U.S.-India nuclear transactions are part of a broader set of agreements between the two countries that U.S.-based multinationals are hoping to use as a wedge to further open India to investment and sales.
Many foreign-policy analysts linked to the second Bush administration believe that the elevated and energized partnership with India he and his advisors brought about may be his greatest and most enduring legacy. The significant effort they put in to revitalizing the relationship undoubtedly deserves to be acknowledged for what it is, an important redefinition – but that failed to create the political, institutional framework necessary to sustain the considerable momentum generated by the civil nuclear cooperation deal. Moreover, the redefinition came about as a result of a “de-hyphenated policy,” that is to say a, delinking of India & Pakistan in U.S. foreign policy (i.e., building relations with India and relations with Pakistan rather than an India-Pakistan approach).
It has been a grim start to the New Year and the new decade in South Asia. Vested interests, hardened obsessions, and old habits continue to push India and Pakistan in the direction of ruinous conflict. While military planners in both countries plan and prepare for the next war, politicians and diplomats remain determined not to talk except on their own terms.
Tibetan monks at the main temple on the 50th anniversary of their exile. Photo by Saransh Sehgal.
The contradictions and confusions in U.S. policy in South Asia were on full display during Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s recent visit to India. U.S. support for India, which centers on making money, selling weapons, and turning a blind eye to the country’s nuclear weapons, is fatally at odds with U.S. policy and concerns about Pakistan.
This is part of a strategic dialogue on Pakistan and counterterrorism. See Fouad Pervez’s initial argument here and Sharad Joshi’s argument here.
This is part of a strategic dialogue on Pakistan and counterterrorism. See Fouad Pervez’s opposing argument here, and their respective responses here.
The opening scene of Mr. and Mrs. Iyer (2002) comes as a shock to the seasoned Bollywood enthusiast. A montage of news reports flickers across the screen. Images from 9/11, the murder of Daniel Pearl, America’s invasion of Iraq, and the most recent sectarian violence in Gujarat confront the unsuspecting viewer.
The United States is in a huge foreign policy muddle in the Middle East. It wants to dominate and control Iran but requires the support of the world community to accomplish its aims. Diplomacy and sanctions require only a low level of support. On the other hand, to launch a military attack or green-light one by Israel, the United States needs far more backing.
The “squeeze Iran” and “confront Iran” positions are strongly encouraged by the increasingly powerful Zionist Christian Fundamentalist community. About 5,000 people from across the United States attended the third annual Washington-Israel Summit, organized by Christians United for Israel (CUFI). There, the “Iranian threat” loomed as a pervasive theme.