The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[ramana]

Not ture. Shiv's mission is to make Indians realise they are on their own and not get swayed by illusions.

[shivajisisodia]

Not ture. Shiv's mission is to make Indians realise they are on their own and not get swayed by illusions.

I know his mission. I have read his posts. He is a nationalist. I like a lot of his views. I also agree with him and you that Indians are on their own. But which country is not on its own ? In international affairs as in life, it is a given. In fact, in our Hindu philosophy, it is a common saying, that a man comes alone and leaves alone, meaning that he should not get too attached to even his closest relatives.

But to say that we are on our own and to find enemies in everyone are two different things. The fact that we are on our own, should not prevent us to seek common ground with potential allies based on real-politic and shared interests to further our own singular interests. If we take this thing too far, as Indians tend to do, and nitpick on everything including harping on our potential allies's failures which do nothing to enhance us but only prick them like they(US) already accuse us of doing(they call us a prickly nation to deal with), then we find ourselves in a situation that we are in. We will have very few allies around the world. I dont like that fact that we dont have more allies. And I dont argue for more allies at the cost of our self respect, they should always be on the basis of mutual respect and equality. But nevertheless, we should have more people doing India's bidding internationally. It shouldnt be just us, but a group of a solid 10 or 20 nations, preferably with US included that makes our case to the world privately and in different multinational forums, whether it be on Kashmir, or UN membership or our Nuclear stance or anything else. In order to do this, we will have to give something in return. And this giving or trading should not be considered our "slave mentality" or "surrendering of our independence". We should have a good discussion on what we should be willing to give to each of our targetted potential ally, in return for their alliance, without us having to have our old colonial wounds of "slave mentality" and "Dhimi-ism" awakened again. That we are able to make these trade-offs without a chip on our shoulder.

I would much rather that we be quietly nice to and smile at our potential allies and gradually consolidate our own power and gather enough strength, so that we are then in a position to mock everyone and anyone at will. Until then, let us not overplay our hand, but just even underplay it by a little. Wear our simple cotton dhoti but keep wads and wads of cash in our undershirt and maybe even a lethal gun or a sword.

[svinayak]

Not ture. Shiv's mission is to make Indians realise they are on their own and not get swayed by illusions.


I know his mission. I have read his posts. He is a nationalist. I like a lot of his views. I also agree with him and you that Indians are on their own. But which country is not on its own ? In international affairs as in life, it is a given. In fact, in our Hindu philosophy, it is a common saying, that a man comes alone and leaves alone, meaning that he should not get too attached to even his closest relatives.

But to say that we are on our own and to find enemies in everyone are two different things.

That is not the point. The point is that Pakistan-China together and US behind them are ganging up against India.
Hence India being alone is very significant. It does not mean that other countries in the world are not alone.
India is alone trying to survive this adversary combination on border dispute, nationality and general trade.

[shivajisisodia]

That is not the point. The point is that Pakistan-China together and US behind them are ganging up against India.
Hence India being alone is very significant. It does not mean that other countries in the world are not alone.
India is alone trying to survive this adversary combination on border dispute, nationality and general trade.

If it is true, and I am not sure it is, that Pakistan-China and US have together ganged up against India, then the question arises, what is India going to do about it ?

If anyone thinks that a combination of India's nuclear deterrent and 10% economic growth will by itself counter such ganging up, then that person is smoking something.

No matter, what strategy India deploys to counter this, if it has any strategy, a vigorous diplomatic exchange with the US and at least nuetralizing it, if not winning it over on our side, has to be a fundamental component of that strategy. And pricking the US will only be counter productive in arriving at such a goal. What is to be gained by pricking the US and keep calling it names and keep pointing out its short comings, imagined or real ? Only makes us look delusional and Pacho Sanza-ish.

What are the alternatives ? Cozy up with China ? Have "aman ki aasha" with Pak. If there is this triad against us, US is your only realistic option of weaning away from this triad, based on mutual interests.

And if India alone is trying to survive this adversary combination on border dispute, nationality and general trade (general trade ? I dont see any serious trade disputes here), then again, why is India the only country facing this and not others ?

To answer this question, we would do much better to focus on and fix (as opposed to just focus) our own shortcomings, rather than US's. It would seem to me that a society facing such challenges will show a great deal of urgency in moblizing itself into a highly efficient economic and military engine akin to what Germany did in a very short period between the two Great Wars. I know, I know, Indian conditions cannot be compared to German conditions of that era, but at least we can try. do you, Acharya, see any urgency or any attempt even non-urgent, to turn us into an efficient economic and military complex such as Germany before WW2, in India ? Do you, honestly ? And if you dont, then how do you square your statement, that India faces unique "adversay combination on border dispute, nationality and general trade" like no other country and our attempts to face upto these challenges ? Let us not lay our own failure in this regard on US or even China or even Pak or even our worst adversaries, as bad as they are.

[ramana]

India is doing many things. Some observable and others not so.

[svinayak]

This article is relavant though written in 2006


http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... r1766.html

China and Pakistan, singly and in unison, have been strongly opposed to the overall evolution of a United States-India strategic partnership and more specifically the US-India civil nuclear deal. China and Pakistan are engaged in an ongoing frenetic rearguard action on Capitol Hill to scuttle the US-India nuclear deal. This was expected, and also that they would drive a subtle but determined campaign to wreck the US-India civil nuclear deal. Their reasons being strategic, as a strong US-India strategic partnership checkmates their strategic ambitions, which in any future perspective are not US friendly, to say, in the least.

US Congress Policy Attitudes Towards India Need Re-invention

It is suspected that many members of the US Congress still continue to view India in Cold War perspectives. Here one would like to add that those Cold War perspectives of India were patently wrong.

