Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
|
 |
|
02-29-2008, 07:12 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Military Professional
Join Date: 09-29-07
Country: 
|
USA Congress at Critical Crossroads with India
Quote:
United States Congress
at Critical Crossroads with India
by Dr. Subhash Kapila
The United States Congress finds itself today at critical cross-roads with India on the subject of the passage of the United States-India civil nuclear deal which the United States and India signed on July 18, 2005 at the summit in Washington. In pursuance of the above, the Bush administration has introduced draft legislation in both Houses of the Congress to set its seal for approval on the waivers required to move ahead.
Enough has been written and analyzed on the various aspects and implications of the deal and the draft legislation. It is not the intention to flog these details once again here, but focus on the major issues which the US Congress should bear in mind before derailing this deal.
In the run-up to the introduction of the waiver legislation in the US Congress by the Bush Administration, there was comparatively more overwhelming controversies raked up on Capitol Hill, than in India. It is still on-going on Capitol Hill despite some very eloquent, factual and convincing testimonies given by US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and Under Secretaries of State, Burns and Joseph on the strategic advantages that accrue to the United States from a passage of this deal.
The US Congress today is at critical cross-roads with India in that it has to decide whether it should allow itself to defeat the US-India nuclear deal under the combined pressure of the Chinese and Pakistani lobbyists on Capitol Hill and the non-proliferation storm-troopers that abound in Washington.
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.
What however is inexplicable to India at large is that what exactly worries the Honorable Members of the US Congress who have been airing their objections or those who are still sitting on the fence and doubtful about the deal. The same is the case with the American non-proliferation storm-troopers and especially those from scientists/scientific think-tanks.
As patriotic Americans, the prime consideration for them should be whether United States national security interests are served or not, and not what China (an emerging threat in US national security perceptions) or Pakistan (a WMD proliferator and complicit in 9/11 bombings) think.
The Honorable Members of the US Congress need only to ponder on the issues stated below to arrive at a positive decision:
United States Can Stay Embedded in Asia Only With a Strategic Partnership With India.
US-India Civil Nuclear Deal’s Significance Is Political and Strategic.
US Congress Policy Attitudes Towards India Need Re-invention.
US-India Strategic Partnership Would Unravel, Should US Congress De-rail the Nuclear Deal.
This paper, without taking too much time of the Honorable Members of the US Congress would dwell briefly on the above issues.
United States Can Stay Embedded in Asia Only With a Strategic Partnership with India
Asia in the 21st century presents a forbidding picture to the United States in terms of her national security interests. A rapidly threatening China, a resurgent Russia and an extremely hostile and violent Muslim world confronts the United States. Military flashpoints that are confronting or likely to confront the United States can be listed as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rapidly rising military power of China, aimed at expelling US military presence in East Asia. Taiwan would emerge as the pretext and the flashpoint.
In the vast expanse of Asia, extending from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, the United States has only three "natural allies". These are Israel, India and Japan--all nations of consequence, politically stable and democratic.
In terms of Israel and Japan, the US Congress does not seem to have displayed any strategic concerns. Then why on India? In relation to Israel and Japan, which are on the peripheries of Asia, the geo-strategic location of India both in terms of her land-mass and her peninsular projection deep into the Indian Ocean ensure her a central strategic role in Asian security affairs. India holds the key to the Asian balance of power, both as a regional power in South Asia and an emerging global power.
President Bush with great strategic vision recognized this reality and gave shape to a strategic partnership with India in substantive terms. This author reflected this in his comments carried in Washington’s UPI feature (March 2006) as follows.
"No US President has ever articulated US commitment to assist India’s emergence as a world class power." ... "President Bush has given a significant new direction to a US-India strategic partnership by setting the record straight in South Asia as to American strategic preferences."
That holds good for the US Congress too. It needs to take into account that a US-India strategic partnership is an American strategic imperative and that the US Congress should pave the way for the same with approval for all legislative proposals that come to reinforce the strategic partnership.
US-India Civil Nuclear Deal’s Significance is Political and Strategic
The central aim of President Bush when he signed the agreement for a US-India civil nuclear deal was to ensure India’s energy security needs are met and in the process assist India to fully realize her potential to emerge as a global power.
The aim of the US-India civil nuclear deal was not to roll-back or cap India’s strategic nuclear arsenal. The non proliferation storm-troopers seem to be oblivious or feign to be oblivious to this vital fact. Their main focus is technical and theoretical and does not encompass President Bush’s vision.
The Honorable Members of the Congress need to appreciate the following facts:
The significance of the US-India nuclear deal is political and strategic. It is not technical or theoretical.
Politically, the deal is a re-affirmation of the fact that the United States and India repose a mutual trust in each other to forge a strategic partnership arising from shared convergences of global and regional security interests.
Strategically, the deal is a conscious attempt by the United States, envisioned through its President, that if India has to be a worthwhile strategic partner, then its latent power attributes need to be maximized.
India’s civil nuclear energy programs are a critical component of India’s economic growth and energy security, and all these assist in India's emergence as a global power.
India as a strategic partner of the United States, which is a global power under challenge, cannot be a "strategically de-fanged power" i.e. without strategic nuclear assets.
The US-India nuclear deal needs to be viewed by all concerned in USA in the above perspective.
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 Honorable 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.
Besides the above, the honorable members of the US Congress cannot be oblivious and would be answerable to the millions of Indian American voters who generously bankroll their election campaigns.
US-India Strategic Partnership Would Unravel, Should US Congress Derail the Nuclear Deal
Partnerships are based on a sense of trust and viable strategic partnerships evolve only with an "exceptional sense of mutual trust." This particularly applies to the US-India strategic partnership which took over half a century to evolve from decades of estrangement. Rightly or otherwise, the US-India civil nuclear deal has emerged as the centre-piece of the US-India strategic partnership. For India at large, it defines the future credibility of a strategic partnership with the United States.
To India at large, which is far more politically conscious than the average American citizen, the US-India civil nuclear deal has become the focus of overwhelming Indian public attention.
In the perceptions of India at large, it appears to them today, that it is only the US Congress which stands in between the successful passage of the "waivers" for the deal to go through and civil nuclear power projects in India to start making their appearances.
It is this which led this author to assert in his comments to UPI, Washington feature that:
"The US Congress has to revise its attitudinal approaches towards India. India is not a confrontational power to US national security interests, as are China and Russia."
"If the US-India relationship goes of the rails in the future it would be in large part due to US Congress insensitivities toward India."
So strong and passionate is the feeling in India on the successful culmination of the US-India civil nuclear deal without any tinkering, additions or conditionalities by the US Congress, that it would be an under-statement to state that should the deal be blocked by the US Congress, the US-India strategic partnership would unravel.
Concluding Observations
The United States and India have for far too long stood on the wrong side of history as the world’s two remarkable democracies.
After six decades, when US President Bush and the US Administration on one had and the Indian Government on the other hand, have moved forward to together stand on the right side of history, the US Congress should not become a stumbling block in this endeavor.
India in all these years has moved forward despite US sanctions. It has moved forward gradually but surely. It will continue to do so, even if the US-India civil nuclear deal is blocked by the US Congress for reasons extraneous to the main issue.
At stake is not India’s future or her security. At stake is United States national security interests and whether the United States could stay embedded in Asia in the face of all other options ranged against her. India is the United States best security bet in the unfolding Asian strategic drama of the 21st century. The US Congress should not let the United States loose this bet.
Plain-speaking, the United States today needs India strategically more than India needing the United States. This is a harsh reality that has to be contended with by the US Congress. This is alluded to even by American scholars in the same UPI Washington feature carrying this author’s views.
United States Congress at Critical Crossroads with India by Dr. Subhash Kapila
|
One wonders who is the party who gains maximum from the deal.
The common Indian anxiety is that while they want a rejuvinated relation with the US...they don't want India to end up being a kind of Vassal State of US.
__________________
 I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!
|
|
|
|
02-29-2008, 07:23 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltacamelately
One wonders who is the party who gains maximum from the deal.
