jun 11th, 2010
if you believe what obama tells you, hey, i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you. real nice bridge, i tell you.
i wrote a deeply sceptical piece about american bad faith on the 6th. it was to appear in rediff and india abroad, but i haven't seen it yet on either.
i think obama is simply paying lip service. he is insincere to the core.
so, ram narayan's enthusiasm notwithstanding, i believe nothing has changed. obama is still the manchurian, and he is no friend of india.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ram Narayanan
From: Ram Narayanan
Dear Rajeev:
My assessment of the US-India Strategic Dialogue was covered in a dispatch I had filed on June 7, 2010 following my visit to Washington.
Other assessments include:
Ambassador T P Sreenivasan: "Obama has gone further than Bush on India," Rediff News, June 9, 2010
Judith Apter Klinghoffer: "After Jewish Americans, Come Indian Americans," George Mason University's History News Network, June 7, 2010
M K Bhadrakumar: "The angst of wayward US partnerships," Asia Times Online, June 8, 2010
K.P. Nayar: "PERSONAL CHEMISTRY - S. M. Krishna's visit to Washington will boster Indo-US ties," June 9, 2010
A Adityanjee , President, Council for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi: "It's the Civilizational and Strategic Dialogue," June 9, 2010.
The official US viewpoint is expressed by Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake in a conversation with Ambassador Teresita Schaffer, Director of the South Asia Program at CSIS.
All the above SIX assessments can be read at http://usindiafriendship.net/
Aziz Haniffa has compiled the views of three US South Asia experts, Ashley Tellis, Deepa Ollapally and Lisa Curtis in Rediff News. His full article is reproduced below.
It's followed by a perceptive piece from Gautam Adhikari, formerly of The Times of India and now Visiting Fellow at the East-West Center in Washington.
Cheers,
Ram Narayanan
US-India Friendship
http://usindiafriendship.net/
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jun/11/experts-analyse-ud-india-strategic-dialogue.htm
REDIFF NEWS, JANUARY 11, 2010
'Strategic Dialogue shows US' deep commitment to boost ties with India'
Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC
The post-mortem on the United States-India Strategic Dialogue co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna -- which also had the icing on the cake of President Barack Obama attending and delivering remarks at Clinton's reception for Krishna and the Indian delegation at the conclusion of the talks, where he pledged his unequivocal commitment to further US-India ties -- in the eyes of South Asia experts in Washington, DC, was mixed.
... deleted
______________________
ASIA PACIFIC BULLETIN, JUNE 11, 2010
U.S.-India Relations Get a Boost
BY GAUTAM ADHIKARI
Now that the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue has had its inaugural meeting, how does the state of the relationship between the world's largest two democracies look? Not very different from the uncertain shape it took before the dialogue, say skeptics. Not bad at all, say optimists, the dialogue yielded positive results.
Given the reality of today's geopolitics, the optimists are probably correct. To start with, the atmospherics were great. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made special efforts to make the Indians feel good. Not only did she and her colleagues make the right noises at the dialogue, she threw a spanking good party at the State Department on June 3. When she strode into the hall that afternoon at 5 o'clock with the president of the United States in tow, the crowd looked impressed.
She spoke warmly and even wrote an op-ed the next day in The Times of India extolling the relationship. President Barack Obama, looking surprisingly relaxed given the pummeling his administration is receiving on several fronts, spoke glowingly of the relationship and ribbed Clinton on her fondness for Indian food. When he announced he would visit India in November, the Indians present at the party applauded in delight.
Clearly, the Americans had surmised correctly that Indians like attention garnished with pomp and flattery. But the very fact that they went out of their way to make Indians feel good must mean that they wanted to dispel the misgivings some Indians have voiced lately about an apparent downgrading of India's status in America's geostrategic eyes, compared with the status of the relationship during the tenure of the Bush administration. It seems the current administration wants to tell the Indians, "Please, don't feel hurt. You are very important to us and we value your partnership."
The next morning the visiting Indians had a cold shower. Almost nothing about the strategic dialogue or the glittering state department reception merited any attention in the U.S. media. The Washington Post had a tiny item on an inside page about Obama's planned India visit; the TV channels and other major newspapers carried nothing. Now, contrast that with the coverage another strategic dialogue got a couple of weeks ago, the one with China in Beijing: Frequent bulletins, TV discussions, news analyses, grave punditry, the works. It seems clear that in the eyes of the American public, China and India are not in the same league.
One pill Indians perhaps need to swallow about today's world pecking order is this: China is sexy; India is not. It is, well, interesting, shows promise, but isn't quite there yet. China has an economy that is nearly four times India's in size. It has an astounding $2.5 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. It holds nearly a trillion dollars worth of U.S. paper. It makes it a point to punch at its weight in global affairs, both as a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council and as the world's pre-eminent emerging economic and military powerhouse.
