India has conducted joint military exercises with the U.S

The U.S.-India defense relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and

India – United States relations

 seeks to advance shared security interests. These interests include maintaining security and stability, defeating terrorism and violent religious extremism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and associated materials, data, and technologies and protecting the free flow of commerce via land, air and sea lanes.

In recent years India has conducted joint military exercises with the U.S. in the Indian Ocean. Despite this the Indian government sees the sole U.S. base in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia, and the permanent presence of the U.S. military there, as a potential escalation point in a future war, especially because of the current U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recognizing India as a key to strategic U.S. interests, United States has sought to strengthen its relationship with India. The two countries are the world’s largest democracies, both committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is also moving gradually toward greater economic freedom. The U.S. and India have a common interest in the free flow of commerce and resources, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. They also share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia.

There were some differences, however, including over India’s nuclear weapons programs and the pace of India’s economic reforms. In the past, these concerns may have dominated U.S. thinking about India, but today the U.S. views India as a growing world power with which it shares common strategic interests. A strong partnership between the two countries will continue to address differences and shape a dynamic and collaborative future.

In late September 2001, President Bush lifted sanctions imposed under the terms of the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act following India’s nuclear tests in May 1998. The nonproliferation dialogue initiated after the 1998 nuclear tests has bridged many of the gaps in understanding between the countries. In a meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee in November 2001, the two leaders expressed a strong interest in transforming the U.S.-India bilateral relationship. High-level meetings and concrete cooperation between the two countries increased during 2002 and 2003. In January 2004, the U.S. and India launched the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), which was both a milestone in the transformation of the bilateral relationship and a blueprint for its further progress.

The initial approach of the Obama administration towards ties with India raised concerns of a downturn in Indo-American relations. In an editorial, the National Interest suggested that the Obama administration could possibly damage “the foundations are underlying the geo strategic partnership” between India and the United States. Another editorial published by the Taipei Times highlighted the importance of India-U.S. relations and urged Barack Obama to give “India the attention it deserves”. Terming India to be United States’ “indispensable ally”, the Christian Science Monitor argued that the Obama administration needs India’s cooperation on several issues, including climate change, Afghanistan war and energy security and therefore, Obama cannot risk putting ties with India on “back-burner”.

In an attempt to bolster relations between the two countries, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India in the second half of July 2009. Calling India a “key partner” of the United States, Clinton said that the United States wants India “to succeed as an anchor for regional and global security”. She also mentioned four platforms for building future U.S.-India relationship — “global security, human development, economic activity, science and technology”.

Advertisements

December 4, 2009 at 9:50 pm Leave a comment

Relationship between India and US

U.S. President Barack Obama with Indian PM Manmohan Singh looking for a batter relationship

India’s confidence in an unswerving surge in India-US ties has diminished with Barack Obama taking over the presidency from George Bush. This is the result of exaggerating the personal elements and overlooking the structural elements that condition the India-US relationship. It is not possible to build a relationship of equality between the US as a global power and India as a regional one. India is sensitive about preserving the independence of its foreign policy, whereas the US wants India’s choices to be convergent with its interests. US military and economic power largely enables it to set the terms of its relationship with other countries.

The US sees its ultimate security lying in others accepting its leadership, values and the international order it has established. Those opposed are pressured, contained, sanctioned in various ways, or, in the worst cases, subjected to military force. India is a rising power, seeking a change in the status quo, without contesting the pre-eminence of the US. Going nuclear has given it international stature, but not enough. India has to wait till its high growth rates propel it truly into the big league.

On most strategic issues, Indian and US positions remain apart. At the bilateral level, the nuclear deal and the US-steered NSG waiver was a major breakthrough. But Obama’s renewed emphasis on non-proliferation issues portends difficulties with India, and the challenge is to have the US constantly underwrite the exception made for India while pursing them. Steady progress in defense ties with the US can be expected. The two countries are holding military exercise, though the Indian navy has reportedly been denied permission to participate in a planned trilateral amphibious exercise with the US and Japanese navies at Okinawa, presumably with China’s sensitivities in mind

The US eyes a share of the very sizable India defence market as a trust dividend from the nuclear deal, but concerns about the unreliability of the US as a defence supplier because of the ever present risk of sanctions if Indian and US policies clash over sensitive issues cannot be overlooked. The US has high hopes of winning the 126 multi-role combat aircraft tender, which if it did would constitute a decisive breakthrough. But the political furore over the End User Monitoring Agreement points to peculiar difficulties in doing defence business with the US.

