Nixon to China, Bush to India

Newsweek ^ | Fareed Zakaria

[Raj13008]

Feb. 27, 2006 issue - There has been remarkably little discussion in the United States of what is perhaps the major strategic initiative of the Bush second term. The administration is pursuing an objective, which, if successful, could bear some similarities to Nixon's opening to China in 1973: a proposed nuclear agreement with India. This might sound like an esoteric issue for policy wonks, but it is a big deal. If successful, it could well alter the strategic landscape, bringing India firmly and irrevocably onto the world stage as a major player, normalizing its furtive nuclear status and anchoring its partnership with the United States. But the policy, which is currently in some trouble, has to succeed. And for that to happen, strategists on both sides will have to prevail over ideologues.

The Bush administration has been farsighted on this issue. With China rising and Europe and Japan declining, it sees India as a natural partner. It also recognized that 30 years of lectures on nonproliferation and sanctions have done nothing to stop, slow down or make safer India's nuclear program. Most important, it recognized that India was a rising and responsible global power—India has never sold or traded nuclear technology—that could not be treated like a rogue state. So the administration has proposed reversing three decades of (failed) American policy, and aims to make India a member of the nuclear club.

[Raj13008]

Great stuff. Read the full article.

[Clemenza]

Some may flame me, but Fareed Zakaria is the best commentator on foreign relations today, keeping the realist tradition alive in a world of moralists.

Unfortunatly, our dependence on the Pakis in the War on Terror has made a closer alliance with India difficult. Being that the main power blocks in my old age with be the U.S., China, and the Muslims, an alliance with India makes very good sense for the long term.

[ARridgerunner]

Great stuff.

It is.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Indian Ocean (Sept. 25, 2005) - Ships assigned to the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group and the Indian aircraft carrier Viraat (R 22) underway in formation as part of exercise Malabar 2005. The exercise is designed to increase interoperability between the two navies while enhancing the cooperative security relationship between India and the United States. The at-sea exercise includes maritime interdiction, surface events, sub-surface, air events and personnel exchanges. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Shannon E. Renfroe (RELEASED)

2 weeks before Bush visit, Ronald Reagan teams up with Viraat

[Cannoneer No. 4]

SINO-INDIAN RIVALRY FOR PAN-ASIAN LEADERSHIP

[Darkwolf377]

There has been remarkably little discussion in the United States of what is perhaps the major strategic initiative of the Bush second term

Maybe there's be room for more if you idiots at Newsweek who put Cheney on the cover yesterday focused on REAL news.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[wildcatf4f3]

at the risk of sounding politically incorrect, the British Empire was the greatest achievement of Europe. Who are our friends? rhetorical question

[CarrotAndStick]

Cope India 2004

[CarrotAndStick]

Cope India 2004. Himalayas Range

[CarrotAndStick]

Cope India 2004 Assorted:

Cope India 2006

[Northern Alliance]

Unfortunatly, our dependence on the Pakis in the War on Terror has made a closer alliance with India difficult.

I don't think seriously so. India surely understands the complexity of political alliances and how important a good relationship with Pakistan, particularly with a nuclear armed one, is in the WoT.

The west must have a strong alliance with India for the future. They are a natural ally sharing similar values, similar concerns like China and Islamofascism, and will be a good one.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Nice pics.

When I see MiG's, I see targets. Relic of the Cold War.

[DoughtyOne]

Offsetting China by raising the level of our relationship with India can be compared to offsetting Russia by raising our level of relationship with China. None the less, I find this comparison to the opening up of China to be rather weak.

We have raised the level of our economic relationship with India over the last five to ten years. India has been an open state. China was closed tighter than a clam's ass prior to Nixon.

I think it's a good thing that we might raise the level of our alliances with Inida. I just don't see it in the same light as China.

As for talks of non-proliferation, it seems to me that we've urged all nuclear states to adhere to tenets of that, not just India.

India has shown itself to be a pragmatic player, not lending itself to getting upset even if we had to play footsie with Pakistan. It doesn't bluster and has been cool headed.

I think Bush's moves are strategicly sound. I'm just not convinced he's going to be heralded in the same manner as Nixon was, for these moves. If the alliance does offset China effectively, perhaps he should. I still don't see that happening on a grand scale.

[mylife]

Amazing, someone finally noticed that this administration has longterm vision!

[Miss Marple]

I hope that President Bush is given credit for his accomplishments while he is still living. After putting up with the viscious attaacks during the entire term of his presidency, he deserves to hear some of the accolades that I am certain history will accord him.

[wolfcreek]

In hind sight, I'm not real sure the 'opening' of China was such a good idea. It didn't work out as planned.

[Soul Seeker]

Marking to read later, but slightly upset the MSM has paid some attention to this foreign policy objective of the admin. I like that it's under the radar, less obstacles to success that way.

IMO, though, it'll be one of the two greatest accomplishments of the admin, well, judges another, when less partisan historians view the past. WOT, this and Judges especially if we get a third opening.