KrishnaK wrote:brihaspati wrote:What do you mean by "pivoted towards"? You can pivot "around", how do you "pivot towards"?
Your superior tone aside, looks like
pivot towards is very much in as a phrase
I guess it is okay to be unaware of tone of superiority in one's own and be very much aware of that in others. Shows that it is all about sense of superiority or inferiority and not about accurately conveying meaning. "Pivot" is centre of rotation/turning around. Originally this was used by a think-tank in the sense of "pivot" "to" - moving the centre of attention or "around which" efforts/attention will move - even if this usage is illogical given the previous established sense of the word in the language. They were talking of moving the pivot "to", so okay by a stretch. But "towards" takes it completely away.
which one between Russia and China do the US foreign policy buffs and concrete move son the ground show up as the perceived greater threat? You must be having very deep knowledge of the South American dynamic with respect to USA and the role brazilian military plays vis-a-vis US and US irritation with the left-leaning nations of the southern block to dismiss the obvious US perceptions of threat here.
China is pretty much the only country against which the US is building up a coalition, whatever their irritation against left leaning countries. We still are a left leaning country. We don't see Bangladesh a threat in the same class as China or Pakistan whatever our irritation with them.
I can but onlee wonder at your selective marshalling of facts and the logical flights thereafter. The USA has long been engaged in, and still is - even after the fall and retreat of the USSR - in building up alliances, and trying to expand its bulwark in surrounding and isolating Russia all around from East Europe to central Asia.
If the non-Brazil nations of Latin America are such a minor irritant lot, the USA did not need to have the "unwritten alliance" from early 20th century, and which has continued one way or the other to dominate the continent.
Here should be an interesting factoid for you - a perception from the US side, which ahs been allowed to be published, and therefore is part of the approved technique of probing and preparing public opinion/reaction without formally committing the state politically.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773
Third, the United States needs to take practical measures to support Brazil’s leadership in South America and its role in multilateral regional organizations. Implementation of these recommendations will garner immediate reciprocal benefits from the Brazilian government, and lay the groundwork for future bilateral cooperation both regionally and globally. Stronger U.S.–Brazil relations will bolster homeland, regional, and international security.
The United States needs to formally endorse Brazil’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nation’s Security Council (UNSC). The United States has extended this support to India, but not Brazil. Brazil’s nominal gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to grow to the fifth largest in the world by 2015, while India’s will grow only to ninth largest, immediately behind Russia.27 India’s GDP may surpass Brazil’s in the future based on the purchasing power parity (PPP) methodology. However, once PPP GDP is adjusted per capita, Brazil will remain ahead of India in 2015.28 Further, “Unlike India, [Brazil] has no insurgents, no ethnic and religious conflicts nor hostile neighbors.”29 It is problematic that India should receive a permanent UNSC seat before Brazil before resolving its conflict in Kashmir and Jammu with Pakistan.30 In sharp contrast, Brazil is not encumbered by any such state conflicts. Any future U.N. political agreement regarding Kashmir will be severely limited by an Indian veto on the UNSC if this proposed agreement is not in New Delhi’s best interest. Other permanent members of the UNSC–France, United Kingdom, and Russia--all affirmed their support for Brazil’s bid for a permanent UNSC seat.31
http://www.coha.org/expanding-alliances ... -security/
The DCA Helping D.C.
The United States has also undertaken new foreign policy initiatives in order to satisfy global requirements. The new approach aims to create a successful military alliance in the Western hemisphere similar to NATO with Europe. According to strategic analyst and Princeton professor, John G. Ikenberry, “NATO and the US-Japan alliance are at the core of [an] alliance system [which] will be expanded and strengthened.”9 The U.S. uses the structure of traditional Cold War alliances and expands upon these alliances by having them expand to other regional powers such as Brazil. Therefore, the DCA with Brazil will entail a “cooperation of security or security cobinding.”10 The unfettered rise of Brazil is inevitable and, via the DCA, it will be incorporated into an alliance system “rather than operating as a dissatisfied revisionist state on the outside,” like Venezuela.11
Another driving force behind the DCA is Washington’s uncanny feeling with regard to Venezuela’s transformed foreign policy and increased defense spending. Chávez recently reallocated approximately $4 billion in defense spending for Russian AK-47 rifles, Mi-24 attack helicopters, S300 surface-to-air missiles, and SU-27 fighter jets. This colossal investment in modern warfare has many nations on the continent worried about their intended end use. Although it does not create an arms race within Latin America per se, it does, according to some U.S. strategists, increase tensions among regional governments. Chávez’s outcries against the U.S., such as claiming that the U.S. has spy planes in the region, are now backed with a dangerous arsenal.
However, conventional military forces are not the only worry in the region. The Chávez government has an alleged relationship with Colombian FARC rebels, and the rebels have purportedly used the Venezuelan jungles as a safe haven. These rebel forces have also been reported to have AT-4 light anti-tank rockets, rifles and other arms, some of which formerly belonged to the Venezuelan military.
Venezuela is vying for political potency in the region as it aims to influence other governments to replicate policies of its own leftist-style government. Chávez’s objective has achieved relative success in Ecuador and Bolivia. The role of the regional military in the area is a major factor in determining whether Brazil or Venezuela will have stronger influence in the region. This factor contributes to Chávez’s decision to upgrade its military and why, in recent years, Brazil’s defense spending has also increased by 58%. Venezuela’s questionable political stance and alliances, enforced by a modern and dangerous military arsenal, could allow it to become a radical power in the region, threatening not only regional stability, but also competing against Brazil’s own ascension to power.
The U.S. base in Brazil will provide the U.S. with a foundation from which it can work hand in hand with Brasilia in thwarting the efforts to develop new routes for drug shipping northward. Additionally, the U.S. base in Brazil would serve as a Forward Operation Location (FOL), such as the ones already established in Curaçao and Aruba, which are military facilities targeted at curtailing drug activity in the region. These bases have proven to be quite successful in the war against drugs by acting as centers of intelligence operations. Furthermore, since Brazil has long been a powerful nation in Latin America, Brazil enthusiasts close to the White House would advocate that the U.S. should ally with Brazil in the “interest of regional security.”12 Therefore, the base in Brazil would not only serve to aid in combating drug trafficking, but also would help establish a more stable balance of power in what has been at times a politically unstable region.
I am not sure why India's supposed "left leaning" has any impact on perceptions of BD, and the sudden comparison to US vis-a-vis India. India has no regional military alliances with its neighbours targeting isolation of perceived threat nations. The onlee one coming close to something like that was the treaty with USSR during IG's reign. But even that was far far from anything that USA had and is still enforcing in Europe, Asia and Americas.
On the other hand, suppose India and Russia are no threat at all as perceived by the USA - and highly prized to be cultivated over and above all other nations in the IOR [Russia in your revision of my post has subtly become an IOR country]. Doesn't that fit in wonderfully and so well with US pushing, protecting, and pampering of the interests of such countries as Pakistan vis-a-vis India - even if they are perceived to be worrisone and of huge concern?
The US protects it's own interests. It has been very ruthless and successful in doing so. The pakis are very good at riding their coat tails and getting maximum benefit out of it for themselves. There is absolutely no proof to show that the US has been "pushing, protecting, and pampering of the interests of such countries as Pakistan vis-a-vis India" other than Nixon during 1971. The pakis don't share this opinion either. Even the sane ones - hussain haqqani being one of them.
The US was first in Pakiland to enjoy a picnic I guess, so that you can smoothly deny that they were there to prevent alleged Soviet expansion of influence. From the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 89 from AFG, until twin-towers - however there was a decade when there was no Soviet threat at all. What was USA doing in Pakiland then, and continuing their support and inputs - financially as well as militarily into the Paki military state? The same period that saw the last major concerted military effort from the Pakis against India?
I much appreciate that you acknowledge that you have such deep faith in the sanity of hussain haqqani, and that you provide proof of US innocence in the perception of Pakis who think USA has not done enough to hand India over to them on a platter.
You still have not clarified, what is that national interest of USA that requires it to still shore up the Paki economy and military, directly as well as through its cohort ally the Saudis.
If you say they are there to finish off the Talebani/AQ threat to US homeland security - then they have killed off by their own claim, the head honcho of AQ and almost made AQdefunct, and it is having to negotiate with the Talebs to make the transition of power feasible in AFG. How is helping Paki military and economy helping to further these two supposed "national interests" - given that most of that "help" lands up in pro-Paki jihadi/Talebi hands? If US is so ruthless in pursuing its own interests, all this fallout of strengthening the jihadis and Talebs and Paki capacity to commit nuisance and atrocities on India - must therefore be a conscious and deliberate aspect of that "national interest" of the USA.
So suddenly "success" of immigrants become equivalent to proof enough for dissing actual steps and behaviour in US foreign policy towards India? Immigrant success an indicator of ideological unbiasedness and non-influence on foreign policy?
If there is a clear bias towards abrahamic religions in the realm of foreign affairs, how can the same not be seen in other organs of the state ? How do you create and sustain the narrative to maintain such a tilt over decades without it being an article of faith with those in power. And again how would you isolate such tenets only to foreign affairs ?
Very interesting and funny logic. The US doesn't allow rampant Islamist social atrocities on its home ground because it would encroach on things that they would continue to like to enjoy, but was perfectly okay to encourage and push for such stuff abroad in the calculation that it would eliminate liberal, or "leftist" tendencies. Most European states maintained Jewish merchants, doctors, scholars, financiers, bankers from the medieval period while persecuting their faith. Surely those apparent dichotomies have not escaped your profound observational powers.
The Indians in USA are in general are not as much of an electoral threat - as the Hispanics or Irish are, not as numerous as the "Blacks" and with attendant historical baggage, not as wealthy and European roots with trans-Atlantic network connections as the Jews - to be treated as a threat. Indian economic activity generates useful revenue and economic benefits to the state, while they do not yet create an electoral threat to the degree "larger" communities exert. Or even if they do, there are equal numbers hedging political bets on opposing sides to be usable for manipulation. If one side of Indians can show that the other side is saying things out of "Hindu fundamentalism" and hence the demands or representation of this other side of Indians "national interest" can be and should be trashed by the US powerful - then of course the US ruling interests have no problem.
There can be Indians in the US who may bend over backwards to prove their loyalty to the US over and above any "Indian national interests".
Under such a scenario why is it so surprising to tap into the productivity of the Indian in the USA while pursuing imperialist, religious, and racial agenda in India by the US as a state?
By the way, you still have not stated concretely what the "long term" "mutually beneficial" "overlapping national interests" between USA and India are.