By force of circumstances, India is a regional player. New Delhi does not yet have a long strategic vision, one in which it sees itself exerting serious global influence in, say, ten or fifteen years from now. Even its Asia policy has to be necessarily Janusfaced, with one eye on China and the other on Pakistan. When it tries to look east towards Southeast Asia or become closer to the ASEAN countries, it encounters a watchful China looming in the background. Perhaps that is how it will stay for the time being, given India's domestic developmental needs, internal and regional security challenges, and a consequent unwillingness to stake out positions on global issues.
Therefore, when New Delhi pitches for a permanent, veto-empowered seat on the United Nations Security Council, it should be fully conscious of what it is asking for. As it is, a coming rotational membership of the council for two years can place India between a rock and a hard place. For instance, Indian diplomats are already worrying sotto voce about what position India would take if matters came to a crunch on Iran. With permanent Security Council membership will come great responsibility, not for just two years but on an ongoing basis.
India will have to take stands on global affairs, size up its alliance preferences, and cut the coat of its tactical positions according to the cloth of an as yet unformed strategic worldview. If it is really serious about playing a global role, it should put a few wise heads together to prepare a paper outlining India's view of the world a decade from now. Nothing as detailed or grand as the U.S. National Security Strategy may be necessary; something modest and appropriate for India's scale of global ambition might be enough.
Meanwhile, to keep the United States on its side, India might like to continue to focus on just three areas: Close cooperation on global counterterrorism, staying in the loop on the endgame in Afghanistan, and rapidly intensifying the economic and technological side of the partnership. On all three fronts, the recent dialogue was fruitful.
Counterterrorism is high on the agenda of both sides. It figures prominently in the joint statement after the dialogue. The recent U.S.-India Counterterrorism Initiative to increase collaboration, information sharing, and capacity building is a step in the right direction.
On Afghanistan, the joint statement firmly reiterates India's role in the reconstruction, development, and stabilizing of that beleaguered nation, brushing aside private Pakistani grumblings over this matter.
Regarding economic and technological issues, both sides agreed to resolve lingering problems over U.S. export controls on high technology "in the spirit of the strategic partnership between the two countries."
Given the circumstances, the relationship received a clear boost through the dialogue. Plus, the United States has since made positive statements about India's role in any expansion of the UN Security Council. And, that is to say nothing of the canapés and champagne that generously flowed at the State Department.
Gautam Adhikari is a FICCI-EWC Visiting Fellow at the East-West Center in Washington. ________________________________________________________
PS: (*)This update is being sent to you because we believe you welcome it. If, however, you prefer not to receive similar information updates on India, US-India relations and related security issues, please reply to this message with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" on the subject field.
Powered By PanWebMailer Version 2.0 © 2004-2005
My assessment of the US-India Strategic Dialogue was covered in a dispatch I had filed on June 7, 2010 following my visit to Washington.
Other assessments include:
Ambassador T P Sreenivasan: "Obama has gone further than Bush on India," Rediff News, June 9, 2010
Judith Apter Klinghoffer: "After Jewish Americans, Come Indian Americans," George Mason University's History News Network, June 7, 2010
M K Bhadrakumar: "The angst of wayward US partnerships," Asia Times Online, June 8, 2010
K.P. Nayar: "PERSONAL CHEMISTRY - S. M. Krishna's visit to Washington will boster Indo-US ties," June 9, 2010
A Adityanjee , President, Council for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi: "It's the Civilizational and Strategic Dialogue," June 9, 2010.
The official US viewpoint is expressed by Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake in a conversation with Ambassador Teresita Schaffer, Director of the South Asia Program at CSIS.
All the above SIX assessments can be read at http://usindiafriendship.net/
Aziz Haniffa has compiled the views of three US South Asia experts, Ashley Tellis, Deepa Ollapally and Lisa Curtis in Rediff News. His full article is reproduced below.
It's followed by a perceptive piece from Gautam Adhikari, formerly of The Times of India and now Visiting Fellow at the East-West Center in Washington.
Cheers,
Ram Narayanan
US-India Friendship
http://usindiafriendship.net/
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jun/11/experts-analyse-ud-india-strategic-dialogue.htm
REDIFF NEWS, JANUARY 11, 2010
'Strategic Dialogue shows US' deep commitment to boost ties with India'
Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC
The post-mortem on the United States-India Strategic Dialogue co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna -- which also had the icing on the cake of President Barack Obama attending and delivering remarks at Clinton's reception for Krishna and the Indian delegation at the conclusion of the talks, where he pledged his unequivocal commitment to further US-India ties -- in the eyes of South Asia experts in Washington, DC, was mixed.
... deleted
______________________
ASIA PACIFIC BULLETIN, JUNE 11, 2010
U.S.-India Relations Get a Boost
BY GAUTAM ADHIKARI
Now that the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue has had its inaugural meeting, how does the state of the relationship between the world's largest two democracies look? Not very different from the uncertain shape it took before the dialogue, say skeptics. Not bad at all, say optimists, the dialogue yielded positive results.