While deciding their vote on the US-India civil nuclear deal, the Honourable Members of the US Congress need to themselves answer the following questions:

Has India ever been in military confrontation with the United States like China (Korea, Vietnam)?
Has India like Pakistan indulged in WMD proliferation or was complicit on the 9/11 bombings?
India is a global power in the making, politically stable, economically resurgent and a vibrant democracy. With such credentials, do US lawmakers seriously believe that with a US-India nuclear deal in its pocket, India would turn out to be a long range threat to the United States?
The answers to all the above is a big and resounding NO.

As this author has written elsewhere that the basic problem with the US Congress is that for far too long, it had dealt with near-equal powers like Russia and China, who were confrontational in their stances towards the United States and with clashing strategic interests.

For the first time in history, the US Congress is being faced to deal on a strategic matter with an emerging near-equal power like India which is not confrontational to the United States, nor has India had any history of confrontation with the United States.

And therein lies a perplexing challenge for the US Congress in de-ciphering India’s future strategic intentions and its future impact on United States security.

The answers to the above stand asserted in the testimonies of US Secretary of State and other officials of the State Department before the Senate and House Committees.

As the United States and India embark on the path of a long range strategic partnership, the US Congress needs to re-invent its policy attitudes towards India. The US Congress would need to learn that commensurate with India’s attributes of power, size, location and military capabilities, the US Congress would have to be more accommodative and respectful of India’s strategic sensitivities.

The US-India strategic partnership is an exceptional partnership in the making and hence the US Congress also has to adopt exceptional policy attitudes towards India.

[shivajisisodia]

India is doing many things. Some observable and others not so.

Maybe so, but the results, at least observable, have been only negative.

[shivajisisodia]

Acharya,

No question, US needs a rethink of its policy vis-a-vis India. But if it is not inclined to go all the way on its own, maybe our diplomats should help, lacking a better option.

OR

You think pricking them like Nehru and Indira did is a better option.

[svinayak]

Hello, That post was not a reply to your post.

[svinayak]

Sandy Gordan writes about India and China

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56995764/5/Ch ... em#page=63

The effect on Sino–Indian relations
The Sino–Indian relationship is worryingly ambivalent. On one side of theequation we see a flourishing people-to-people relationship underwritten bywhat is projected to be the world’s largest bilateral trading partnership sometimebetween 2010 and 2020. In the past four years, trade has grown at a phenomenalaverage of 52 per cent to a total of US$25.76 billion in 2006/07; trade is on trackto being worth US$40 billion by 2010 (Acharya 2008:10).China and India have also made a mutual decision to set aside fighting abouttheir disputed border while the two giants develop their economies and enterworld markets—known in the case of China as the ‘peaceful development’doctrine. In 2005, the two agreed on a set of ‘guiding principles’ to govern bordernegotiations. There is a flourishing process of two-way visits, even at the seniormilitary level, culminating in the visit of president Hu Jintao to India in late2006 and the reciprocal visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Beijing inJanuary 2008. In recent years, China’s image of India has evolved from that of a weak country of no real consequence to what the Chinese call a ‘comprehensivenational power’.
2
This is not, however, a simple relationship from India’s perspective. India’strade deficit with China has been growing and now stands at more than US$9billion.
3
As Chinese imports increase into what should be a labour-intensive
57
Sino–Indian relations and the rise of China

manufacturing country, the vaunted trading ‘revolution’ could look lesspromising from the Indian perspective. India asserts that China is dumping largequantities of manufactures onto the Indian market. New Delhi has refused vitalChinese investment in key areas that it considers to be security risks, such astelecommunications and port development. It continues to deny China marketeconomy status and resists China’s offer of a free trade agreement. Clearly, thisis a country that lacks confidence that it can meet the economic challenge posedby its giant neighbour.The issue of the contested border can also be presented in negative as well aspositive terms. China’s ambassador to New Delhi shocked India two days beforeHu’s visit by asserting that Arunachal Pradesh—a populated part of India—wasstill disputed territory. The Indians were of the view that China had previouslyconceded that it belonged to India. The Chinese reversal could simply have beenviewed as tough negotiating tactics in Beijing, or it could have reflected Chineseconcerns about Tawang, in populated Arunachal Pradesh—the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama. It was, however, perceived in New Delhi as ‘disingenuousyo-yoing designed to keep India second-guessing and on its back foot’ (Aiyar2008). According to the Indian version of the 2005 guiding principles, Chinaalso breached those principles in laying claim to a portion of land containing asubstantial, settled population. It caused India to question seriously China’sveracity as a negotiating partner and possibly to wonder how China might behaveonce truly powerful.Closely associated with border issues is the issue of water. According toRamachandran (2008), China’s plans to divert 40 billion gallons of water annuallyfrom rivers in Tibet—especially the massive Yalong Tsangpo, which becomesthe Brahmaputra in India and subsequently the Megnad in Bangladesh—to theparched Yellow River Basin are causing considerable concern in India andBangladesh. The situation is exacerbated by the melting of the Himalayan glaciersthat feed the great rivers of Asia, on which 47 per cent of the world’s populationdepends. Ramachandran concludes that China’s plans mean it will ‘acquire greatpower leverage over India, worsening tensions between these two countries’.China’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean, and especially in South Asia, isalso deeply worrying to a country such as India, surrounded as it is by vulnerableborders and volatile countries with which it is often at loggerheads. China isselling weapons to all India’s immediate neighbours except Bhutan andconstructing deep-water ports in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.Although claims of Chinese military bases in Myanmar are exaggerated, Indiafeels surrounded in its own backyard.
4
India’s discomfort with China’s growing Indian Ocean footprint is expressedmost clearly at the official level in the Indian Maritime Doctrine, issued to thepublic in 2005. Having declared that the Indian Ocean is India’s ‘backyard’ and
58
Rising China: Power and Reassurance

