She was, however, not too far off the mark, as she knows how much time and effort have been invested in promoting US ties with India. In fact, the Obama Administration has assiduously built on foundations laid by her husband’s administration and later strengthened by the Bush administration. Consequently, the Obama Administration enjoys bipartisan support in Washington, enabling the administration to justifiably claim that they have acquired a strategic character. This was evident from the moment in 2005, when president George W Bush offered nuclear technology and know-how to India, even though neither US laws nor the NPT permitted this transaction.
Pakistanis may fret and agitate, viewing it as discriminatory, but great powers are never inhibited by such considerations, with the US being the best practitioner of what Henry Kissinger popularised as “realpolitik”. Given India’s democratic and secular credentials, impressive growth rates and growing influence of its nationals abroad, it is inevitable that she should be courted by major powers, including the US.
More importantly, with China seen increasingly as a potential rival, India fits in well as a suitable counterweight in what American scholars characterise as a China “containment” policy. This explains the inelegant haste with which senior American officials, including Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta, have been encouraging India to expand its interest in the Pacific region, though acknowledging that since India was not a Pacific power, the US would have to assist her in playing this role. During his recent visit to India, Secretary Panetta gave fresh evidence of this when he declared that “defence cooperation with India is a linchpin in US strategy”, while highlighting its significance in “providing security for this region and the world” and specifically mentioning “help for Afghan security forces”.
While we cannot grudge the mutually shared ambitions of the two countries, what appears unnecessarily gratuitous is the use of Indian soil to berate Pakistan. It has become the fashion of today, with Panetta’s latest pronouncements in India — and later, in Kabul — when he warned that “the US was reaching the limits of our [its] patience”. This was needlessly offensive and counterproductive, especially at a time when Pakistan-US relations are already confronted with grave challenges. But Panetta is not one to be too concerned with the ‘sensitivities’ of others. His utterances only add to Pakistan’s worries and further muddy the already choppy waters of Pakistan-US relations.
Neither side has shown any particular skill or intelligence in rebuilding their bilateral ties, which are important to the US but far more critical to Pakistan. Senator John McCain was wise to advise against “further antagonising [of] Pakistan unnecessarily”. But there are few takers for such wise counsel and there is certainly even less appreciation for Pakistan’s primary concern with the contours of the endgame in Afghanistan. Working closely with the US and Nato allies would have appeared to be a better option than grand standing on hurt pride and emotion — charged references to honour and dignity. This has boxed us in a no-win situation, wherein we have angered not only the US, but also Nato countries that are major trading partners, as well as traditional allies, such as Turkey.
Demands for apology and cessation of drone attacks were proper and legitimate, as they reflected national sentiments. However, becoming fixated on these demands has intensified anti-Pakistan sentiments in many capitals. In the process, the Nato supply routes that gave us an important advantage are losing their relevance with increased reliance on the Northern Distribution Network. Now, we could be missing the bus on the Afghan reconciliation process as well.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 20th, 2012.
COMMENTS (51)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Given that ET has seen fit to censor my replies to the Hindustani rants on three occasions now, it looks as if the impoverished majority here will be allowed to live in its manufactured delusion. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.
Hasan
@ayesha_khan: Sure a very good point well brought out. Today's news confirms what you say " INDIA, CHINA TO TAKE TRADE TO $ 100 BILLION BY 2015" This is from Rio de Janeiro where PM Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao, the PM of China made this statement.
@1984: Hello 1984 an excellent comment for analyzing the nature of India's foreign policy approach.You have a clear thinking. Thanks
Wow,the Pakistanis are expressing dissent at Indo-US relationship like a woman cursing his boyfriend for leaving her for her classmate...
This is not a relationship between 2 individuals,but between 2 nations...and it changes from time to time,depending on the best interests of the nation...Pakistan cannot continue to sulk that US no longer favors them as they used to...Pakistan had a tremendous boost in economy during 1960s due to their partnership with US...
The relations between India and US started during Bill Clinton when he realised that after opening the market in 1991,India is too big a country to ignore...But India never calls US as an ally and may never will..Its just the relation between 2 countries who want to progress further..
India was a staunch supporter of Palestine state and even Yasser Arafat loved India,but that never stopped them from signing defence deals with Israel...Neither have India ditched Russia when they joined with USA.
Our leaders may be incompetent and corrupt in domestic affairs...But India might be the only country which has a good relationship with US,Russia,China,Iran,Saudi Arabia and Israel at the same time...
and never will India give up its sovereignity to gain a ally...India still imports Oil from Iran inspite of all the sanctions...and USA in facts allows it while stopping mango trade from Pakistan to Iran
tarek sab, please read this article to see the reality : http://www.economist.com/node/21556935?story_id=21556935&fsrc=sky|IPoltis
@faraz: India does not have to explain "China contentment theory" AS we do not believe in containing any one. All including "us" have the right to grow and so has China. It is in the nature of Pakistan to fish in troubled water. This is what it has been doing in Kashmir, Pujab and Afghanistan.
Sir, you are not thinking logically & rationally!
@Mr Fatemi
Pakistan was an ally of US and NATO when U2s were flying. And it was an ally when Stingers were being fired. And it remained an ally when Daisy Cutters were raining. And to all intents and purposes it remains the 'closest non-NATO ally', if the Washington moot is an indicator.
So, where does India come into the equation?
The alignment of US with India is for a larger mutual economic and security objectives. None of these impairs Pakistan's interests. But Pakistan is not likely to be left alone. It would soon be a full-fledged member of SCO and is likely to normalize relations with Russia.
Pakistan has lost an opportunity of holding the western hand for its own good and ended as a foot soldier of western powers. Now it has a chance to be included in the regional grouping. It remains to be seen if it can clutch this opportunity. Much would depend on its abilities to un-learn and re-learn.
@Spud: "therefore when India was not in the US camp (from 1947 to 1980) "
I do not believe India can be described as being part of US camp even today. But yes post 1989 when the world became unipolar, the relationship between India and US became warmer.
"No permanent friends and no permanent friends but only permanent interests" Winston Churchill. At present time the strategic objectives of US and India coincide. They may differ in future. Pakistan has not learnt the lesson that there are no permanent friends in geopolitics and repeatedly harp on loyalty factor. Despite public rhetoric India votes 81% against US in United Nations surpassed only by only few countries .http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/islamics_votes.htm Indian policy position differs from US in Syria, Iran, China, Palestinian issue , gas pipeline and procuring defense items . Geopolitics are not that simple. India-China trade exceeds trade with US. China holds the biggest chunk of US securities without which US would be bankrupt. US elite and multi nationals shifted the manufacturing base to China for increased profits using slave labour bereft of any rights in China. US sees India as a vast market for its goods . US Indian relations are based on ground reality. India does not want to get dragged into any conflict and wants to concentrate on economic development and alleviation of widespread poverty. It has given up the Nehruvian rhetoric and have become pragmatic in concentrating on economic goals . This is the only one country in the world which has close relationship with US, China, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran simultaneously
@Hasan:
When was the last time Pakistan hosted an international cricket match in Pakistan? How long will it be before Pakistan would be awarded Olympic or Commonwealth or even Asian games?
@Hasan: Dear Brother, you chose the wrong weapon and executed a wrong move with that. ad hominem and snide remarks can't shield you from logic, especially with the caliber of the crowd that inhabits the ET.
@Hasan: whats wrong with commonwealth games u losers? Games were held on time and world watched opening ceramony ever seen in commonwealth games. On top of that India won Statisfying medals.What ever happened before the games has been forgeted long ago by the participants. U just talk about Pakistan, what u did there?
@antanu g
and once India achieves the Chinese status it will be seen as rival to US like China.