Given the reality of today's geopolitics, the optimists are probably correct. To start with, the atmospherics were great. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made special efforts to make the Indians feel good. Not only did she and her colleagues make the right noises at the dialogue, she threw a spanking good party at the State Department on June 3. When she strode into the hall that afternoon at 5 o'clock with the president of the United States in tow, the crowd looked impressed.
She spoke warmly and even wrote an op-ed the next day in The Times of India extolling the relationship. President Barack Obama, looking surprisingly relaxed given the pummeling his administration is receiving on several fronts, spoke glowingly of the relationship and ribbed Clinton on her fondness for Indian food. When he announced he would visit India in November, the Indians present at the party applauded in delight.
Clearly, the Americans had surmised correctly that Indians like attention garnished with pomp and flattery. But the very fact that they went out of their way to make Indians feel good must mean that they wanted to dispel the misgivings some Indians have voiced lately about an apparent downgrading of India's status in America's geostrategic eyes, compared with the status of the relationship during the tenure of the Bush administration. It seems the current administration wants to tell the Indians, "Please, don't feel hurt. You are very important to us and we value your partnership."
The next morning the visiting Indians had a cold shower. Almost nothing about the strategic dialogue or the glittering state department reception merited any attention in the U.S. media. The Washington Post had a tiny item on an inside page about Obama's planned India visit; the TV channels and other major newspapers carried nothing. Now, contrast that with the coverage another strategic dialogue got a couple of weeks ago, the one with China in Beijing: Frequent bulletins, TV discussions, news analyses, grave punditry, the works. It seems clear that in the eyes of the American public, China and India are not in the same league.
One pill Indians perhaps need to swallow about today's world pecking order is this: China is sexy; India is not. It is, well, interesting, shows promise, but isn't quite there yet. China has an economy that is nearly four times India's in size. It has an astounding $2.5 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. It holds nearly a trillion dollars worth of U.S. paper. It makes it a point to punch at its weight in global affairs, both as a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council and as the world's pre-eminent emerging economic and military powerhouse.
By force of circumstances, India is a regional player. New Delhi does not yet have a long strategic vision, one in which it sees itself exerting serious global influence in, say, ten or fifteen years from now. Even its Asia policy has to be necessarily Janusfaced, with one eye on China and the other on Pakistan. When it tries to look east towards Southeast Asia or become closer to the ASEAN countries, it encounters a watchful China looming in the background. Perhaps that is how it will stay for the time being, given India's domestic developmental needs, internal and regional security challenges, and a consequent unwillingness to stake out positions on global issues.
Therefore, when New Delhi pitches for a permanent, veto-empowered seat on the United Nations Security Council, it should be fully conscious of what it is asking for. As it is, a coming rotational membership of the council for two years can place India between a rock and a hard place. For instance, Indian diplomats are already worrying sotto voce about what position India would take if matters came to a crunch on Iran. With permanent Security Council membership will come great responsibility, not for just two years but on an ongoing basis.
India will have to take stands on global affairs, size up its alliance preferences, and cut the coat of its tactical positions according to the cloth of an as yet unformed strategic worldview. If it is really serious about playing a global role, it should put a few wise heads together to prepare a paper outlining India's view of the world a decade from now. Nothing as detailed or grand as the U.S. National Security Strategy may be necessary; something modest and appropriate for India's scale of global ambition might be enough.
Meanwhile, to keep the United States on its side, India might like to continue to focus on just three areas: Close cooperation on global counterterrorism, staying in the loop on the endgame in Afghanistan, and rapidly intensifying the economic and technological side of the partnership. On all three fronts, the recent dialogue was fruitful.
Counterterrorism is high on the agenda of both sides. It figures prominently in the joint statement after the dialogue. The recent U.S.-India Counterterrorism Initiative to increase collaboration, information sharing, and capacity building is a step in the right direction.
On Afghanistan, the joint statement firmly reiterates India's role in the reconstruction, development, and stabilizing of that beleaguered nation, brushing aside private Pakistani grumblings over this matter.
Regarding economic and technological issues, both sides agreed to resolve lingering problems over U.S. export controls on high technology "in the spirit of the strategic partnership between the two countries."
Given the circumstances, the relationship received a clear boost through the dialogue. Plus, the United States has since made positive statements about India's role in any expansion of the UN Security Council. And, that is to say nothing of the canapés and champagne that generously flowed at the State Department.
Gautam Adhikari is a FICCI-EWC Visiting Fellow at the East-West Center in Washington. ________________________________________________________
PS: (*)This update is being sent to you because we believe you welcome it. If, however, you prefer not to receive similar information updates on India, US-India relations and related security issues, please reply to this message with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" on the subject field.
Powered By PanWebMailer Version 2.0 © 2004-2005
No comments:
Post a Comment