage war.

“While KXB may dismiss "if it weren't.." as blah blah blah, the reality is that the US did not enter the war until 1941, a full two years into the conflict and only when its hand was forced by Japan. Nor were the US's sacrifces the greatest by any stretch of imagnination: Europe owes a lot more to Russians and the Commonwealth troops than it owes to US. “

While we can say the Soviets beat Nazi Germany, we cannot say they “freed” Europe. There are plenty of Poles and other Eastern Europeans in Chicago that can tell you of how their families suffered under Soviet rule. Compare the peace and prosperity Western Europe enjoyed with “American interference” to the condition Eastern Europe was in after the Cold War.

I am not suggesting that the U.S. did not ever make foreign policy mistakes or side with unsavory characters during the Cold War. Tilting to Pakistan in 1971, using jihad as a unifying ideology to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then leaving a bunch of heavily armed men behind are just the few examples of Washington’s short-sightedness. But America’s tilt to Pakistan was not written in the stars. Nehru did not help matters by trying to draw a moral equivalence between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Or by putting Krishnan Menon as the face of Indian diplomacy.

In October 1956, Krishnan Menon was yammering away at the UN, decrying the UK, France, and Israel seizing the Suez Canal (which they abandoned under U.S. pressure), and did not say a single word about the Russians killing several hundred Hungarians that same week as their tanks rolled through Budapest. Nor did they raise a peep when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and New Delhi looked the other way in the early years of the Sri Lankan civil war, as the LTTE used Tamil Nadu as a source of funds and equipment.

Like other posters here, I believe India should be wary of China, which is why the relationship with the U.S. makes sense. So long as China uses Pakistan as a handy thorn in India’s side, India should improve its relations with the U.S. and Japan. But, I do not believe armed conflict between the two is inevitable, or even likely.

But the increasing amount of commerce between the two is promising. It will not make them friends, but the more business they do with each other, the greater the cost of going to war. China threatens Taiwan, but realistically, Taiwan is the number one “foreign” investor in China. India does not need to be liked by China to be secure from them. But for too long, India was more concerned about being liked than being respected. So you had the foolishness of “hindi-chini bhai bhai” and kissing the ring of Arab countries, while Indian laborers are treated like crap.

So India should pursue its new relationship with America not to be liked, but because India has made it in America’s interest to forge a lasting partnership.

Another, non-Indian blog with commented on this:

By Dawn’s Early Light

Teh latest issue of The Economist has two articles dealing with this, and IMO, comes out on the wrong side - it seems to promote the NPT over India's security interests.

One can be linked to, but I will have to paste the other in its entirety:

Nuclear Confusion

The other one:

Bend them, break them
Oct 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition

The dangers in breaking the anti-nuclear rules to please India

Get article background

FROM George Bush to a unanimous UN Security Council, all agree that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is a dire threat to peace and security. In an all too fissile world, Mr Bush has made the anti-proliferation fight a centrepiece of his foreign policy. He aims to lever North Korea out of the bomb-building business, and to part Iran and others with dubious nuclear ambitions from dangerous bomb-useable technologies. America leads a posse of governments in disrupting illicit trade in nuclear, chemical and biological materials. The Security Council has outlawed their transfer to terrorist groups. So why would Mr Bush risk knocking the stuffing out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the legal bar to the spread of the bomb, by offering to help NPT-outsider India hone its nuclear skills? Congress, among others, now wants answers (see article).

Mr Bush says the bargain he struck with India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, in July does three good things. By offering civil nuclear co-operation, denied for decades, America hopes to cement its growing friendship with a peaceable democracy in a tricky neighbourhood. Not only that, but India will take on similar anti-proliferation commitments to the NPT's official nuclear five (America, Russia, Britain, France and China). Though India built a secret arsenal, then conducted weapons tests in 1998, America will still not formally recognise it as a nuclear power (calling it a “responsible state with advanced nuclear technology”) and promises not to help its bomb-tinkering. Lastly, more nuclear energy will allow India to power its economy without damaging the environment.

The trouble is that in order to sell India nuclear fuel and other technologies, Mr Bush wants to reverse a 30-year effort, both by America's Congress, which takes a hard look at the deal later this month, and by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers' Group, which met this week, to demand full-scope safeguards (meaning checks on all nuclear installations, which India does not allow) as a condition for nuclear supply. Drop that condition for India, which has boycotted the NPT, and it becomes harder to justify for countries that have played by the treaty's restrictive rules (or even those like North Korea and Iran who joined but haven't) to gain similar civilian benefits. Meanwhile, Britain, France and Canada have said they will loosen some of their rules for India too. So will Russia. Pakistan, another NPT-holdout, is demanding similar concessions.

Fix it, don't break it

Ironically, India wants civilian help because the rules were working: it is short of uranium for existing power plants (though many Indians, still burning dung and wood, will not benefit from more expensive dollops of nuclear power). Yet its power industry is closely bound up with weapons production: its first “peaceful” nuclear explosion, in 1974, used plutonium extracted from spent fuel with technologies supplied for civilian purposes. It now says it will try to separate more of its civilian from its military installations and let inspectors in, but there are no agreed criteria: India will decide the list.

As for other commitments, India promises to tighten export controls, but that is already a UN requirement. Since Mr Bush won't ratify the treaty banning all nuclear tests, he won't press India to either (though it has reiterated its commitment to a moratorium). India has agreed to work with America for a treaty to cut off production of fissile material, but both know talks have been stalled for years. And India refuses to adopt a voluntary ban, as America, Russia, Britain and France have done (China is thought to have too, but won't say it), because it wants to build lots more bombs. Without such a ban, whatever Mr Bush claims, nuclear skills, equipment and materials for India's civilian industry will help ease the choke points in its military programme too.

Isn't the burgeoning friendship between the world's richest democracy and its biggest one a strategic benefit that outweighs the potential costs? Mr Bush might think so, eyeing India's large neighbour, China. Better relations are worth having, but India has made quite clear it has no intention of being played off by America against China or anyone else.

Sorting out which nuclear materials it is sensible to sell, under what conditions and to whom, is going to get harder. Many countries see nuclear power as a way to meet demands for cleaner energy. Like India or Iran, all will need fuel that could be misused for bomb-making, so new rules are needed. But unless they are based on fairness to those who keep them, not favouritism to those who don't, they will deter no one.

But for too long, India was more concerned about being liked than being respected. So you had the foolishness of “hindi-chini bhai bhai” and kissing the ring of Arab countries, while Indian laborers are treated like crap.

I agree with your sentiments here, India needs to do whats in its self interest without worrying too much about being liked.
And you know in the past no one liked india or respected it either.

First, thank you to KXB for referring to my writing over at Dawn's Early Light. Second I want to agree strongly with the views of KXB and MD on this very interesting forum.

So you know where I am coming from, I am an American interested in foreign policy. I have been very interested in what I believe to be a US policy of Chinese containment by rebuilding alliances with Japan and Australia, choosing to defend Taiwan, making significant moves to defend and protect the Malacca Straits (25% of China's oil supply conservatively) and build a new long term strategic alliance with New Dehli. Why, given all the history of US-India-Soviet politics during the cold war and mutual suspicions are the US and India coming together now?

While it is easy to be cynical of America, most Americans hold their personal liberties dear and have a greater respect and determination to support those in other countries who desire greater liberties of their own. While China has undertaken impressive economic reforms, China chose the wrong road in 1989 at Tianamen Square. India has consistantly moved forward with its democracy and freedoms. Its response to the horrific events of December 2004 only reinforce the view of India as a growing major player on the world stage and especially in Asia.

When the United States looks at a country like China with a billion people and looks at India with over a billion people and sees one nation without personal freedoms and the other with it is an obvious choice of who you want to grow the relationship with.

With respect to some commentators here who would like to pretend the US is commiting India to a Sino-Indo arms race, I would like to say that it is the Chinese, not the Americans with over a decade history of double digit defense growth that goes well beyond the ability to move forces across the Strait of Taiwan.

China's military buildup is a potential future threat to India and the region. All nations conduct foreign policy based on their perceived national interests and their national character. While America is not always successful at this goal, it does firmly believe in exporting democracy, and never more so than the Bush Adminstration post Sept 11 when we saw what looking the other way with respect to failed states and radical Islam brought upon us.

When WWII ended, Americans packed up and went home. The Soviets stayed. The US didn't take Iraq for the oil and if it did, please tell me why fuel prices in America have over doubled? That doesn't sound like a winning electoral strategy. The US went to war in Iraq to fundamentally alter the perception that democracy doesn't work in the Middle East. Indians, more than any other nationality should know because of your multi-ethnic democracy, that the Middle East can fundamentally change. Your democracy came at the end of a gun barrel and ultimately so did Germany's, Japan's, France's and now Iraq.

The US and Indian partnership will prove very valuable to both nations. The US would rather see the economic tiger of Asia be India than the Communist country of China.

For more of my thoughts on India and US containment of China see here

Kind regards,

Bill Rice
Dawn's Early Light blog

Bill,

Since I agree with you on most of the points, especially, huge power play going between China, USA, EU, Japan, Australia, and now India included recently. Also, I have always advocated close India-US alliance, I do not nit-pick minor points [I need to get some work done today].

However,

"please tell me why fuel prices in America have over doubled?"

That is entirely a different power-play of much bigger and meaner chess board that has very little to do with Iraq today, but perhaps Iraq of tomorrow (meaning reserves). Things are not simple. Therefore, people should keep in mind billion dollar alliance being built between China and Iran. India excluding themselves from Middle East is close to being stupid - I know people in Delhi know better.

Oil politics is much meaner - Read Daniel Yergin's The Prize.

Bill,

Welcome to our little neck of the woods.

I'm not sure what you mean by India getting its independence at the barrel of a gun. If you mean independence from the UK, then it may be a rather roundabout definition - such as the UK would have to increasingly rely on force of arms to hold onto India, thereby further distancing itself from the democratic ideals it claims value.