Hmmm... maybe thats why your Pakistan keeps rushing in the opposite direction. Now I realize that you never want to achieve Chinese status, rather you seem fixated on achieving Somalia status. Thats solves a big puzzle on why Pakistan keeps shooting itself in the foot
@Hasan Jealousy will not get Pakistan anywhere. We Indians know our strengths and our weaknesses. And more importantly, we know how to think independently. You say Pakistan policies are Pro Pakistan. Then why is it in a state it is in? It seems Pakistan is all gas with little substance. The only country which negotiates with the world wielding a pistol on its own head.
and once India achieves the Chinese status it will be seen as rival to US like China. so called analysts are never going to learn as what the game US is playing.
Here comes the official cum unofficial spokesperson of our establishment! Keep on dreaming!
Nice hate fest going on here. Get a life, guys.
@Hasan: There have been multiple replies to your rather bitter post, so let me be brief. The thrust of your argument covers two major points: 1. Consistency - the assumption that consistency is a virtue is fallacious, it means that you never learn from your mistakes. North Korea is probably the most 'consistent' nation, and the US is probably the least - given a choice, where would you like to go? 2. Independence - the meaning of independence is that decisions are taken in long-term self-interest. Dumping ones proxies (read the Taliban 2001) or hoping to exchange masters (China/ Russia being courted assiduously to replace the US) probably don't come within that definition.
It is imperative that Pakistan stop considering itself equal to India if it wants to move out of the morass it is stuck in. India is wealthy nation in spite of what commentators here think and also in spite of the fact that there are many millions struggle to get along in India. Two days back at the G20 meeting held in Mexico India announced a $ 10000 million loan to the European economy. Is Pakistan able to do that? I believe Pakistan was not even invited to attend. It seems Pakistan's foreign policy is predicated on being anti India. Therefore when India was not in the US camp (from 1947 to 1980) and decided to remain neutral Pakistan quickly joined SEATO and in return US gave Pakistan lots of money. That money is being used to foment trouble in India by ISI. In conclusion I will say this it is in Pakistan's interest to mend fences with India and reap benefits. I hope sense will prevail but I will not hold my breath.
An exellent analysis of the challenges confronting Pakistan. Our policy makers need to read and reflect.
Pakistan’s strategy is based on the same thing it was based on 30 years ago – ensuring that there is a pro-Pakistan presence across its western border.
Note the definition of insanity which fits here perfectly for Pakistan:
Doing same thing again and again and expecting different results.
@Hasan who writes "Hindustan, it becomes pretty clear that you guys have already stepped so far beyond the boundaries of rational thought, it really isn’t so hard for you guys to go the extra few steps and bandy about global ambitions which frankly make normal people laugh at you. "
So, people from a failed state are the rational normal people!!!
Are you not a citizen of a failed state? Why should I respect your opinion as rational and NORMAL? And show me one thing that is normal about pakistan? One single thing. Then I will throw you my 2 cents worth of respect.
@Hasan: "Hindustan couldn’t even cope with the Commonwealth Games, and you’re somehow preparing yourselves to assume authority after the US departure from Afghanistan? Haha…I have to admit, Bollywood has done its job well."
India has no desire to assume authority in Afghanistan after US departure. All it wants is that Afghans be allowed to choose their own leaders instead of being foisted with Pakistan proxies who support terror against India. There were hiccups in preparation for Commonwealth games - yes but the actual events were executed without any hitch. Every year even in cricket, the players from top cricketing nations come and play in IPL. India has also held international level Formula One racing event last year. By comparison, even Bangladesh is hesitant to lay cricket in Pakistan.@Hasan: You have implied 2 things: 1) In all situations, consistency is desirable. 2) A country that can consistent cannot be duplicitous.
I disagree with both these statements.
First Pakistan had consistently believed in oppressing its minorities. Started with Hindus and Sikhs, then Ahmadis, Balochs and now Shias. This maybe consistent but is it desirable? I do not think so.
Secondly, Pakistan consistently cries itself hoarse about equal rights for Muslims (who are a minority there) in Europe while at the same time consistently oppressing minorities in their own country. Can both these separate consistent behaviours together be described as duplicitous? Ofcourse.
@hasan As for Pakistanis blushing....how do we know? Can we see it by candlelight?