outlining an ambitious schedule for Indian naval expansion in the Indian Ocean,the document cites China as a major reason for this expansion in the followingterms: ‘China has embarked on an ambitious military modernizationprogramme…the [People’s Liberation Army] Navy, which is the only Asiannavy with an SLBM capability, is aspiring to operate much further from its coastthan hitherto.’
5
India and China have also become locked in urgent competition for energy inthe Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and Myanmar. This sense of competitionhas become all the more urgent for India because of the poverty of its domesticsupplies of liquid hydrocarbons and its energy-intensive requirements formaintaining economic growth from a low base.Some observers assert that India and China have adjusted their competition forenergy such that they do not unduly compete in the same markets and inflateprices (Khanna 2008). India was nevertheless shocked to find that natural gasfrom two leases it had helped to develop in the Shwe field off Myanmar wassold by Myanmar’s nationalised oil company not to India, as expected, but toChina. This unexpected loss was likely due to pressure on the Myanmar juntafrom China (see Clarke and Dalliwall 2008; Lees 2006). Moreover, in seekingcompensation, India was apparently given sole controlling rights to Sittwe port,which it is developing—but this too was later overturned, again apparentlyafter pressure from China (Lees 2006).Although the
official
Indian position on China is positive, if one scratches thesurface, Indian commentary often quickly descends to visceral suspicion of China. Such commentary ranges from the prominent Indian academic BrahmaChellaney (2008), who asserts that in ‘order to avert the rise of a peer rival inAsia, China has sought to strategically tie down India south of the Himalayas’,and the commentary of officials such as Admiral Prakash, who said India wouldkeep a ‘close eye’ on China’s naval intentions in the Indian Ocean (OPRF 2005:9),to India’s Maritime Doctrine, cited above.


projected slowdown in China’s growth and a somewhat lesser slowdown inIndia’s.
Figure 5.2
Projected growth rates of India, China and the United States in marketexchange rates and purchasing power parity
As in Winters, L. Alan and Yusuf, Shahid (eds) 2007,
‘Dancing with Giants’: China, India and the globaleconomy
, World Bank and Institute for Policy Studies (Singapore), Washington, DC, p. 6.

.Obviously, such economic and defence spending projections depend onassumptions that ‘all things will remain equal’. There are several importantunknowns in the category ‘all things’.First, there is the issue of political stability in both countries. Commentatorshave argued persistently that India is both penalised and advantaged by thefact that it has remained a vibrant democracy. It is penalised in the sense thatits consensual decision-making processes mean that it has not been able to actforthrightly to develop its economy in the way that China has, enabling thelatter to maintain spectacular growth rates in the past three decades. Then again,India might in future be advantaged by the fact that it has already crossed theRubicon of democratisation, while China has not. That process, should it occur,could also be highly destabilising for China, with concomitant economiceffects—or so the argument runs.
1
This view of the future of China is, however, increasingly subject to challenge.For example, recent research by the respected Pew Research Center (viewed 28August 2008, <http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?Report ID=261>)shows that 86 per cent of Chinese people ‘are satisfied with the country’s overalldirection’. The Pew Center research was conducted after the riots in Tibet butbefore the May earthquake. The same question asked in 2002 elicited a favourableresponse on the part of only 48 per cent of respondents. It is also noteworthythat respondents reported far less satisfaction with their own lives than withthe general direction of the country. Moreover, the recent global downturnappears to have resulted in a significant decline in factory employment in China.Obviously, the data need to be treated with caution.

They do, however, give uspause to consider whether China is, indeed, inevitably bound to liberalise itspolity in the foreseeable future.Aside from the Pew Center’s research, there are other views being broughtforward to challenge the belief that China must inevitably confront a damagingcall for more democracy. According to Ma (2007), ‘The links between economicliberalization and political reform…have turned out to be much more complicatedand tenuous in the case of China.’At the same time as doubts are gathering about the inevitability of democracyin China, there is every indication that India’s politics will continue to be shapedby unstable coalitions and will be subject to considerable volatility, especiallygiven current energy shortages and inflationary pressures. India’s nationalelection, scheduled for May 2009, is likely to result in yet another weak coalition,one that this time might not last the full five-year term.


Balancing China and India–US relations
From India’s perspective, there is already a hedging quality in India–US relations,notwithstanding that New Delhi has made it clear to the United States that itdoes not wish to be a pawn in any balancing game against China, or any othercountry.

This hedging quality is evident in the evolving strategic relationship, which,significantly, was initiated in 1991 by the then Commander-In-Chief, PacificCommand (CINCPAC), and which has since developed powerful military–strategicovertones, with the apparent agreement of India.While there are many voices and motives in Washington directing the natureof the Indo–US rapprochement, at the heart of the relationship is the UnitedStates’ desire to create of India a major Asian military power capable eventuallyof helping to balance China’s rise. It is important to recognise that this ambitiondoes not necessarily imply that Washington believes it can win and maintainIndia as an ally, but rather that it will unsettle the power equation for China tohave another Asian power—and one that is already in competition—risingrapidly in military capability.The supposition here is twofold: first, a powerful India will be a more benignand pro-United States presence in the region than a powerful China; and second,if the United States refuses to give India what it wants—strategic parity withthe P5 nuclear states—then others, such as Russia, will.This desire on the part of the United States is a major factor behind the Indo–USnuclear agreement, which is not to say that other motives are not also present.The reason why the nuclear agreement is important is that it will be difficultfor the United States to support and build Indian power in some keytechnologies—for example, ballistic missile technology, anti-ballistic missilesand space—without first bringing India into ‘the nuclear tent’.This, then, is the deal—and where it cannot be done directly with US support,it can be done through the surrogacy of Israel, which has drawn increasinglyclose to India on high-tech military exchanges.That this interpretation is correct is suggested by statements by the BushAdministration of unambiguous support for India’s rise as a
major
Asian militarypower made at the time when the nuclear deal was first mooted. According toSecretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s policy adviser, this shift in US policy ismotivated by the fact that the United States’ ‘goal is to help India become a majorworld power in the 21st century’. He added, ‘We understand fully theimplications, including military implications, of that statement’<?lb?>(Rajghatta2005).
6
It is also explicit in the type of technologies being transferred to India—throughthe United States directly and through Israel. These include an ABM systemprobably based on the Israeli Arrow 2, in turn developed jointly with Boeingwith US technology. While Arrow 2 is an anti-tactical ballistic missile, Arrow3 will have an anti-MRBM capability. India is also to launch Israel’s new spysatellite in early 2009; a quid pro quo could be assistance with India’s ownmilitary satellite program, which will be especially important for its naval
60
Rising China: Power and Reassurance

targeting in the Indian Ocean and, eventually, a more sophisticated ABMcapability. Israel has also sold to India, with US permission (previously deniedto China), the Phalcon AWAC system. The United States has also directly soldsophisticated targeting radars and large naval vessels. The United States is alsoin the market for India’s new strike-fighter project.While the transfer of military technology is important, the deepeningmilitary-to-military relationship also brings with it the exchange of militarydoctrine, inter-operability and intelligence. This is very much an evolving,multifaceted relationship, albeit one focusing on maritime warfare. At its heartis a 10-year defence agreement signed in 2005 and a program of ever moresophisticated exercises, especially in the maritime sphere.None of this indicates, however, that India will enter any US ‘sphere’ or abandonits important relationships with other powers, especially Russia. While therehave been recent hiccups in the arms sale relationship between India and Russiato do with late delivery, escalating costs and poor supply of spare parts, therelationship is still of considerable importance to India and will not be easilydiscarded.Indeed, from India’s point of view, it can continue to conduct its strategy of ‘playing both ends against the middle’, as it has attempted to do, with varyinglevels of success, as a central plank of its foreign policy over many years. Withinthis pattern, however, it will likely ‘tilt’ somewhat towards the UnitedStates—the exact reversal of the situation during the Cold War.As time goes on, and given the hypothesis of a China that rises more rapidlythan India, this ‘tilt’ could increasingly take on an element of power balancing,whether New Delhi feels comfortable with that role or not. Nor is this label likelybe used in New Delhi.Of course, it needn’t happen that way, but the drivers of a more successfuloutcome will have far less to do with Sino–Indian relations and far more to dowith Sino–US relations and US–Russian relations. Should competition betweenChina and the United States intensify, China’s rise in Asia is unlikely to be aneasy one.As a ‘swing’ state in Asia—to use the term of the US Central Intelligence Agency(CIA)—India is therefore likely to be courted by a number of other rising powers.It will make the best it can of this situation in order to acquire the means tomilitary and economic power itself—whether it be Russian energy and platformsor US/Israeli high technology.
Conclusion
It is not at all clear whether China and India will rise equally. Indeed, it issomewhat more likely than not that China will continue to draw away from India
economically and militarily. Should this occur, India could seek implicitly (oreven explicitly) to balance China’s rise, either through an intensifyingrelationship with the United States or, less likely, with Russia. India is, however,unlikely to enter into any formal alliances during this process; and the ultimatenature and extent of this power-balancing arrangement will depend more onSino–US, Sino–Russian and Russia–US relations than it will on the relationshipbetween those three countries and India.While the best outcome would be something akin to Coral Bell’s (2005) ‘concertof powers’, such an outcome is not at all certain. Indeed, it is a ‘slippery slope’around the edges of a concert of powers arrangement that leads quickly to classicpower balancing. A concert of powers implies, among other things, that Indiaand China will be able to control and channel their emerging competition inproductive ways. While this too is a distinct possibility, I have tried to show inthis chapter that it is by no means a certainty. Indeed, there are some deep-seatedconcerns in India about a rising China and what this means for India’s positionin its sub-Himalayan backyard.

[RajeshA]

I recall in WWI, US did not intervene until late in 1917 when GB was almost dead and swung the tide.

In WWII they did lend lease and extracted everything out of Great Britain and then entered the war. Even then they concetrated on Japan. It was Hitler who declared war on US and forced them to intervene in Europe.

So the NSAB elite is wrong in thinking that US will rush in to help India if in trouble. Western Europe did not believe that and insisted on trip wire troops in Germany during Cold War.

My take is China is a lizard pretending to be a dragon and if US goes with them they will bite and both will go down.

China is in stagflation:inflation without growth, Their markets are in coma etc.

So keep negotiating and building up your strength in all spheres:Economy, political and society.

ramana garu,

I think one big difference between the cases of the World Wars and Chinese containment is simply that in the world wars there was actual fighting. The Chinese containment would be a lot more like the Cold War, with occasional skirmishes and baring of teeth, say in the South East Asian Sea (South China Sea), or in the Indian Ocean, or along Arunachal Pradesh, or in PoK. And then efforts would be made to cool down the tempers, and for each to find some face-saving solution. So we wont be seeing nukes flying. It is a question about not letting China intimidate any of the other countries in the region - India, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. So every time PRC bares its teeth, it would be pushed back, because forces of many alliance countries would start moving into the area. As such it would not be the case, that some member becomes involved in a full-fledged war, while the others wait it out till it is pounded into pulp.

With USA it should be straightforward deal, they take out Pakistan, without India getting bashed up, and we join their Pacific Alliance intended to contain PRC.

Taking out Pakistan, means at the minimum getting Baluchistan, PoK and Southern Sindh to join India, getting Pushtunistan recognized as a separate nation, and denuking Pakistan.

The only problem with an alliance with USA is, that USA would be leading the alliance, and as the leader, can make any deal with PRC and leave everybody high and dry, including India, forcing some compromise on India, which we don't like. So it is a question of trust. But beyond that, India would have to make an assessment, whether PRC can influence American behavior, even as America is in an opposing alliance! We pledge our cooperation, only if USA is willing to untangle itself from PRC's economic grip on USA gradually.

1) That means, USA starts favoring India as the manufacturing hub, and starts investing in India. Secondly we want to have a FTA with USA, which does not include agriculture, retail and allows only American banks in if they play by RBI's handbook.

2) The alliance should be based on maximizing the capacity building of each member! So each piece of weaponry a member develops (need not be bleeding edge) should be made available to other members at subsidized rates.

3) USA should also allow Vietnam to go nuclear! And nuclear weapons to be stationed in Taiwan! And for India to do further testing of our nukes in Vietnam!

4) USA would have to start co-developing military hardware with India, transferring technology on the one hand, and also selling naval ships and submarines dirt cheap to India, for India to bolster our capacity quickly! Same with Air Force! Some manufacturing would need to be transferred to India.

5) And yes, this alliance would not have a name, and not all members would be training together! We will keep our rhetoric moderate! There would be no official confirmation of an alliance between USA and India.

Of course one can think up a big wishlist ...

[ramana]

They are also talking about the opposite deal. Rein in Dalai Lama/Tibet and let TSP-PRC take care of India. Why do you think there are so many meetings between US and PRC while not so many with India?

And why did MMS suddenly start talking like Mrs G?

[RajeshA]

They are also talking about the opposite deal. Rein in Dalai Lama/Tibet and let TSP-PRC take care of India. Why do you think there are so many meetings between US and PRC while not so many with India?

And why did MMS suddenly start talking like Mrs G?

Hmmm....!

Interesting but how would that solve anything for USA? Unless if it has to do with China buying more American debt!

[svinayak]

Unless if it has to do with China buying more American debt!

It is about American economy and US politics

[RajeshA]

Unless if it has to do with China buying more American debt!

It is about American economy and US politics

But with China, they will be reinforcing the same downward spiral of cheap imports, trade imbalances and big borrowing!

What the US needs to do is to cut down on borrowing; diversify the cheap imports from multiple manufacturing hubs in the world, thus driving the imports even cheaper through competition; bring back the high-value imports back to production in USA itself; and to spread the expenditure on military hardware development around to its other allies and friends.

[ramana]

Thats the view from outside. Look at the view from their eyes. They need stability and will go there.

Correlate all this with the Mullen comments you posted.

Dont silo the mind. Whose n-p interests are being served US or PRC by talking to India about n-p?

[RajeshA]

ramana garu,

I am not saying that an Indo-US alliance is on the cards. I am merely saying that US would have to do certain things and give certain credible assurances before some sort of understanding can be reached.

Obviously USA has not yet reached that sort of understanding.

Mullen's comments on non-proliferation could also refer to the issue of allowing India to join the various non-proliferation bodies like NSG, Wassenar Pact, etc. And it can also mean, discussions on the nuclear liability bill or differences over ENR Transfer. Unclear what he means!

[ramana]

However those are not in his sphere of influence. More like SD. Any way its all data.

[svinayak]

It is about American economy and US politics
But with China, they will be reinforcing the same downward spiral of cheap imports, trade imbalances and big borrowing!

This is too simplistic. Just by engaging China and keeping the news filled with China and the next super power thye achieve global objectives. To keep US relevance in Asia they need engagement with China.
Engagement with China gives lot of side effects which US can reap and harvest.

[shiv]

You seem to be in a mission to prove, by logic or illogic, that US is all hot air.

In fact I am not. I am only trying to show that the US too has limitations and that we need to understand that rather than imagine the US has power where it does not have much.

Every time I do that someone or the other gets upset at the perceived "slighting" of the USA and wants to argue and tell me how powerful the US actually is. I have always pointed out that the US is powerful, and the most powerful nation on earth and has got there and stayed there in an admirable manner - but it seems to me that unless I chant the following mantra every time I mention the US - some people get upset at anything I say that makes the US appear "lesser" or "smaller".
The mantra

Om I believe that the US is the most powerful nation on earth, and has powers beyond what any other nation has. I respect and admire that power and will not question that power. If I am told that the US is invincible or that it is capable of doing things that I do not believe-I will still ignore what my mind tells me and accept the superiority of the US

Of course I was once requested to convert to Islam, at which time I was asked to hold the same attitude towards Allah as I am asked to do wrt to the US.

This "protect US echandee every time anyone questions it" atitude is a hindrance to the simple fact of pointing out that the US has some weaknesses and does some stupid things and has some bad leaders. I notice that some people are more enthusiastic than others to tell me about US power, invincibility and infallibility. The same people get more easily upset if I point out US weaknesses. This goes to such a great extent that people sometimes - when forced to accept that the US has weaknesses, will then argue and say that the US's weaknesses are not the weaknesses I say, but something else they are wiling to accept. There is a mental block in accepting the US/Allahs weakness it seems.

If Allah has weaknesses he cannot help you at a times. Things may go against you. If the US has weaknesses the US cannot help you at all times. Things may go against you

[shiv]

I think the relevance of US weaknesses shows up in how we relate to US actions and world events. As I said in the other thread, the US dumping of arms into Pakistan in the late 1950s and the acceptance of Pakistan as an ally has been touted as an example of US power and influence and the US's ability to "work in its own interest".

60 years later it is clear that the US was desperate to take on any goddam ally and accepted Pakistan's fork-tongued lies about an alliance. There was weakness in the US's choice. The US did that in a weak moment.

Some years later the US befriended China, using Pakistan's good offices. The US had broken all links with China and had helped kill millions of Chinese in the Korean war and supported India in 1962. But the US - doing a downhill ski in Vietnam, needed to increase pressure on the USSR. Befriending China was important and once again done through the same fork tongued Pakistan. Another rash act of US weakness - done in a hurry imagining that US power and dominance would keep Pakistan in check.

A third inexcusable act of weakness of the US was its one track desperation to defeat the USSR by taking on the most unlikely and idiotic forces as allies. Pakistan was not enough - the Saudis and bin Laden were also involved in putting Islamic Wahhabi fundamentalism on a pedestal. US arms, US training and lack of US opposition to nuclear proliferation from China (an act of US weakness in its own right) has created the Pakistan monster.

These are multiple acts of US weakness. The US acts reactively and out of weakness time and time again. There is a good possibility that now, in 2011, the US may well act rashly because it has never been so weak in my lifetime and dump the Pakistan problem on India. The idea that India can "ally" with the US against Pakistan is one that is fraught with danger for India unless we now exactly what we get from the US. The US may be dumping its weakness and fears on India - so they can get away clean. We don't owe that kind of help to the US. Imagining that an alliance with the US gives us "strength" may be pure bullshit. The US may need us more than we need them if they suddenly want to ally with us after all these years. We have to be ready to extract permanent concessions from the US as well as cast iron guarantees. The US is also the world's biggest seller of snake oil. Caution is the word.

[ramana]

Paul Kennedy in his Grand Strategy says Balance of power is a weak strategy.

[shiv]

Paul Kennedy in his Grand Strategy says Balance of power is a weak strategy.

ramana - in fact the idea of "balance of power" making alliances where an ally enters another ally's war was the sort of relationship that European states maintained with each other - and that eventually contributed to the world war because almost every nation on earth was allied with someone else , causing every nation to get involved in someone else's war.

Coming out of a world that fought like this twice between 1914 and 1945 - I wonder if Nehru actually dreamed up non alignment simply to prevent India from getting into this kind of situation with dubious "allies".

[RamaY]

We are assuming that US want to keep it's tentacles all around the globe for decades to come. But we are told that it is the multi-nationals that control US foreign policy leading it in to wars far and wide.

What if the multi-nationals that pumped up massa since 1945 found a new body to hold on to and the America is battle worn and is ready for a long snooze? In such a scenario the multi-nationals would not mind moving their base to their new base, PRC.

From that PoV it is plausible for US to handover (under the influence of same multi-nationals) the reigns of Asia to PRC (look at the top 5 trading partners of PRC.

[shivajisisodia]

Of course I was once requested to convert to Islam, at which time I was asked to hold the same attitude towards Allah as I am asked to do wrt to the US.

I think a man of your intelligence got the gist of my message but gets emotional and defensive, thus offering an absurd defence like that. I would not even begin to respond to your equating my argument for not looking for enemies everywhere to Islamists attitude towards Allah. You know better than that, Sir and you yourself realize that your defence is not even becoming of a high school student. If you havent, please read both my posts in their entirity.

Let me try to accord you more respect than you have accorded to yourself in this one instant and attempt find a logical reason for your frustration with the US. I think your frustration has nothing to do with the US, but stems from the realization that India is not in a strong enough position to either go it alone or to strike an alliance, deal, agreement, whatever you want to call it, with the US largely on India's terms. You must know, we are all frustrated by India's lack of relative strength and we all would have loved to and yet love to see India being stronger, far stronger, even the strongest. But your frustration arising out of India's weakness causes you to lash out at everyone else who will not work with us (India) strictly at our terms, despite our weak hand, such as the US. Your frustration at India's weakness also causes you to lash out at anyone who suggests a common sense and realistic assessment of India's actual strength and tries to suggest a strategy that could lead to some sort of accomodation with powers whose first priority is not "Indian interests", by giving in a little, not because we love to "give in a little" for the heck of it, or because we are "dhimis" or because "we are slaves to the West", or because we are akin to "Islamists". I like to play the hand I have been dealt with today, not live in fantasy and delusion and try to work my way up, slowly, gradually, incrementally, taking whatever I can get at every step and consolidate, until I have the power to dicate terms to the US or anyone else.

The idea that India can "ally" with the US against Pakistan is one that is fraught with danger for India unless we now exactly what we get from the US. The US may be dumping its weakness and fears on India - so they can get away clean. We don't owe that kind of help to the US. Imagining that an alliance with the US gives us "strength" may be pure bullshit. The US may need us more than we need them if they suddenly want to ally with us after all these years. We have to be ready to extract permanent concessions from the US as well as cast iron guarantees. The US is also the world's biggest seller of snake oil. Caution is the word.

So, you have essentially ruled out any alliance with the US and the West, unless it is totally risk free and totally on India's terms. What makes you think they will go for it ? If you think they will go for it, please lay out a specific outline of your maximalist terms that you think they(US) will accept. Your posts suggest that unless US or any other country takes a position with is more "Nationalistic Indian" than the Indian Government's position, you will not be in favor of any alliance with them.

It seems to me that you will be willing to go it alone, without any significant ally or friend in the world, to counter an Islamic population of 1.5 billion across scores of Islamic countries, many of them extremely wealthy and controlling an essential natural resource, who act as a strategic depth for the Pakis. What sort of bull headed diplomatic strategy is that ?

I wish Indians had their act together since independence and yet get their act together going forward, so that we CAN go it alone and not make any compromises, but our internal political and social structure has been and continues to be the biggest impediment in our achieving that state.

[shiv]

Let me try to accord you more respect than you have accorded to yourself in this one instant and attempt find a logical reason for your frustration with the US. I think your frustration has nothing to do with the US, but stems from the realization that India is not in a strong enough position to either go it alone or to strike an alliance, deal, agreement, whatever you want to call it, with the US largely on India's terms. You must know, we are all frustrated by India's lack of relative strength and we all would have loved to and yet love to see India being stronger, far stronger, even the strongest. But your frustration arising out of India's weakness causes you to lash out at everyone else who will not work with us (India) strictly at our terms, despite our weak hand, such as the US. Your frustration at India's weakness also causes you to lash out at anyone who suggests a common sense and realistic assessment of India's actual strength and tries to suggest a strategy that could lead to some sort of accomodation with powers whose first priority is not "Indian interests", by giving in a little, not because we love to "give in a little" for the heck of it, or because we are "dhimis" or because "we are slaves to the West", or because we are akin to "Islamists". I like to play the hand I have been dealt with today, not live in fantasy and delusion and try to work my way up, slowly, gradually, incrementally, taking whatever I can get at every step and consolidate, until I have the power to dicate terms to the US or anyone else.