Or, do you refer to India's post-independence period, when it found itself bordered by a hostile Pakistan and China? I think this is what you meant.

Democracy is possibly the most disruptive form of governance ever devised. In India, the ballot box has allowed millions of people who would otherwise never have a say in their government to demand greater attention from their government. This is what scares the hell out of Arab despots, not that Iraq might fail, but that it might succeeed. Or, as one annoyed Iraqi official told a Saudi diplomat urging a slowdown in elections, "I am not going to take advice on democracy from a camel-riding Bedouin."

In no way does my support of the war's overall aim excuse the Bush administrations poor postwar planning. Here, the U.S. could have learned a thing or two from India's role in Bangladeshi independence. The Indian army went in, captured the several thousand Pakistani troops, re-installed the Awami League government that won elections, and left. By not having a political figure that Iraqis could rally around (a Mandela, or Aung Sun Kyi), the U.S. was at a disadvantage. Any Iraqi afterwards would face the charge of being an American puppet.

I don't think we went to war for the oil, but I would not dismiss the role that oil played. If Iraq can become a stable nation, exceed the oil production of its Saddam days, and all the while remain outside of OPEC (thereby weakening the price control of the cartel) - then oil may be a factor. But I am afraid that even a stable, friendly Iraq will find it hard to remain outside of OPEC.

India did not support the Iraq war, and demonstrating its national interest, did not send troops. The U.S. is trying to isolate Iran, but India is urging international efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program. But both the U.S. and India are managing to work towards the bigger goal of partnership, than allow progress to be derailed by Iraq and Iran.

There have been a number of false dawns in greater American and Indian partnerships. It takes conscious decisions by both sides to bring this to fruition.

KXB,

I apologize for being unclear about the "barrel of the gun" comment. Posting comments can be much sloppier than blogging.

Oil is a commodity. Therefore as long as all nations have the ability to purchase it on the open market (are not sanctioned), prices are the same for all countries that are net importants of oil (ie., China, US and India). Oil prices had not made the huge run up until after the war and the increased Chinese demand that moved them from a net exporter to importer in this area. While oil is important to the US, the US economy is a service economy and no longer manufacturing one (recent Economist article states it has fallen to 10% of the economy). True, higher oil prices do increase the price of goods imported, but it is not as of yet impacting the US economy like developing nations.

The military, energy and political partnerships that the US and India are forging are not a false start. India has done well playing multiple angles of diplomacy. However, the US can be a good partner and friend with respect to influence in Islamabad and providing for access to better weapons and logistics for India's defense.

I am hoping to find time to blog on this article in the Asia Times Online that is very interesting concerning about US support for India expanding its naval presence out to the Malacca Straits.

It is understandable China would like to exclude the US from Asian country dialogues and forums because it is clear the US is working to contain China and wait for democracy to take hold.

A good defense is the best way of increasing the amount of time all Asian neighbors of China have to wait for the Chinese to demand the same freedoms that their brothers in Taiwan have or their neighbors in South Korea and India have.

I do not forsee an reason for a Indo-Sino axis. Iran, while an energy producing country is a nightmare state and international pariah. The US and India share many similar goals and the biggest is promoting India over China in the Asian sphere of influence until China becomes a democratic state.

The US needs India. India is better off with the US than with China/Iran/France. We have far more in common than we often think and far more potential to accomplish positive change together than working apart. I think both capitals clearly see this.

This all makes for a wonderful and thought provoking discussion.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

interesting comments

the lessons on WWII and american involvement...
didn't the russian war dead account for a great precentage, and didn't the eastern front cause the germany army many problems?

and after the war is when the united states came out with almost the only preserved industrial base and a strong economy, as well as influx of scientists from other parts of the world?

one might say america was only america after WWII

the us and iran, and india, its always a game of politics isn't it? how many issues are settled by questions of values? of course the us is trying to get the best deal it can on this, and india is probably doing the same

in the long run the outcome of these conflicts seem to be resolved by whoever brings the most outside power to bear, and not what happens in the debate. you can construct plausible arguements on every side to most international issues

Business links are strong and growing between both the countries.
Americans know that India wont give ups its nuclear weapons. There is a sizeable market for civilian nuclear technology in India. They want to sell it to India a mutually beneficial way. GE is a potential winner. (Canada, France and Russia combined may be bigger winners in terms of $).

Comment 41 by Bill Rice Shows another viewpoint, which is held strongly by many in US foreign policy establishment. In this viewpoint India, is seen as a tool, which can be used to contain China.
Can Indian US relations be looked upon in that light only?
India is not going to be an Australia when it comes to supporting US policies.

