During the Cold War, American foreign policy was riddled with mistakes that often led to blatantly hubristic results. The Domino Theory which defined the world in abstract ideological blocks of influence led to an embittered struggled throughout East Asia. The American government's unapologetic support for radical right wing factions in Nicaragua, Chile, the Dominican Republic and others led to a wave of brutal dictatorships and political assassinations. Support for these regimes illustrated the general image of the US as an unethical beast of burden to the people of Latin America. The CIA's stunt that eliminated the elected regime of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 continues to define the US-Iranian relationship to this day.
But of all the mistakes America made in the Cold War, the one I find most detrimental to American interests is the support of Pakistan over India in the divide of the partition. The choice to side with Pakistan was, like all other decisions in the Cold War order, based in ideology as opposed to reason and virtue. Like most new nations born from the sweat and blood of imperialism, India's first elected leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, put India on the path of socialism. India is a large and poor country, so it's no surprise that India's leadership was skeptical of Free Market Capitalism and the Cold War had a long way to go before the ideological struggle proved victorious for capitalism. To make matters worse in the eyes of the US, the Soviet Union soon replaced the UK as India's largest trading partner. Through the many armed conflicts between India and Pakistan during the Cold War, most notably the battle over East Pakistan(now Bangladesh), America continued to side with Pakistan.
After the Cold War, the Clinton Administration marginally improved relations with India, but the new relationship was immediately cast aside after 9/11. Under the Bush and Obama Administrations Pakistan has once again become a vital partner, this time in the War on Terrorism. But it has been a cantankerous partnership, one marred by unclear boundaries of sovereignty and acts of distrust. On numerous occasions Pakistan has closed its boarder to NATO and the US Army, and it is assumed that the bulk of the Taliban's activity is within its border. US drone strikes in Pakistan have affectedly pissed off the entire Pakistani political spectrum. Most alarming was the discovery that Osama Bin Laden had resided in a compound in Abbotabad at a location fairly close to a Pakistan army facility. Pakistan is now one of the most anti American countries in the world and yet we continue to fund its military autocracy. On the other hand, Indian public opinion of America, while not perfect, is rosier than Pakistan's. A partnership with India would prove far more trustworthy.
Furthermore, the cultural congruencies between America and India are too great to ignore. Pakistan is a military dictatorship without a flicker of democratic flame in its political system. India is the worlds largest democracy. Unlike China and other Asian nations, India developed a successful parliamentary government at its origins. Why is this so? Well one could easily point to Britain's long standing administration and presence on the subcontinent as the obvious cause. Britain built India's transportation system, gave India a unifying language, and developed a robust education system for India's elites. Undoubtedly India would revert to a British style government given Britain's influence. Yet there are several examples of former states of British imperialism, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Singapore, and until recently Egypt that have not developed pluralist democratic societies.
Therefore, I believe that the primary cause for India's success as a democracy is the inherit pluralism in its culture and identity. India is the most ethnically, politically, and religiously diverse country in the world. It is a country of Hindus primarily, but also with large populations of Muslims, Sikhs and Catholics. It is a country where Jewish communities have thrived for centuries, while Jewish communities in Europe had suffered antisemitism until less than a century ago. It is a country with states administered by communists, the far right BJP party, and centrist Congress party factions. According to the 2001 Indian census, 30 languages are spoken by over 1 million native speakers in India. It is a country of castes, creeds, classes, crescents and Kalis. But yet it has endured to define itself as a united nation and people. Sounds a lot like America to me. In fact, India shares the central idea of America as the melting pot. If such a message was pontificated by our leaders, the opportunities for a historic alliance would be endless.
Furthermore, like America, India has a fully developed popular culture with soft power potential. In fact, Bollywood yields more films for the world than India imports from foreign film industries. Even in China I have come across fans of Bollywood entertainment. Pakistan on the other hand is a country dominated by corrupt religious extremists. Such an environment dampens Pakistan's potential to develop a robust popular culture. Once again, culturally India is more congruent with the US than Pakistan.
However, in the war of terrorism, India doesn't provide much in terms of strategy. Pakistan is at the heart of the action, and since it is a nuclear power, eliminating the partnership altogether would yield more accessibility for terrorist groups to nuclear weapons. But India does provide a greater strategic piece to the game of geopolitics. The Obama Administration's primary foreign policy objective is a strategic shift to East Asia in an effort to balance China. As of now the US can count on South Korea's and Japan's newly elected conservative governments to cooperate. Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam are hedging towards the US due to recent spats with China over islands in the South China Sea. American relations with Myanmar have opened after a half century of separation, and President Obama has deployed 2,500 troops to Australia with full support from the host country.
India provides the final piece of the puzzle, and it shouldn't be too hard to persuade India to join. India is the only country in Asia that matches China's potential. Furthermore India is China's biggest military and economic rival in the region besides the US. India is a victim of China's String of Pearls strategy, it has a territorial dispute with China that has brought tensions between the two nations since a military exchange in 1962, and China has been aiding Pakistan's military development for years. The ultimate balance against China would be a triangular military alliance between India, the US, and Australia. The only major roadblock is America's alliance with Pakistan which unfortunately cannot be ignored due to America's current goals in Afghanistan.
For his part, President Obama has done his best to ignite a friendship between India and the US. He has signed off on numerous economic and military agreements with India and has promised to support India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. But more work needs to be done. In Asia the Obama Administration has several obligations. It has placed the bulk of its diplomatic efforts in ASEAN and its members, and it still must deal with the withdrawal of the American military from Afghanistan as well as the lingering effects of the Arab Spring. But following the American withdrawal from the Middle East, I believe that the US will enough resources to invest in the Subcontinent to foster such an alliance. Perhaps the best place to start is with the Indian public. Indians may have their complaints about the American government, but they generally admire American society for the same reason they admire their own, for culture, diversity, and democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment