“There have been few countries more worthy of America's friendship than India. India has taken the American side on crucial geopolitical issues such as missile defense and containing China. It has emerged as a vital economic partner, sending tens of thousands of its citizens to work in high-tech jobs in the United States and attracting billions of dollars of investments from American companies. And, perhaps most importantly, India has fully subscribed to the political ideal to which the United States subscribes: It is a multiethnic, multireligious society; a vibrant democracy--indeed the world's largest democracy--thriving in a part of the world that is woefully unaccustomed to such freedoms.”[1] Despite this, ever since India’s independence and subsequent wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, their relations with the US have been shaky.
One would think that two largest democracies on the planet would be able to get along, especially when both are interested in similar things and have similar histories. Both the US and India were once part of the British empire, and both broke away to form democratic societies founded on the ideals of personal freedom and justice. However, after all the similarities, they are constantly having small scuffles, much like a sibling rivalry. The common belief is also that democracies are peaceful governments, only interested in spreading freedom and justice to the rest of the world. Why then, do the USA and India have such a troubled relationship? They do because they come from different eras of world power alignments, and have populations with different ideals and goals.
The US, although a very young country compared to Europe and to other regions, it still very much follows the old world order of Europe maintaining dominance over the rest of the planet. India, however, gained its independence in the mid-1900s, after the two world wars, and thus came into being under a vastly different circumstance. European powers were starting to release their colonies, and were preaching “self-determination” to the rest of the world. India took this very much to heart, and had few qualms attempting to overthrow the European countries for world power. This attempt has yet to pay off, but is bound to soon enough. As reported by the New Statesman, “The National Intelligence Council, which pools thinking from all US intelligence agencies including the CIA and the National Security Council, has just published Mapping the Global Future, a report by the council's 2020 Project. Its main prediction is that the 21st century will belong to China and India.”[2]
One main aspect of the differences between the United States and India is their economic struggles with each other. Recently in the US, many people have become concerned about “outsourcing” jobs to other countries, thus depriving Americans of work and raising the unemployment rate. However, what most American’s don’t realize is that it is not just their own jobs that are disappearing, but the jobs in every country. As discussed by Geoffrey Colvin, reporter for Fortune, “The election foofaraw [sic] over manufacturing jobs going to China--a hot-button issue in every swing state but Florida--was always nonsensical. The overriding reality isn't that manufacturing jobs are being exported but that they're evaporating everywhere, including China, as makers of everything become more productive.”[3] And it is not only businesses in the United States that are hiring outside of their own country. A major German software company, SAP, has recently erected a research and development center in Bangalore, India.[4]
The main reason for this wave of outsourcing is that Indians are nearly to just as well trained, but cost a fraction as much to hire. As pointed out by Time Magazine, “R. and D. in India may prove to be too good a bargain to ignore: the cost of developing a basic software product in India is about $2 million, or just 40% of the cost in the U.S.”[5]
India’s rise to the economic spotlight has been a long and troublesome one. Since their independence in 1947, they have been a relatively poor country. As said in The Economist, “At best, India has been a qualified political success and a barely qualified economic failure […] 320m Indians remain below the poverty line today, almost as many as India's entire population was in 1947. A mistaken socialist experiment has cost India dear.”[6] Upon India’s independence, they began a shift towards socialism. Thinking capitalism to have failed, and the evidence thereof being the two World Wars, they took the USSR as a great model for alternatives to capitalism. The Soviets industrialized and experienced a rapid growth in GDP as a result of their five-year plans, so the Indians adopted similar socialism-based economic systems. They began by depriving the feudal lords of their lands and giving the land to the peasants, and industrializing. Soon this spread to nationalization of corporations, and state intervention in private business. Even after Soviet Russia fell, the Indians continued their series of five-year plans. However, they began to go bankrupt. In 1977 they were forced to relax controls and re-privatize business. This lead to a general upward trend in GDP, but was still short of what India could achieve.[7] Since then, India has become an even more open economy, leading to monetary input from various countries both in terms of import/export relations, and in hiring overseas.
This influx of job transfers to the subcontinent could just be the solution that many have been waiting for. With an investment upwards of $9 billion just from the United States, and a reformed, open economy, one can expect India to be a very significant economic force in the years to come.