You are 100% correct. But that does not change things in any way for India the nation in my view. To that extent this diagnosis of my psychological state of mind is worth only enough to explain to yourself and others why I write the way I do. Now that you have the correct explanation - I think I can move on without interruption of my frustration. I have no objection if you post this explanation about me in every post so that everyone knows my state of mind and will never forget - but at least you will not have to keep defending the US against my attacks. You know me well now. You are merely arguing with a frustrated Indian. You might want to consider moving on and talking to the more stable people on this forum rather than insist on according me more respect than you believe I give myself. Don't let my psychological state stop you.

So, you have essentially ruled out any alliance with the US and the West, unless it is totally risk free and totally on India's terms. What makes you think they will go for it ? I

You got it spot on once again mate! Congratulations. If the US does not go for it I will remain my frustrated, complaining self. Q.E.D.

In fact I have already stated my view on what the US might do - but you may have missed it, busy as you were with your elegant psychoanalysis of my state of mind.

[shivajisisodia]

Shiv writes - You know me well now. You are merely arguing with a frustrated Indian. You might want to consider moving on and talking to the more stable people on this forum rather than insist on according me more respect than you believe I give myself. Don't let my psychological state stop you.

You make it sound as if "frustration" is a derogatory term. It is not, particularly in your case. It is well justified. Infact, a lot of us, including me are frustrated by India's lack of relative power.

Frustration is not bad, but acting out of frustration to lash out at those who are not responsible for India's lack of relative power is counterproductive. Not for the entity that is being lashed out at but for the entity that is frustrated. What is required is that this justified frustration be directed within, to help India along to get to a better place, so it can make more favorable deals with the US and everyone else, like China does.

Lashing out at US is like US going to Iraq in response to 9/11 or US fighting the so called "Taliban" when the real enemy is Pak. Misdirected fire.

[RajeshA]

shivajisisodia ji,

being heavily critical of USA for things that hurt us is a good strategy in itself. It puts them on the defensive, in their dealings with us. It helps us get a better deal. That is simply Negotiations 101!

So we need not be apologetic about cursing USA, as often as we feel like! It is all useful!

So we should all repeat: "USA is India's enemy because it delivers Pakistan weapons, which can be used to hurt us!" We should keep on repeating it until USA is enlightened that their policy on Pakistan, pisses off Indians, and that hurts American strategy in Asia

[shyamd]

India is doing many things. Some observable and others not so.

Raj exercise across border(Pokh), Mullen PRC on NPeeTee.... US/PRC combo once agian. US all of a sudden desparate to reconcile with TSP. It all makes sense now... Well, some things dont change.

[RajeshA]

Americans should just leave Afghanistan, if they don't have the stomach to fight! But sucking up to PRC and Pakis for saving face is simply pathetic! Old lover going to the new lover to let him have one last night with the whore!

shyamd ji,

are we still going to be seeing any shock and awe over Baluchistan or not?

[shyamd]

Americans should just leave Afghanistan, if they don't have the stomach to fight! But sucking up to PRC and Pakis for saving face is simply pathetic! Old lover going to the new lover to let him have one last night with the whore!

shyamd ji,

are we still going to be seeing any shock and awe over Baluchistan or not?

Sort of...Things just got more complicated.... Email might be better.

[RajeshA]

Sort of...Things just got more complicated.... Email might be better.

Sent you an email on yahoo!

[shyamd]

And why did MMS suddenly start talking like Mrs G?

Ramana ji, can you please point me to which statement specifically?

TIA

[vera_k]

^^

This one I think.

An international conspiracy is afoot

[Y I Patel]

shivajisisodia,

Hakimullah is a wily old coot. If his frustration is frustratingly frustrating, feel free to frustrate your frustration at some point..

[shiv]

Let me try and start with a lame attempt at a joke. The USA is like me. The USA is like me because people attribute intentions and motivations to both the USA and me without necessarily knowing the reasons behind actions (by the USA) or statement (by me). I will try and explain that.

Unless you can figure out why the US acted in a particular way, it is possible to interpret that act as hostile or friendly (or something else). And if you base your reactions to the USA on your interpretation of the US's motivation ("It was hostile!" or "It was friendly") - all future dealings with the USA are going to be judged on the basis of your judgement (hostile or friendly) with no inkling of what the USA actually intended. In other words our reaction to the USA becomes a result of our interpretation, rather than what the USA actually intended.

This is the US/China in Pakistan thread so let me try and stick to that topic. I will go back to a statement I have made a few times before and try and analyse it on the basis of what the USA's intentions might have been.

The USA dumped hundreds of aircraft and tanks into Pakistan in the late 1950s in an act that was clearly inimical to Indian interests. From an Indian viewpoint this was an unfriendly act. So far so good.

So let me up one step beyond this and ask, "Why did the USA dump arms into Pakistan in an unfriendly act inimical to Indian interests?"

This can be answered in two ways:
Here is one interpretation:
1. The US, in its great power and wisdom realised that in one stroke - by making a stupid but cooperative Pakistan it's vassal state - the USA could control the USSR, India's rise, and Central Asian resources. ((in the 1950s? Gimme a break!)

Here is another interpretation
2. The USA's greatest fear in the 1950s was the rise of communism. The USA had just failed to prevail in the Korean war and less than a decade after Hiroshima it was realised that the war could not be won using the USA's trump card - nuclear weapons. The US was desperate for allies and jumped to ally with any Tom, Dick or Harry who claimed that he was "anti-communist". Pakistan was one such state looking for help and found it convenient to bandwagon its anti India interest by fusing it with the USA's anti communist interest.

If you look at the above two explanations - the conclusions one can reach about US motivations are 400% different

The first explanation attributes to the US great strength, great wisdom, great foresight and great strategic ability. Like Allah, unlimited power and wisdom. The second explanation gives the USA a more human touch. A USA led by humans with fears and the actions that those humans took to try and address their own fears and improve their own hand.