The common Indian anxiety is that while they want a rejuvinated relation with the US...they don't want India to end up being a kind of Vassal State of US.
|
In the words of your former Commanding Officer Gen.Shankar Roy Chowdery
"India is just too big to controlled by an outside power"
I guess he talks about our vibrant democracy and various opinions, which is again evident by the sheer amount of opposition and support for Nuclear Deal. There is no question in my mind, that India will not be a vassal state. But the question to my American counterparts would be, Would the Americans treat India as a vasal state. In my opinion such a tone or treatment of americans will only lead India to break off its bonhomie with the US and maybe become unrecoverable. Will US realise that India is not Pakistan? if yes, to what degree? |
|
|
|
|
02-29-2008, 12:56 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Lei Feng Protege
Defense Professional
|
The Honorable Members of the US Congress need only to ponder on the issues stated below to arrive at a positive decision:
United States Can Stay Embedded in Asia Only With a Strategic Partnership With India.
US-India Civil Nuclear Deal’s Significance Is Political and Strategic.
US Congress Policy Attitudes Towards India Need Re-invention.
US-India Strategic Partnership Would Unravel, Should US Congress De-rail the Nuclear Deal.
Wow, Fairly strong statements. Just my 2 yuan, it might work better with US congressmen and their staff, if it is not so...........in your face.
|
|
|
|
|
02-29-2008, 15:26 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
[quote=xinhui;464965]The Honorable Members of the US Congress need only to ponder on the issues stated below to arrive at a positive decision:
Quote:
|
United States Can Stay Embedded in Asia Only With a Strategic Partnership With India.
|
On a short term basis NO, on a long term Yes. And it is mutually benefical relationship.
Quote:
|
US-India Civil Nuclear Deal’s Significance Is Political and Strategic.
|
Xinhui,
What are the strategic objectives of USA, for this deal?
Quote:
|
US Congress Policy Attitudes Towards India Need Re-invention
|
.
There is no doubt about that. There is big realignment going on,
Quote:
|
US-India Strategic Partnership Would Unravel, Should US Congress De-rail the Nuclear Deal.
|
I dont think so, but it will be severe blow. It will slow down progress in relationship building. |
|
|
|
|
03-06-2008, 22:14 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 06-30-05
Location: Miami, Florida
Country: 
|
As an American reading the replies from our Indian contributors, in many ways I find the debate amongst them reminiscient of the domestic debate over US foreign policy.
I have always believed that US foreign policy has oscillated between extremes of idealism and isolationism, between trying to save the world and retreating from it in the belief that it is too corrupting for such a naive nation.
When US foreign policy is determined by a variety of factors such as the party representative in power, the ability of Congress to dictate foreign policy in conjunction with or against, the President and the influence of special interests such as human rights organizations and labor unions, I fully understand the sentiment of trepidation and even suspicion displayed in these posts.
How can the rest of the world have confidence in US foreign policy when to then it only seems to last as long as the US presidential or congressional election cycle?
|
|
|
|
03-06-2008, 22:36 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
Actually,
According to us, there is not much changes on US Foreign policies at the change of guard between republicans and democrats. I tend to believe there are some sets of points already agreed by both the parties of what they consider imperative for US as a country and furthering of its national goals.
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-2008, 23:09 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 06-30-05
Location: Miami, Florida
Country:
|
Would the US invasion of Iraq have been seen as inevitable if Al Gore had won the 2000 election?
When President Bush proposed to conclude the Indian nuclear initiative, he was opprobriated by much of the Democratic opposition claiming that he had endorsed nuclear proliferation for some when proliferation as a whole had to be prevented. The fact that Congress now is demanding conditions and qualifications I believe would send a mixed message that the initiative may last only if John McCain wins the next US Presidential election.
The US sent the same mixed message before in the mid to late 1970's when US isolationist sentiment created a loss of confidence in the Europeans who then pursued rapprochement with the Soviets on their own, the Soviets took advantage of the opportunity to match US nuclear power and commenced a massive conventional military buildup while expanding its influence to Africa and even invading Afghanistan.
My criticism is not directed at Indian analyses of US foreing policy, rather it is my analysis of US domestic determinants of US foreign policy. While it may seem determined in the eyes of foreigners, it is really the product of various influences in the country.