@Hasan- Common Wealth games might have had flaws but atleast India was able to organize and host it. Pakistan is unable to attract cricket teams to come and play in Pakistan. India was able to get a waiver and still import oil from Iran. Pakistan stopped Mango exports to Iran due to sanctions.
And the end result.... Pakistan plays it's home cricket matches in the UAE....
@faraz: No doubt - China still is the dominant player in manufacturing in the World. India has no chance of beating for a long time. India was and still is, for the near future, the leader in cheap service sector. China is catching up fast. But, there are two points that are against China. English language is almost second nature for India ( and Pakistan). China historically being an isolationist society is still far from being comfortable with the nuances of English language. Second, and more importantly, China is not a well liked country in the world like nations of Europe or the US ( North Korea and Pakistan are exceptions)- How many people line up at a Chinese Embassy for a 'green card'? For an emerging world power, they still come across as petty, childish and nervous - Tibet and Taiwan are prime examples where this psyche comes out in the open. All it takes is a country of little or no political clout in the world stage to utter few words supporting Tibet or Taiwan's independence. The Chinese go into a paroxysm of anger. India for now cannot match the military might of China in the near future. But they should learn fast to be more 'mature' and surpass the Chinese.
@Hasan: "So riddle me this: which country is showing consistency"
Whats there to be proud of in pakistans "achievement" of consistently trying to control the sovereign state of Afghanistan through proxies like Taliban and bringing so much violence and misery on the lives of afghans? Not all kinds of consistent behavior is worthy of being proud off. Pakistan society is scarred. Many don't even know what's good or bad and what to be or not to be proud off. It's truly sad to see all this moral darkness.
Hasan
Hindustanis are not preparing to assume authority in Afghanistan after US departure. That privilege goes to another neighbor of Afghanistan.
Hindustanis do not believe that any neighbor of Aftghanistan should be claiming to assume authority in Afghanistan, whether to ensure a pro or an anti presence to themselves. That decision belongs exclusively to Afghanistanis.
hasan, why should india join Iran pakistan pipeline. this pipeline wil go through balocuhistan, do I need to say anyting more. the cost of securing that pipeline will be far more than actual final product of that pipeline. your foriegn policy is all about kashmir/India, beyond that there is no pakistan forign policy.
Justice finally prevailed. As democracies believing in pluralism and rule of law and appreciation of religious and ethnic diversity , India and USA have much in common. The word "natural allies" is not a hyperbole in that context. There is no basis for conflict of interest between USA and India.
The bus has left Mr. Ambassador....
@BlackJack: Precisely!!
No doubt the strategic alliance between India and USA is going to be the defining relation of this century. Mind you, this is based on give and take reciprocity, not debtor and recipient relation as between USA and Pakistan. USA supplies technology, arms and FDI into India and provides best education to lakhs of Indian students.. In return India is providing qualified manpower to US companies, provides a vast market for US goods and even Indian businessmen are investing heavily inside America, generating thousands of jobs for local people there. India is also a secular and democratic country, so is USA. Indians view America very much favorably. This year more than one million Indians visited America, despite being at opposite locations of the globe. This is the reason USA wants to have a long lasting partnership with India, not because of the China factor as most Pakistanis believe. Pakistan has got absolutely nothing positive to offer to USA, not to forget that Pakistan is a headache for USA and much of the world.I do agree with the author that Pakistan should not have any grudges against India and should try to improve the relationship with USA.
@Hasan: Giving up on IPI pipeline was in the interest of India to some extent. 1) We got civilian-nuclear deal in exchange for it from the world. 2) We made sure Pakistan doesn't get a single penny for just passing the pipeline from its territory. Had Pakistan not charged for pipeline passing through its territory, we could have given it a thought. 3) Deprive Pakistan of much needed gas and ruin their industries. 4) We are not going to sacrifice our interest for the craziness of IRAN to build a bomb and threat ISRAEL. 5) Keep Balochistan on boil. Many more reasons I can give...
@Hasan: India backing out of Iran Pakistan pipeline is not a recent occurrence. IT was one of the quid proquos agreed at the time of nuclear deal. If India does something which is in India's self interest, it amounts to independence. Has India ever accepted dollars to change its foreign policy and then cried hoarse over loss of sovereignty? No.
