Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Is this the Yank consensus on relations with India?

That's Pat Buchanan's take on Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy, in particular Giuliani's recent advocacy of NATO expansion to include Australia, Japan, Singapore, Israel and India. The following posers in Buchanan's article should be of interest to us:

"Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir?"

Notwithstanding the sound bytes, that attitude likely reflects a broad bi-partisan consensus in America, indeed among all Atlanticists regarding strategic relations with India. The dominant view is one of "How best to harness India's sepoy potential without risking any American interests or investing anything of real value?". The reluctance for reciprocity and a honest relationship among the Americans is hard to comprehend. Reinforcement of such attitudes by the Gunga Din-ish behaviour of the Manmohan Singhs, Kris Subramanyams and Shyam Sarans of India is the only constant in the equation. Other than the blind anti-Americanism of the Indian communists and the imbecility of Natwar Singh & Mani Shankar Aiyar, nobody in Indian babudom has dared to ask counter questions like "Why should India commit it's soldiers for sepoy duty in Iraq? What Indian interests are served by isolating Iran, an important source of our hydro-carbons? Of what value to India is democracy in Pakistan or Nepal?" etc.

No comments: