Posted on 11/29/2006 6:25:04 PM PST by mylife
US, India forging global partnership: Burns
Arun Kumar (IANS)
Washington, November 29, 2006
The United States and India are forging a "natural global partnership" economically, militarily and culturally in one of the most significant shifts in US global policy in a decade, says a senior US official.
While the US-India civil nuclear accord has received the most public attention, there is actually an "ambitious agenda" of cooperative efforts under way through official government channels, private businesses and non-profit organisations, said Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R Nicholas Burns.
In a speech to the Asia Society in New York Nov 27, he said that the United States and India finally "have found each other" and are now "increasingly close partners in global politics" on a range of interests that flow from both the "bright side" and "darker forces" of globalisation.
"We can safely say, I think, that we'll be partners in global economics and trade and investment. We're also going to have a very strong military relationship between our two countries," Burns said according to an official report of the meeting.
He cited a litany of joint projects that included supporting the emergence of democratic institutions in countries around the world; cooperating in science and technology, engineering, agriculture, communications and global climate change; and fighting illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in women and children and global terrorist organizations.
"We've never seen this kind of intensity of effort and purpose in the US-India relationship. It is absolutely what the United States should be doing to effect the kind of relationship we want to have with India," he said.
Burns said he will be visiting India in early December to ensure that all US initiatives are going as planned.
The cooperation between the Indian and US navies and air forces to help the victims of the 2004 tsunami demonstrated that the two governments could play a role in bringing relief to victims of natural disasters and might be relied on in other common security interests, Burns added.
All the countries of South Asia are now a priority for US foreign policy in what is a shift in attention over the last eight years during the Clinton and Bush administrations, Burns said.
"For the first time in decades, American policymakers of both political parties in the Congress and certainly in [the Bush] Administration believe that what happens in South Asia is vital to the future security interests of the United States itself," the official said.
Pakistan is "a key ally with which we are building ever stronger relations," Burns said.
Because of the significant number of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists remaining in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, there is "no more important partner in the fight against global terrorism than Pakistan," he said.
But, while counterterrorism efforts have been a focus of Washington's engagement, the US commitment to Pakistan "is much broader" especially in the area of energy, poverty alleviation and business growth.
"We support President [Pervez] Musharraf's vision of a strong and moderate and prosperous Pakistan," he said.
The United States has "two great friends in the region" in India and Pakistan, Burns said. "One is not more important than the other, just different. The United States seeks a priority relationship with both."
Reflecting the United States "newly energetic role" in South Asia, Washington is now engaged in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh "to help each overcome serious internal crises in ways we had never been before," the under secretary said.
In Nepal, the United States will support "an agreement between the government and Maoists that safeguards the aspirations of the Nepali people," he said. "This means violence, intimidation and criminal acts by the Maoists must end. We will be watching closely."
The United States also will remain involved to help stop the civil war in Sri Lanka, he added. The United States hosted a meeting of the Sri Lanka Donors Group which called on both the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to engage in cease-fire agreement implementation talks.
Concerned about the political violence in Bangladesh, Burns urged the political parties to resolve their difference through dialogue.
"Bangladesh is a pivotal country in South Asia, its future is important to the entire region," Burns said. "It has the advantage of size, a growing economy, and a talented population. Can its leadership put aside their differences to lead the country forward in peace?"
Bush is really stupid, isn't he?
He is truly looking at "the big picture"
I difficult situation to be sure.
How does India help in any of these "joint" projects? What does India know about promoting stable democratic governments? Their own leaders have been assassinated what, half a dozen times in the last half a century? As far as "co-operating" in the sciences and technology, translate that to mean that we educate Indians here in the States so that they can go back to India and work for a tenth the price of a US worker, while training another battalion of coolies to take over more of our jobs. They teaching US much about agriculture? Are we shipping a lot of illicit drugs to THEM? How about trafficking in human slaves or terror? See a lot of Americans blowing up mosques around the world?
In other words, this is being sold as a symbiosis, but in truth, it only benefits the weaker of the two: India. They're milking our fear of China for everything they can get. And it's working. We're fast turning them into a superpower, but only at our own expense. If China comes in with more money in its wheelbarrow, India will bolt in a Bangalore second. That's the danger you run when you buy your "friends."
India will rise in power. I suggest we work together to hold China and Jihadis in balance.
Why don't you bother looking into the establishment of a democratic Bangladesh,promotion of democracy in Nepal & Afghanistan before asking what India knows??& How many Indian leaders have been assasinated while in office??
India will cozy up to China............provided they give up 20,000 sq.miles of Indian territory,stop pointing nukes at India & stop arming Pakistan.IOW,Never.
I respectfully disagree.
A "Khomeini" led Pakistan?.......I hope we nail things down in the Middle East before this happens.
...and it will.
Pakistan is a country that has lots of nukes as we speak. Throw in some Islamic Jihadists, shake well, and you have a prescription for disaster.