Some Indians have commented that all this is about strengthening Indo US relations and Indo-US relations are independent of US relations with China, Pakistan .
That’s as clear as the India being counterbalance to china phrase that’s floating around all the time.
Indian policy makers are not making any statements on issues that India has with China.
Theres no discussion on the
1)Border issue (No development on aksai chin, arunachal pradesh border issue)
2)Tibet Issue…Its linked with the border issue
3)The covert Chinese support of Maoist, cpi-ml, naxalites north east insurgents, and Pakistan(this is Indian issue with US also)

I guess it’s going to be a stalemate on these issues for a long time.

The author emphasized democracy as being some ideal that binds the countries but that’s not that important for the Americans and Indians rightly have no real illusions about it. All one would have to do is to look at their past alliances with Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and of course Pakistan when they thought its in their short term interests.

it would be my guess that any long running insurgency has support from outside powers insurgencies in north-east india included

Raju,

I appreciate your comments, but with due respect, I believe that morally relative arguments (nothing is good or bad) are not a valid way of making policy judgements. I am a Realist in the Kissenger sense on International Relations, but feel that policy must also be a just one. Freedom is clearly preferable to oppression. Some nations defend the former and others defend the later.

America has largely succeeded by the force of her ideals in society, an economy that rewards those who can succeed, not those born to the proper class and family. As KXB has related, American forces have done much to defend the libery of many nations, especially our former foes.

The US in return for promoting and defending democracy (usually, but not always) has sought support from other nations.

The Cold War was a realist stuggle, but one in which the nations that advocated individual liberties eventually one, because Marxism is a bankrupt, godless dogma.

Chinese communism has learned from Soviet Communism and has bought more time. But I do not put its government on the same level as any democratic nation.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

because Marxism is a bankrupt, godless dogma.

Guru Gulab Khatri,

You wrote: "The author emphasized democracy as being some ideal that binds the countries but that’s not that important for the Americans and Indians rightly have no real illusions about it. All one would have to do is to look at their past alliances with Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and of course Pakistan when they thought its in their short term interests."

That is all true under a Cold War paradigm, except you are forgetting the clear message the Bush Administration took from Sept 11. Here is a portion of President Bush's 2nd inaugural address:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

This speech is not platitudes, it is US foreign policy being conducted by Sec. Rice around the world. The US no longer coddles dictators for it produces more Sept 11 attacks.

That is why the US offers to India are sincere. The US is very interested in long term relationships with democratic countries. It is in both nations interests to promote better ties, stronger economic growth and more importantly, democratic principals abroad.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

The US no longer coddles dictators for it produces more Sept 11 attacks.

Bill, I think you just lost a lot of people. If 9/11 had anything to do with dictators it had to do with the dictators in Pakistan and in Saudi Arabia (who we still coddle). That fact makes your sentence above sound clueless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so I hope you weren't trying to imply that it did.

I am a Realist in the Kissenger sense on International Relations, but feel that policy must also be a just one. Freedom is clearly preferable to oppression. Some nations defend the former and others defend the later.

OUR GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO DENOUNCE THE SUPPRESSION OF DEMOCRACY. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO TAKE FORCEFUL MEASURES TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO PLACATE THE WEST PAKISTAN-DOMINATED GOVERNMENT. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS EVIDENCED WHAT MANY WILL CONSIDER MORAL BANKRUPTCY, IRONICALLY AT A TIME WHEN THE USSR SENT PRESIDENT YAHYA KHAN A MESSAGE DEFENDING DEMOCRACY, CONDEMNING THE ARREST OF A LEADER OF A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED MAJORITY PARTY. . .. BUT WE HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO INTERVENE, EVEN MORALLY, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE AWAMI CONFLICT, IN WHICH UNFORTUNATELY THE OVERWORKED TERM GENOCIDE IS APPLICABLE, IS PURELY AN INTERNAL MATTER OF A SOVEREIGN STATE. PRIVATE AMERICANS HAVE EXPRESSED DISGUST. WE, AS PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC SERVANTS, EXPRESS OUR DISSENT WITH CURRENT POLICY AND FERVENTLY HOPE THAT OUR TRUE AND LASTING INTERESTS HERE CAN BE DEFINED AND OUR POLICIES REDIRECTED

Then kisshiter and nixon tell the Chinese to move toops closer on Indian border during the 1971 war, and later they ask state department to create a whitepaper denouncing india.
Looking at non indian centric perspective one has to look at the overthrow of a democraticaly elected government in chile or the bombing of cambodia and laos ?
Great policy decisions Eh by a nobel prize winning statesman?

This speech is not platitudes, it is US foreign policy being conducted by Sec. Rice around the world. The US no longer coddles dictators for it produces more Sept 11 attacks.

A good account of the Indian viewpoint: Final Analysis

Gujjubhai,
Very Good and pertinent article.
I tried searching for the full speech online I can find the link on the PMs website it cant load the speech.
From the quotes in the article I agree with ManMohans Singh’s articulation on International relations.

“ It is unrealistic, to expect nations to act for altruistic reasons. International relations are, in the final analysis, power relations. This balance of power politics in international relations is more sophisticated than during the Cold War era. We must learn to deal with this new reality and plan our long-term security based on a proper appreciation of those evolving trends.”