The US is relying on the armed forces in Pakistan to help find a solution in Afghanistan even though it has manifest responsibility for aggravating problem there, as well as for unrelentingly confronting India.  The hand of the Pakistani armed forces has been greatly strengthened by large scale military transfers to Pakistan. India con not be comfortable with a hostile Pakistan armed by bout the US and China. The attachment of a “no terrorism” rider and a monitoring requirement to the latest $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan is a step in the right direction, but its strict implementation can be discounted in practice.

The US is not as yet ready to back its rhetoric about India as a global player by supporting India’s permanent membership of the Security Council. US concerns about China’s rise may still exist, but the recession, for overcoming which the US requires China’s financial back-stopping, has altered the Sino-US equation, reducing India’s strategic salience. The Obama administration is encouraging China to ply a supportive role in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as in promoting an India-Pakistan dialogue, disregarding evidence that China has built Pakistan as a strategic threat to India.

November 25, 2009 at 11:10 am Leave a comment

Hamed Karzai with new strategy

Hamed Karzai support new US strategy in Afghanistan

In August, we were hopeful of seeing some change with the Afghan elections.  Instead, there was low voter turnout resulting from violence against those who sought to vote for a new government.  There was also reportedly widespread voting malpractices, including stuffing the ballot boxes and other electoral fraud.  Things were so bad, a second round run-off vote was held in November between President Hamid Karzai and his main rival Abdullah Abdullah.  In a move that secured another five-year term for Karzai, Abdullah dropped out of the race, stating the process was still as flawed as ever.

The Anti-corruption and Administration Reform Commission has presented a strategy to President Hamid Karzai to fight corruption and expedite the reform process within the government administration.

The new strategy is a major step forward that demonstrates government’s strong commitment in wiping out corruption and implementing a wide-reaching reform within its institutions. The strategy is also designed seriously to deal with the problem that has affected the efforts by the government for quality control of imported goods like the medicine, foodstuff and other consumable items. The strategy lays out a suggested roadmap for action by the government to help ease off complicated lengthy administrative procedures and red-tape within government institutions.

Administration officials and America’s European allies say that rampant corruption and the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan have fueled the resurgence of the Taliban, and that unless Mr. Karzai moves forcefully to tackle those issues, no amount of additional American troops will be able to turn the country around.

Obama and European allies always emphasize Hamed Karzai to fight against corruption in Afghanistan. It is a big deal for Hamed Karzai to fight with corruption because most of his ministers and other top officials are involved in this issue, like Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, who has been accused by international groups of corruption and of maintaining an armed militia when he was defense minister. He is now one of Mr. Karzai’s two vice presidents. The second VP is Karzai’s brother who is the biggest leader of traffickers in Afghanistan. He has relationship with the international mafia as well; Diplomats, anti-narcotics officials and commanders from the International Security Assistance Force, NATO’s military wing in Afghanistan, have all privately (and not so privately) expressed frustration with President Karzai for not reining in his brother.

Now Haned Karzai is caught between two courses of action: if he really wants to eliminate or stop corruption in Afghanistan, he will lose his internal cooperation; if he doesn’t want to, he will lose his foreign or external cooperation He should manage his administration very carefully; otherwise he well face a dangerous sudation in Afghanistan and he will surely fail again in the next five years.

November 25, 2009 at 11:00 am Leave a comment

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

November 17, 2009 at 9:34 am 1 comment


Calendar

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Myself


My name is Mohammed Naim. My nick name is Poia. I am from Afghanistan, province Gazni and district Jaghori. I am graduated from Faizia high school in 2002. In 2003 I start my study in Kabul university Journalism Faculty and graduated in 2007. Now I am studying in India in my profession.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1 other follower

Archives

Flickr Photos

Follower

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Inviroment