Last edited by Equilibrium : 03-06-2008 at 23:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-2008, 23:42 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
I actually believe US was showing unheard of restraint in the aftermath of 9/11, It was a soft response. Iraq was fuelled by the bluff of Saddam Hussien as well as American need for a staging ground for a future Iran,
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-2008, 23:45 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibrium
Would the US invasion of Iraq have been seen as inevitable if Al Gore had won the 2000 election?
|
Wasnt Lyndon B. Johnson a Democrat? |
|
|
|
|
03-07-2008, 00:10 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 06-30-05
Location: Miami, Florida
Country:
|
Quote:
|
Wasnt Lyndon B. Johnson a Democrat?
|
President Johnson was indeed a Democrat, if you are implying that his introduction of US forces into the Vietnam conflict is somehow indicative of a propensity by Democratic Presidents to engage in conflicts, I can only say that the circumstances of the time provide their own context. I was not implying that one party is more aggressive than the other. The Democratic party in that era was vastly different that what it has become today.
One must be wary of stereotypes. Nixon was perceived to be a staunch anti-communist who was expected to release the US military from its self-imposed political restrictions and take the war into North Vietnam. Instead he conducted a policy of detente with the Soviets, made rapprohement with the Chinese and stabilized the Middle East by negotiating with both Arabs and Israelis. Completely against the perception of the "Cold Warrior" label given to him.
Quote:
|
I actually believe US was showing unheard of restraint in the aftermath of 9/11, It was a soft response. Iraq was fuelled by the bluff of Saddam Hussien as well as American need for a staging ground for a future Iran,
|
Then I must say you are far more cynical than I in this situation.
Hussein indeed bluffed, but he did so because he believed that he had an appreciation of US foreign policy. He felt that the US would not invade Iraq because either a) we needed him as a bulwark against Iran (which I believed then) b) the US would never want to occupy and administer Iraq c) WMD's in themselves would never provide the justification for the US Congress, public, the UN, etc. to invade and occupy Iraq.
Iran, no matter what the polemicists may claim was never to be the subject of a US regime change. Iraq was to have provided that with the shining example of the validity of democratic principles in an Arab Muslim country. The Bush administration believed that terrorism was a result of radicalism produced by authoritarian regimes who unleashed their frustration on the US in the belief that US policies had supported these regimes. Bush's policy was a radically idealist departure from previous US policies. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-2008, 01:00 AM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibrium
The Bush administration believed that terrorism was a result of radicalism produced by authoritarian regimes who unleashed their frustration on the US in the belief that US policies had supported these regimes. Bush's policy was a radically idealist departure from previous US policies.
|
Equilibrium,
Thanks for the reply, I am at work; I will reply to your rest of the posts,
If the above were true then, I am mystified. The biggest terrorist funders and trainers are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There are direct links to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in 9/11. Actually you have the most number of terrorist camps in pakistan after Aghanistan followed by Sudan. If the people were indeed fustrated of regime's it was neither Iraq nor Iran. It was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-2008, 11:14 AM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 06-30-05
Location: Miami, Florida
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adux
Equilibrium,
Thanks for the reply, I am at work; I will reply to your rest of the posts,
If the above were true then, I am mystified. The biggest terrorist funders and trainers are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There are direct links to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in 9/11. Actually you have the most number of terrorist camps in pakistan after Aghanistan followed by Sudan. If the people were indeed fustrated of regime's it was neither Iraq nor Iran. It was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
|
And that was the paradox that the Bush Administration believed could only be solved by Iraq.
The US compelling its main Middle Eastern allies to reform their governments would seriously compromise the alliances upon which stability depended. Iraq provided ideal geographic and political conditions- it was in the center of the region and featured a enemy of the US. Regime change in Iraq would provide leverage to compel the other nations to reform. From about 2003-2004, the Bush Administration pressured various Middle Eastern governments to reform their domestic governance, Saudi Arabia conducted municipal elections, Egypt had a Presidential election (of course, Mubarak undermined it) and in Lebanon, a pro-reform backlash took place against the Syrian government's influence in the country.