He is aware of counterweight/regional balance views and the complexity it can present to India.
“we must also be mindful of the desire of extra-regional powers to keep us engaged in low-intensity conflicts and local problems, to weigh us down in a low-level equilibrium”.

To the tune of mannu bhai motor chali
ManMohan bhai India ko le ke chale pam pam pam.
America jayenge reactor le ayenge
Achi Achi Fighteron se ankhe larayenge
Halla machayenge gulla macheyenge white house me band baja bajeyenge
econonmic development ko aage badhaayenge
Badi badi takto ke beech counterweight nahin banjayenge

Guru Gulab Khatri,

Saying that I am a realist in the vein of Dr. Henry Kissinger doesn't mean that I agree with all of his foreign policy decisions as Sec. of State or US National Security Advisor. To a student of International Relations it is a label, like saying a modern day Machiavelli or Metternich. Just do a search in Google including "Kissinger" and "Realism" (results here)

I wrote that definition to add clarity to the readers, since prior to this post I had not been to the site. It is easy to add a label.

I find it ironic after labeling me and denouncing Kissinger, you quote something directly out of the "Realism" school of thought:

"It is unrealistic, to expect nations to act for altruistic reasons. International relations are, in the final analysis, power relations. This balance of power politics in international relations is more sophisticated than during the Cold War era. We must learn to deal with this new reality and plan our long-term security based on a proper appreciation of those evolving trends.”

I also added to my position of believing foreign policy should be conducted under a Realism rubric that it must serve a larger, macro "moral" purpose. I believe on the whole, America's history has held to this standard. It is the exceptions of American history that prove the rule. No country on earth has had a greater impact on spreading democracy and encouraging capitalist-libertarian enterprises than the United States.

I will say that it has been enlightening to watch the debate among Indians about what is right for their country. I am at a loss though when people with rights and liberties seem to discount these thoughts for their neighbors. If you think I am taking a moral view that is arrogant, I can point to a larger portion of the members of the party out of power who share the viewpoint I disdain.

Education and freedom, unconstrained from a moral compass (ie., realitivism) leads to this type of discounting of others personal liberties, because the "educated" either 1) know better or 2) don't believe in saying something what is the difference from right and wrong.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

Abhi,

Thank you for making the point you did in comment 51 above. Let me clarify.

September 11 fundamentally changed the view of security most American's felt. We believed prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that barring a nuclear strike from a major world power, it was doubtful that our shores would ever see the type of destruction we witnessed that day. Considering the US, by the nature of its role as a sole superpower, began a rethinking of its security and what would over the long term promote it. This where the "realism" school of thought that had let to the US policy of "coddling dictators" as long as they served US policy proved its long term bankruptcy. Outside of a moral goal of increasing democracy around the world, the US' long term security is at risk if it only seeks to preserve the status quo. Where we have failed in this strategy is a long list, from the Shah of Iran to our history in Latin America to Southeast Asia.

Rogue regimes became a more direct threat because of their ability to supply and equip islamic-terrorist groups with money, weapons and potentially bio/atomic weapons. No longer could the United States believe that its security was protected because of its distance from failed states.

Iraq presented an opportunity to remove a brutal regime and produce an democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, much like India in being a diverse country with many different ethnicities and religions vying for power.

If democracy works in the most stagnant and respresive of regimes in the heart of the Middle East, how long do you suppose Saudia Arabia, Syria and Egypt, not to mention Iran will not have to go through some form of democratic change. Do you think that the majority of Pakistani's do not desire to have free elections?

Afghanistan provides the same potential for change not only with Iran but with Pakistan and central Asia. Afghanistan is historically one of the most failed states in Asia. If it can transform, why not more educated, richer dictatorships?

Iraq did not cause September 11, but its continued existence pointed to a world order that was not tolerable to international stability and the promotion of democracy. Why then you ask does the US not invade other dictatorships?

The US position, at least in the Bush Administration, is that change will come over time as Iraq and Afghanistan become recognized successes where the people have the opportunity to practive their God given freedoms.

Would Libya have gone to the UK and the US with its secret weapons program if it wasn't for the toppling of Saddam? Does not Kim Jong il worry constantly about his weapons program? While the Iranians flout the UN, Europe and IEAE it is only a matter of time until their system of government fails. Syria's undemocratic ways of meddling in Lebanon and Iraq are bringing their further isolation and possibly US military action.

So yes, Iraq was not responsible for Sept 11, but it is important for non-Americans to understand the logic of our position in going to war to topple Saddam.