The United States is also very involved in India’s political affairs, especially when it comes to the famed dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. The interest stems mainly from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an incarnation of the United States’ long held view of limiting and controlling nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan, as of the 1970s, are countries outside of the NPT holding nuclear armaments. Delhi has long viewed the limiting of nuclear arms as hypocritical, claiming that all countries should destroy all their nuclear bombs. As such, when the superpowers would not agree to mutual worldwide destruction of advanced weaponry, India began and continued production of nuclear arms. Many critics of India have stated that Delhi’s nuclear program is simply an attempt to get a jump-start into world-power status. However, no amount of criticism can take away the fact that an arms race has begun between India and its long-time rival, Pakistan. Both countries have realized this, as evidenced by their continual swap of a list of nuclear production sites each new year.[8] However, neither country is doing anything to stop weapons buildup from continuing.[9]
As pointed out by The Economist, “If a new arms race does start, it will mark a return to the situation of the 1980s. Then, America poured billions of dollars of weapons into Pakistan, its frontline ally against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. India too went on an arms splurge, spending about $7 billion on Swedish howitzers and Soviet tanks and fighters. But when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, America stopped winking at Pakistan's nuclear programme and cut off arms aid. That was in line with a law, the Pressler amendment, forbidding arms sales to countries going nuclear”[10] India has long had a problem with US weapons sales to Pakistan, citing the investment as a clear signal of favoring Islamabad in the conflict. However, Pakistan is not so much an ally of ideals and values as an ally of convenience, being almost essential for America’s goals in the Middle East.[11] Politicians on Capitol Hill have long tried to balance aid to the two countries, promising sales of certain arms to one in response to sales of relatively equal amounts to the other. Despite this, both countries still see the US as on the other one’s side.
In fact, the US is truly on both sides: it has long played a mediator role in the conflict between the two, especially in regards to Kashmir. As stated in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, “As a matter of both short-term strategy and long-range U.S. policies, it clearly is in Washington's interest to rein in the subcontinent's two nuclear-powered rivals, India and Pakistan. This, however, is not an easy task, given the imbalances between the two countries and their endemic disputes and mistrusts.”[12] For a long time, Capitol Hills plans of mutual deterrence of arms did not work. Recently, though, planned peace talks have begun to settle the issue of Kashmir. Preceding the talks, US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott visited each country to revisit common issues regarding their relationships with each other and with the United States.[13] Soon peace talks independent of the United States began. A cease-fire in the region of Kashmir was announced November 2004, and peace talks were planned for this February of 2005.[14]
Many other interesting aids to the Kashmir issue have been suggested. One such idea, as reported by UPI NewsTrack, is an oil pipeline connecting the two countries. “[Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat] Aziz said that a gas pipeline to connect India with Iran via Pakistan and a move to open banking links were among possible measures which could improve relations.”[15]
After all of the struggle within India-United States Relations, what will come of them? And why does this all matter? It matters because, as the Mapping the Global Future report referenced earlier stated, the 21st century will not be another century of American dominance. It will be a century of gradual erosion of American prowess and a gradual increase in the influence of India and other south-east Asian countries. If the US plans to have any chance in the upcoming years, it needs to found strong relationships with tomorrow’s key players today.
[1] “Friends. (India, Pakistan, United States relations).” The New Republic Jan 14, 2002: 7.
[2] Hilsum, Lindsey. “World view: the 21st century, say US analysts, will not be American. It will belong to China and India, and it may bring a cyberspace caliphate that commands Muslim loyalty across the world.” New Statesman Jan 24, 2005: 16.
[3] Colvin, Geoffrey. “Think your job can’t be sent to India? Just watch. (Value Driven).” Fortune Dec 13, 2004: 80.
[4] Adiga, Aravind, Matthew Forney and Jyoti Thottam “The New Idea Labs: As more firms send research to India and China, could the U.S. fall behind?” Time Jan 31, 2005: A6.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Happy anniversary? (politics and economy of India).” The Economist August 16, 1997: 17.
[7] Ibid.
[8] “India, Pakistan swap nuke plants list.” United Press International Jan 1, 2003: 1008001w0320.
[9] “Race to the finish; Warheads and missiles. (What's in the Indian and Pakistani stockpiles).” The Economist Jan 19, 2002.
[10] “More weapons, please: India and Pakistan. (arms buildup).” The Economist Dec 16, 1995: 34.
[11] “Friends. (India, Pakistan, United States relations).” The New Republic Jan 14, 2002: 7.
[12] Ali, M. M. “With U.S. prodding behind the scenes, confidence-building measures continue.” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Jan-Feb 2005: 37.
[13] “Progress, perhaps: America, India and Pakistan.” The Economist April 16, 1994: 36.
[14] Adiga, Aravind, Aryn Baker, Ghulam Hasnain and Alex Perry. “A Glimmer of Hope: After decades of darkness, can the peace talks planned between India and Pakistan save Kashmir?” Time International (Asia Edition) Jan 19, 2004: 14.
[15] “India-Pakistan relations hinge on pipeline. (UPI Top Stories).” UPI NewsTrack Jan 31, 2005: NA.
0 remarks:
Post a Comment