We've got a huge problem on the horizon, something that never seems to come up. It's Pakistan.
Please tell me you're not citing Bangladesh as an example of anything but disaster on a grand scale. The establishment of that state was marked by one of the greatest humanitarian horrors since the Holocaust! To this day, the "democratic" government of Bangladesh can barely manage its affairs.
As to Nepal and Afghanistan, how does India deserve any credit for either of those? Government in Nepal is a hodgepodge of constitutional, parliamentary, and monarchical relics, owning much more to England than to India. And the Karzai government is a product of Allied power, with some minimal assistance from Delhi in subduing the Pakastani/Kashmir wilderness.
From Mohandas Gandhi on, the fate of Indian leaders is to die at the hand of some internal extremist. M. Gandhi, Indira, Rajiv ... all dead.
India has made tremendous strides from the days of the Raj's, but it has little to offer the United States. However, as terrified as we are of the Yellow Peril, we'll mortgage our future to the good lads in Hyderabad, who will gladly pocket our money and look for another "john."
That is, if India wants to be a vassal state/colony of China.
China, like Russia, is good at winning influence among the failed states and thug dictatorships of the world--places that have nothing to lose from falling under the influence of a slavemater state.
India will never, ever ally with China, because such an alliance, from China's point of view, can only mean that they own India.
America's freedom is, as always, a source of strength.
India was not responsible for that holocaust,an American ally was.If anything India was responsible for putting an end to the slaughter.Bangladesh is nowhere near perfect,but it's still far more stable than other Slammies like Pakiland & Saudi Arabia.
Err who are the main indegnious backers of the current Afghan regime???Folks called the Northern Alliance, who were supported by Russia,India & Uzbekistan among others.None of the current "allied" powers were around at that time.Indian troops would almost certainly have been in Afghanistan hadn't Musharraf made it explicitly condtional that Israel & India stay out of drive to throw out the Talibs.Indian public & private enterprises are among the largest contributors to Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts -building roads,electricity lines,training police & diplomatic officers among many others.If Nepal is starting to move out of it's feudal morass, to that of democratic republic,it is because of Indian pressure.Rajiv Gandhi's sanctions against the Nepalese king in the late 80s hastened the elections for a new Parliament.
Other than those 3,which other leaders can you quote??As I said,only one of them was killed in office,with Gandhi living with virtually no security.Kennedy & King died a few years apart from each-while Reagan & Ford had very close shaves with bullets.Those weren't the Al-Qaeda,if Im not mistaken.
C'mon IronJack, you see the regional situation, don't you?.....give me a shout.........
The Northern Alliance was SUPPORTED by Russia???? Are you daft???? It was the NA under Massoud that kicked the Russians OUT of Afghanistan!
Indian public & private enterprises are among the largest contributors to Afghanistan's reconstruction efforts -building roads,electricity lines,training police & diplomatic officers among many others.
I didn't say India isn't BENEFITING from the Taliban overthrow in Afghanistan. They're always there when there's a buck to be made.
If Nepal is starting to move out of it's feudal morass, to that of democratic republic,it is because of Indian pressure.Rajiv Gandhi's sanctions against the Nepalese king in the late 80s hastened the elections for a new Parliament.
India provided a refuge for the monarchs when they fled the democratic revolution! You've sure got a distorted view of history.
Other than those 3,which other leaders can you quote??As I said,only one of them was killed in office,with Gandhi living with virtually no security.
How many more do I HAVE to name, for cripes' sake?!?! You've had three leaders shot to death in just over 50 years! Don't tell me that entitles you to export democracy. You don't know the meaning of the word!
Kennedy & King died a few years apart from each-while Reagan & Ford had very close shaves with bullets.
No one knows why Kennedy was shot. Ford and Reagan were assaulted by nutcases, not for political reasons. And King was not an elected official, or even political for that matter.
I think you are the one who is ignorant here-Russia was the biggest backer of the N.A esp it's Uzbek & Tajik elements with the likes of Iran,Uzbekistan & India pitching in.Just google up 'Northern Alliance & Russia'.
About Nepal-Im referring to the period of the 80s & after,which you've conviniently ignored.If anything in recent upheaval,the King was backed by China & Pakistan.
& exactly,who is entitled to export democracy???Countries which are flawed or ones which have sustained tinpots as long as it suited them???
Well King & M.K Gandhi were the same-both were unelected who represented very relevant causes.
As to those allowed to export democracy, you can't very well export what you don't have. India's government will survive right up until some new extremist group decides to start assassinating leaders, then it will all come tumbling down, with each sect -- Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Westernized pseudo-Christian -- scrambling for its share of the wealth.
Even if the government remains relatively stable, the US shares no ideological ground with India. Indeed, that country much more in common with China than with the US. So since India's "friendship" is merely a purchased commodity, it is logical to believe that another consumer willing to pay more can purchase the same friendship out from under us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.