The worsening situation in Iraq from late 2004 to mid 2007 discredited the Bush Administration's policy by providing the pretext for the regional governments to justify their anti-reform policies by claiming that Democratic reforms would lead to Iraq-style chaos. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-2008, 13:36 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
Equilibrium,
I understand the staging of Iraq on the basis of having a staging ground, rather than 'making example off'. Saddam was pummelled down to ground, even with his rehtoric he was never a threat.
I dont understand how US government could be navie in thinking by talking and using diplomatic pressure on pakistan and Saudi Arabia, they would change them. Any loosening of grip on public in Saudi Arabi will have a opposite effect on the control of the Kingdom by the Royal Family. So what is their incentive in doing anything which will have determental effect on their writ maybe even their own life.
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2008, 13:42 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
|
Banished
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: Cochin
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibrium
I can only say that the circumstances of the time provide their own context.
|
If communism was good enough reason for a democrat, Then 9/11 warrants much much more.
Quote:
|
One must be wary of stereotypes. Nixon was perceived to be a staunch anti-communist who was expected to release the US military from its self-imposed political restrictions and take the war into North Vietnam.
|
True, but he had to stop the bigger threat Soviet Union,and China was more than willing.
Quote:
|
Completely against the perception of the "Cold Warrior" label given to him.
|
Indians dont have high opinion about him,
Quote:
|
Then I must say you are far more cynical than I in this situation.
|
We have been at the reciving end of terrorism for nearly 2 decades.
Quote:
|
Hussein indeed bluffed, but he did so because he believed that he had an appreciation of US foreign policy. He felt that the US would not invade Iraq because either a) we needed him as a bulwark against Iran (which I believed then) b) the US would never want to occupy and administer Iraq c) WMD's in themselves would never provide the justification for the US Congress, public, the UN, etc. to invade and occupy Iraq
|
.
He didnt consider the American attitude after 9/11 and the strategic location of his real estate.
Quote:
|
Iran, no matter what the polemicists may claim was never to be the subject of a US regime change. Iraq was to have provided that with the shining example of the validity of democratic principles in an Arab Muslim country.
|
I dont believe that, if Iraq would have gone well, Iran would have been next. But it didnt. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-2008, 17:28 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
|
Regular
Join Date: 06-30-05
Location: Miami, Florida
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adux
Equilibrium,
I understand the staging of Iraq on the basis of having a staging ground, rather than 'making example off'. Saddam was pummelled down to ground, even with his rehtoric he was never a threat.
I dont understand how US government could be navie in thinking by talking and using diplomatic pressure on pakistan and Saudi Arabia, they would change them. Any loosening of grip on public in Saudi Arabi will have a opposite effect on the control of the Kingdom by the Royal Family. So what is their incentive in doing anything which will have determental effect on their writ maybe even their own life.
|
And hence the frustration and recimination that has taken place in US domestic politics over the Iraqi advature in the first place. Many of my fellow countrymen in the US have viewed it with trying to make the world a better place and have alway needed a cause to rally around. Whether it was Fascism, Communism and now Terrorism, it was always a foreign challenge that shook us out of our seeming issolationist sentiment. Consequently there have alwyas been several idealistic themes in US foreing policy- a legacy of president Wilson in the 20th Century:
I. All human beings have certain inalienable rights.
II. All humans desire to live in harmony and peace.
III. the only thing that inhibits I and II above are the ill intentions of foreign government that prevent it from happening.
Therefore, all challenges have to be approached with a zeal to not only defeating our enemies but also convincing them of our insistence to help them despite their government. What the Bush Administration's first term, dominated by "neo-conservative" policymakers followed was a policy named "muscular Wilsonianism".
We Americans, protected from wars and enemies by two oceans and two friendly (and weak) neighbors have long believed that this situation was a natural condition. We happend to be a very naive nation.
Of course, I have always been fascinated by Indian foreign policy
and its determinants from Indira Ghandi to the present day. Unfortunately I can also claim that I am an aberration in that case. |
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:53 PM.
|
| 
Similar Threads