You may disagree with the logic but I do believe it makes a compelling case. From a realist point of view, advocated by Guru Gulab Khatri it seems to make perfect sense to enhance long term US security and world security of democratic nations. It also has the benefit of being a moral policy, in that liberty is spread which in the long run can bring impressive changes to the once stagnant Middle East.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice

Saying that I am a realist in the vein of Dr. Henry Kissinger doesn't mean that I agree with all of his foreign policy decisions as Sec. of State or US National
Then you are using Kissinger as a verb of sort, Its lacking in any potency or idea.
This is what I find not only arrogant but repugnant.
I find it ironic after labeling me and denouncing Kissinger, you quote something directly out of the "Realism" school of thought:
What did I Label you in my last response ? Are you the etymological arbitrator of real/imaginary ?
I clearly pointed out US’s Past alliances and actions against democracies and current alliances and actions and that india should keep that in mind. Instead of providing a counterpoint or response you constued my quiotes as saying that in a round about way i was saying the same thing as you which is not true.
I quoted PM ManMohans Singh’s comments on international relations which were inline with my view that this is a power game (loaded with short term interests) which rightfully cannot be seen as an alliance of idealogy.
Your argument now seems to shift from ‘sincere’ to ‘self interested’ rather than common respect to a principle which is what I had said before but its not what you had said.
I am at a loss though when people with rights and liberties seem to discount these thoughts for their neighbors.
What are you saying? My points were regarding loss of ALL liberties for Bangladesh which were perpetrated by Pakistan and your realistic idol’ Kissinger had a BIG hand in doing so.
Education and freedom, unconstrained from a moral compass (ie., realitivism) leads to this type of discounting of others personal liberties because the "educated" either 1) know better or 2) don't believe in saying something what is the difference from right and wrong. ,
WOW “education and freedom”which are constrained by a ‘moral compass’ whose direction ONLY YOU CAN JUDGE which then YOU can use to imply or outright condem any one else who does not agree with YOUR viewpoint.
You’ve given me an example of your ARROGANCE.

Ignore previos it lacks quotes

Saying that I am a realist in the vein of Dr. Henry Kissinger doesn't mean that I agree with all of his foreign policy decisions as Sec. of State or US National

I find it ironic after labeling me and denouncing Kissinger, you quote something directly out of the "Realism" school of thought:

I am at a loss though when people with rights and liberties seem to discount these thoughts for their neighbors.

Education and freedom, unconstrained from a moral compass (ie., realitivism) leads to this type of discounting of others personal liberties because the "educated" either 1) know better or 2) don't believe in saying something what is the difference from right and wrong.

Guru Gulab Khatri,

Your comment fails to make sense.

1) I gave the background for using the word Kissinger. (ie., Machiavelli, Metternich, etc.) Any student of international relations would not claim that using the description a "Kissinger realist" as lacking in "any potency or idea".

2) Your labeling comes in the form of the "kisshiler" comments which I take to mean "Kissinger-Hitler" unless I am mistaken. Since I referred to myself as a part-Realist in the Kissinger sense (his writings not necessarily all of his diplomacy), I take that repeated wording as somewhat personal in nature.

3) You are clearly personally attacking me in your last comment in bold by being arrogant and repugnant.

4) You then argue PM Singh's comments about International Relations being a power game. That is extremely, fundamentally a Realist thought in the Kissinger sense. So your argument here makes no sense to me. You are saying you are not a Realist by attacking Kissinger (your right) and then argue we disagree on International Relations (I agree to a point, I am a Realist who believes in power politics that serve a moral or "Idealist" point of view and I think you are arguing a straight Realist point of view, again your right). Then ironically you revert back to an Idealist argument by denouncing Kissinger over Bangladesh (again your right, and I have no argument in the this fight).

5) Now you are in a full personal attack by arguing that by my reasoning "ONLY [I] CAN JUDGE". I am purely making an International Relations argument.

I must say I am at a loss in our discussion because I do not see what framework you are coming from. I have been commenting on this site because of the interesting dialogue. However, I have no intention of carrying on at this type of personal level.

I am more than happy to return to the debate on merits.

Sincerely,

Bill Rice

September 11 fundamentally changed the view of security most American's felt. We believed prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that barring a nuclear strike from a major world power, it was doubtful that our shores would ever see the type of destruction we witnessed that day.

Considering the US, by the nature of its role as a sole superpower, began a rethinking of its security and what would over the long term promote it. This where the "realism" school of thought that had let to the US policy of "coddling dictators" as long as they served US policy proved its long term bankruptcy.

No longer could the United States believe that its security was protected because of its distance from failed states.

Iraq presented an opportunity to remove a brutal regime and produce an democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, much like India in being a diverse country with many different ethnicities and religions vying for power.

Do you think that the majority of Pakistani's do not desire to have free elections?

. Why then you ask does the US not invade other dictatorships?

While the Iranians flout the UN, Europe and IEAE it is only a matter of time until their system of government fails.

Syria's undemocratic ways of meddling in Lebanon

So yes, Iraq was not responsible for Sept 11, but it is important for non-Americans to understand the logic of our position in going to war to topple Saddam.

From a realist point of view, advocated by Guru Gulab Khatri it seems to make perfect sense to enhance long term US security and world security of democratic nations.

Yunan o Misr o Roma sab mit gayen is Jahan se Lekin Abhi bhi hai baki namo nishan hamara, Saare Jahan se Achcha hidustan hamara

It also has the benefit of being a moral policy

Guru Gulab Khatri,

I give you credit for raising the level of the discussion back to a give and take of ideas.

Ultimately though, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on US motives.

You are entitled to your opinon, but I really do think you hold far to cynical of a view of US intent. However, if one focuses on the errors of US policy and chalks up any positive outcome always to the result of US selfish intent, it is a likely conclusion.

My final thought on this debate with you: India is a democracy, China is not.
China is a potential threat to the US, India is not. Which country do you think the US wants to see a 20th Century Major World Power?

From a realist point of view, in light of the question above, what should India's response be?

Sincerely,

Bill Rice

I gave the background for using the word Kissinger. (ie., Machiavelli, Metternich, etc.) Any student of international relations would not claim that using the description a "Kissinger realist" as lacking in "any potency or idea” 2) Your labeling comes in the form of the "kisshiler" comments which I take to mean "Kissinger-Hitler" unless I am mistaken. Since I referred to myself as a part-Realist in the Kissinger sense (his writings not necessarily all of his diplomacy), I take that repeated wording as somewhat personal in nature.

You are clearly personally attacking me in your last comment in bold by being arrogant and repugnant.

In any sense a realist in true sense wouldn’t give a rats ass about whats written but what is implemented.

You then argue PM Singh's comments about International Relations being a power game. That is extremely, fundamentally a Realist

I had earlier said

The author emphasized democracy as being some ideal that binds the countries but that’s not that important for the Americans and Indians rightly have no real illusions about it

to which you disagreed and quoted bush’s inagural speech. By quoting Singhs analysis that International Relations are about power it shows that he is aware that being a democracy doesn’t buy him much.

… You are saying you are not a Realist by attacking Kissinger (your right) and then argue we disagree on International Relations (I agree to a point, I am a Realist who believes in power politics that serve a moral or "Idealist" point of view and I think you are arguing a straight Realist point of view, again your right). Then ironically you revert back to an Idealist argument by denouncing Kissinger over Bangladesh (again your right, and I have no argument in the this fight)

Your view of Kissinger’s realist power politics serving “moral” goals is not evident. You did not provide any counter point to the utter lack of morality in his power play in Indian Subcontinent.
Outside of India Where was his moral position when he told the the south Vietnamese to not to agree to democratic party proposed ceasefire b/c if Nixon is elected he will give them a better deal? And the war continued for 4 years. And ended on the same conditions
Where was his morality on extending the war illegally into Cambodia and Laos then denying it?
Where was his realism serving moral goals on aiding the coup of a democratically elected government in chile?

5) Now you are in a full personal attack by arguing that by my reasoning "ONLY [I] CAN JUDGE". I am purely making an International Relations argument.

Education and freedom, unconstrained from a moral compass (ie., realitivism) leads to this type of discounting of others personal liberties, because the "educated" either 1) know better or 2) don't believe in saying something what is the difference from right and wrong.

I read your statements in view of world history pertaining to the American policies. And those in which other parties personal liberties were violated. Who can claim the compass then ?

I must say I am at a loss in our discussion because I do not see what framework

I have been keenly following this discussion for quite some time and I feel impelled to step in.
I would request Bill and Guru both to consider why America and India should co-operate and avoid needlessly pondering over history.
In short this let us turn this into a discussion of commonalities.
I suppose the times we were born in and our respective histories have fashoined our perceptions rather differently.
To the more perceptive Indians the legacy of the Raj still rankles and though we retain more than a passing fondness for the British there is also considerable distaste for the erstwhile policies and action of the british in India - years of oppression and famines and a very bloody parting kick in the form of the partition of India. Add to that the heady post independence years when India was the voice for the oppressed and the colonized and found itself in at odds with most western powers. What rankled to most Indians was that those voicing virtues of democracy and free society were the ones who kind of ganged together to suppress sometimes legitimate grievances of Indians. As the idealistic post independence age gave way to a more cynical age politicians in India adopted a very farcical leftism and consequent anti-americanism. This left the country years behing its peers in developement, encouraged corruptions, sloppiness and a generally lethargic and rhetorical national culture. Any anti-americanism we see in India today is a legacy of this culture not the idealistic one before it.
As far as america is concerned even though it has not always lived up to its rhetoric about democracy - one must admit that it has achieved that to a large extent in its own society. I feel that the initial American scepticism about india had to do with the fact that India ( for good or for bad ) played spoilsport in what were essentially American efforts to preserve its freedom and way of life against onslought from communism. India's suffering under the British had given its intellectual elite and its leadership a pathologically negative and often hypocritical attitude towards America, England and other western powers. America in the the throes of a death struggle with Communism has little patience for this kind of thing.
NO major efforts were made to salvage this relationship - and so it remained - lukewarm and uninspiring - until the casue for all this - namely the cold war - was removed from the scene.
Let us also remember that for America's 'Chile' there is Indias 'Hungary' and for every 'Vietnam' there is an 'Afghanistan'. To put it consicely - both parties have not lived up tot thier professed ideals - wherever events overtook them and they felt that thier national interests were in jeopardy.
So it is often futile to argue about the past and point fingers.
Now India is increasingly facing a situation that America faced in the turn of the fifties. On its borders China has morphed from rabidly communist to rabidly nationalist - and it grows more powerful by the day.
India inspite of all appeasement and false-bonhomie find s that CHina is not willling to relent to India on any count. Seperately America finds a uneasy shift in Balance of power taking place.
If we look at the the way international politics works we find that the most dominant powers tend to export thier political philosophies and generally militarily dominate thier backyards. And for a country that thinks that the whole of Asia is thier backyard - one can imagine what it would mean to its neighbours.
Irrespective of what others may say I think that India and China are locked in a death struggle. On has to cease to exist in the present form. A democratic India is a constant reminder to a China that there exists a different way of life to thiers. Hence the encirclement and the dismissive treatment of India by China. In due course either India would succumb to rising power of china and consequently fragment or become an also-ran state in Asia or the communist chinese empire would collapse. Both cannot co-exist indefinitely side by side as major powers.