Secondly, if Pakistan had said all along that it would back Haqqanis and Afghan Taliban and would not take part in the US war on terror, it would have been a consistent stand. But agreeing to support US and taking money and free arms for doing so and then not following through IS duplicitous. By the way US did not creat Afghan Taliban - please do not confuse the 1980s era mujahidin with Afghan Taliban. When Afghan Taliban were in power during 1996-2001, only 3 countries recognized it : Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia. USA was not one of them.
I am surprised that the Pakistani press has missed the most important announcement made in Washington about the trilateral India-us-Afghanistan dialogue (http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/2b304080855b011a0634bdc6aa7e38dd/india-us-to-hold-trilateral-dialogue-with-afghanistan). India and US both have strategic agreements with Afghanistan. Going for a trilateral dialogue tells the whole thing. I thought the author will spare at least few lines to this development. Pakistanis tend to look things too superficially. Days of charm offensive Ayub era diplomacy are long gone. Pakistani diplomacy seems to run on emotions and not on biting hard facts. What to speak of US, India has developed close defense relations even with Saudi Arabia.
@faraz: "Can Indian commentators explain this China containment strategy in concrete terms? Isn’t pacific already well dominated by US navy? "
I only read about "China containment strategy" in Pakistani newspapers - never in Indian newspapers. Reason is India has a foreign policy and I cannot imagibe any Indian being Okay if Indian leaders follow Ayub Khan's example and become hired guns for US.
India and China have a 70 billion trade, a long border and open border disputes. India's foreign policy with China is going o to be guided a 100% by Indian national interests. IF there is some convergence with US, that would be coincidental.
"Panetta’s latest pronouncements in India — and later, in Kabul — when he warned that “the US was reaching the limits of our [its] patience”. This was needlessly offensive and counterproductive"
Let's review whether the pronouncements were 1) needless 2) counterproductive
The purpose of the pronouncement was to convey frustration publicly which must have been communicated dozens of times privately. That should be read by Pakistan as soft warning that escalated steps might now be taken if issues are not addressed. So it is not needless.
The fact that it infuriated Pakistanis who already hate US does not mean US interests were adversely impacted. In fact the 2 things US wants from Pakistan - reining in Quetta Shura and Haqqanis and allowing ground supplies to Afghanistan are not being allowed by Pakistan. So from US perspective, Pakistan is already doing the worst it can and cannot do anything more to hurt US.
@faraz: We would be fools if we spend our money to further american interests in the Pacific. But on the other hand, if american multinationals stop investing in China and that money comes to India as investment, then India can be convinced to may be join the americans in containing China.
Moreover, just the movement of american capital from China to India will strengthen India and slow down China automatically.
That ship (or bus) has sailed.
Riddle me this: 1. Pakistan has concerns related to the end-game in Afghanistan - what is it willing to do to ensure a stable future for that country? You have no answer because Pakistan's current strategy is built on a waiting game which revolves around an action replay of the 90s Taliban takeover with Pakistani support - Afghan opinions and learnings from the past be damned. 2. You fret over the increasing alignment between Indian and US objectives and yet find it (physically) painful to admit that India has managed with its non-aligned policy (pls note that US is actually requesting to hand over the keys to region to a country that refuses to acknowledge itself as a US ally) to achieve more than Pakistan has in 6 decades of kowtowing (ending up as the foremost non-NATO ally and primary recipient of drone stikes).
The answers to these questions do not lie in US policy but in Pakistani short-sightedness and the blinding hatred for India that has driven Pakistan foreign policy since the beginning; you do nothing for yourselves but only to give you an advantage vis-a-vis India (read strategic depth in the case of Afghanistan) - a sure-fire road to disaster.
Can Indian commentators explain this China containment strategy in concrete terms? Isn’t pacific already well dominated by US navy? Or will US simply earn money by building up a huge Indian navy? I think India’s major role would be to dilute China’s economic clout by providing cheaper means of productions to Western companies. Has India attracted investments that would have otherwise gone to China?