An India that was hurt by the US action of arming Pakistan has to relate to this USA and deal with it. How should India react to the USA? Should India consider the USA a nation of "great strength, great wisdom, great foresight and great strategic ability like Allah" - seeking to keep India down? Or should India look at the USA as a nation led by humans with very real, very human fears making a choice which was bad for India (and in retrospect, with 20-20 hindsight a very very stupid long term choice). There is no comparison. One is a powerful USA that is omnipotent and omniscient. The other is a weak USA that is clutching at Pakistan made straws.

"Being realistic" also means sometimes attributing to the USA characteristics like "weakness", "poor choices" and "poor leadership". Unless we are willing to apply those labels as a possible explanation, the interprtation we have of US actions can be very different.

India should never ever try and relate to a USA that is "omniscient, omnipotent and seeks to keep India down" India needs to fight that USA tooth and nail. But India should do everything in its power to relate to a USA that is led by fallible humans who have shown weaknesses and have made mistakes. We can be friends, even allies.

This my friends was the reasoning behind my pointing out US "weaknesses". Unfortunately the reactions I have faced in pointing out US weakness is almost as if I was standing in Pakistan and saying "Allah is a weak twit". I have been hilariously characterized as an anti-American or a person who is "frustrated in a good sense". Gosh folks give me a break!

What I am demanding is NOT anti-Americanism. I am demanding realism. We need to relate to the USA based on realistic assessments of the US's strengths and weaknesses and our own strengths and weaknesses. Not on fairy tales that we cook up in or minds about US motivations based on an assessment of unlimited US power and wisdom.

[shivajisisodia]

Shiv,

Sir, you are going too deeply into what US is. No human beings can be all knowing and all powerful. We all know that. But some can be wiser in their own self interest than others. All I am saying is that US is wiser in their own self interest than India but not infallable in that area either, as was the case in their dealings with Pak or their misguided invasion of Iraq.

All I am saying is that India should increase the intensity and quality of its diplomacy vis-a-vis the US to convince them of the true nature of Pak (as a frontline army of Islamic expansion to make the entire world a Caliphate) and how Pak can be fixed and then get them to do it, with whatever help India can provide. It is a good opportunity right now, because the Americans are smarting from wounds inflicted on them by Pak. The Americans however, still dont understand indepth, the true nature of Islamic intent and threat and how the billion and a half muslims act in near unision, when it comes to spreading of Islam with violence. Indian diplomacy must first explain this to the US in a way that they can understand it. They have not been very open to that in the past, but they may be very open to it at the moment. There is a genuine commonality or confluence of interests, at the moment. If India plays it's cards and diplomacy right, it might not have to pay a major price to get a favorable outcome from US, again, at the moment. Opportunity must be siezed, otherwise, we will be faced with some pretty disastrous consequences of Pak again controlling Afghanistan and the entire Paki Jihadi Complex feeling unencumbered and free to unleash their Jihad on us with renewed vigor, while our own internal politics and societal issues keep us too weak to respond to this new invasion of sorts.

And yes, once a decision is made to sieze upon this opportunity and pursue an aggressive diplomatic strategy, then your analysis or psychoanalysis even of the Americans will be very useful for our diplomats as they work out the best arrangement possible with the US. In the absense of any highly focussed and intensive diplomatic push in the direction that I have talked about, your analysis of what US is, how is acts etc, is just academic. I guess you and I are saying the same things. Just that I want them to take that diplomatic initiative first, and you have already jumped to how Indians should engage the US.

Do you see any signs of urgency in pursuing such diplomacy or engagement with the US specifically as per the lines I have mentioned above, among any part of the Indian establishment ?

[Ambar]

"Diplomacy" is meeting the other party midway between their interests and our interests. Trying to dictate terms solely from our interest is not possible neither pragmatic especially while dealing with someone much more powerful than we are. A lot has been written about US sustenance as a major military,industrial and political superpower in arguably what has been the most competitive century where the world has gone "flat" . A lot of its success can be attributed to the absence of any ideology. Hence dealing with US is perhaps far more easier than dealing with a superpower that is ideologically driven. Having said that, we have to ask ourselves this question what is it that we can give to the US while taking something from them ? So tomorrow if we ever meet them midway it is not our weakness or their weakness, but realpolitik in play where alliances are formed based on mutual interest and not solely based on weaknesses. That explains US dealing with perfidious Pakis too.

For a superpower that has dealt with everyone from Bulgaria to Bolivia,Soviet Union to France and from Peru to Pakistan,the world is made up of pawns that you constantly move to safeguard your interests/limit damage tactically while moving towards a strategic goal. And that's where a 2 billion$/yr and weapons to Pakistan makes sense compared to waging an expensive war that could potentially bleed them off another 1.2 trillion$. We may ask what about the bodybags of US soldiers going out of Afghanistan ? Lets admit it, people who make decisions on Pennsylvania ave or the Pentagon are not the ones who fight at the front, that is a "collateral damage" that they accept as a cost of being in the war. Besides, if someone had run numbers in 2001 and told the heads that there could be 6000 deaths /10 yrs in 2 bloody wars halfway across the world in a place with no immediate "real" friends - most military commanders would readily take that number. In the end it is all about cost-benefit. Is throwing chump change at Pak cheaper than waging another all out war ? Yes. When Pak doesn't tug the line squeeze them through ADB,WB,IMF,Fai,KSA and random press releases.

Unless we draw a strategy what we want from the US and what we can do for US,we'll be stuck in neutral gear for a long time to come.

[svinayak]

we'll be stuck in neutral gear for a long time to come.

This may be a good strategy

[Ambar]

..and that has been our strategy from the past 64 years. If we have continue in that mode it gives us no real right to whine about other striking alliances to harm our interests.