What happens when Communist China is a power comparable to America. Democracy, freedom of expression and belief would take a massive hit. Thugs and dictators everywhere will be emboldened. What makes me say this - just look at China's best friends today - Pakistan, North Korea, Iran. Saudi Arabia and now an increasingly autocratic Russia - and you know the reason why.

India because of its size, demographics, history and chance is the biggest hedge against this - and I think the biggest hope for the continuance of democracy in the world. It is the biggest hope that history would not slip and hundred years into autocratic governance.

The leadership in both america and India see this coming and are working to turn the tide. National interests yes - but there are larger issues involved here too. It is imperative that both countries work together to forward thier shared interest in a secure democratic future.

Indians owe it not to America but to themselves to make things work this time.

Raj-Chan

Indians owe it not to America but to themselves to make things work this time.

With due apologies to you I must state that there is a fine line between pragmatism and cynicism. Of course we must not get carried away with overdone rhetoric but the fact remains that this relationship has better potential and depth than the one with USSR which we were once so loud about. However a better relationship with the US must be given the chance it deserves. Here it would be of import to note that the US relationship with the French or Japanese (inspite of problems present and past) is on a qualitatively higher plane than its relationship with China (inspite of all the economic interaction) or for that matter with any other authoritarian states. That is exactly where shared values come in. It offers us something in common. A basis to build relationships on. International relationships being a matter of negotiating from a position of strength - it is futile to expect anyone to give quarter. America's bad image can be better understood if we look at how India is percieved within its own neighbourhood - inspite of repeated overtures and appeasement of neighbouring states.

I would agree that mixing Kissinger and morality is mixing kerosene with scotch.

China's best friend may be walmart but China is best friend to the likes of North Korea and Pakistan and Burma and thier ilk.

As far as trading partner is concerned - look at Japan and the US and last but not least Taiwan - they have a larger and deeper volume of trade with China - and just how does thier diplomatic relations measure up? A point to ponder I suppose ? Trade is fine - but it is just one facet of relationship between nations. It never conveys the full picture.

Sure Pakistan did get a lot of aid from the US. Does it not get aid, technology, knowhow etc from China ? The point here is that states that are independent will act independently in a manner that defines thier interest best. Here we need to behave in a way that defines our interest best. The "death-struggle" with Pakistan you mentioned is the manifestation of the same with China. It needs no deep scrutiny to recognize that fact. Only one who looks at a problem squarely in the eye can tackle it - anything else is self-deception. It is here that putting our relationship with communist China in a rather harsh spotlight would help. If we anticipate the worst we plan for the worst. The alternative is of course to treat it as funny.

My point is that a communist china and a democratic India cannot exist in perpetuity in a balance of power scenario. One has to give way in the form of a visible change in ways of governance. I believe that a democratic China would fragment into a number of stable states. I also believe that if India were to have any other form of governance except democracy - it would fragment. Hence the term death struggle. Of course I would rather it was China than India.

As far as the nuclear agreement is concerned do we really have anything to gain by China or Pakistan splitting up thier nuclear infrastructure - so far as we stand to gain from our doing so ? I feel that in terms of a long term energy security strategy it is vital we make this sacrifice now - without unduly worrying about someone else doing the same. Let us understand that neither do we posses the necessary clout to make others behave as we see correct, nor do we retain any definite advantages from clinging on to our decades old positions. We just need to take pragmatic decisions in self interest.

We may think that we deserve superpower status - but to make others recognise us a superpower is a very differenet thing. Small beginings have been made by this governement and the previous ones - this is the time to build on those gains. In the past our internal and external policies , driven by ideological moorings and a warped sensee of past grievances rather than present benefit ensured that we were left far behind in the game of nations. That must not be allowed to happen again.
It is therefore in our interest to have a close and stable relationship with the US rhetoric notwithstanding.
Finally we must not trade and wait. We must trade and play - play and accrue all the advantages we can. For history does not favour an also-ran.