Why did Nixon go to see Chairman Mao fifty years ago? Was it because Nixon thought China 'shared values' with America? No. Nixon wanted to make China- which had a border dispute with the USSR- a counterweight to Moscow. Similarly, Reagan backed Saddam Hussein against the Ayatollah not because he thought Saddam liked chewing bubble gum and playing baseball but because America wanted a counterweight to Iran in the region.
It has never been the case that America has sought allies on the basis of shared values. Suhashini Haider- Subramaniyam Swamy's daughter thinks otherwise. She tells the American Council of Foreign Relations that-
If the United States sees India as a counterpoint to China, then that can only stand if India is, in fact, a democracy and not an authoritarian regime.
India was a democracy in 1962. It was useless as a 'counterpoint' to China. Kennedy was deeply disillusioned with a country too shitty to feed or defend itself despite the fact that, under the Brits, India could do force projection on three continents and keep the Russians out of Afghanistan and the Chinese out of Tibet. Indeed, the Americans thought India was too weak to even stand up to Pakistan.
India has a demographic advantage over China and can win a land war more particularly if it resorts to asymmetric methods. But India can bide its time. After all, the country needs an enemy for purposes of internal cohesion.
The last thing India will do is commit to an American led 'quad' in the region. Why? America is shit. It will run away soon enough. Also, it has a disconcerting habit of toppling its own puppets. Being America's enemy is helpful because it keeps you safe from Americans. Modi gained by the Visa ban on him. The Saudi Crown Prince is doing fine thanks to Biden's distaste for him. Imran Khan will probably return to power purely because, since 2013, he has been increasingly anti-American. As Obama said, America's foreign policy is to do stupid shit. What happened to his great pal- Aung San Suu Kyi? True, Obama did also have a bromance with Modi, but Modi pumped and dumped him quickly enough.
With Jaishankar, we at last have a Foreign Minister who will repay American virtue signalers in their own coin.
As the Indian government takes a more authoritarian turn, with attacks on minorities and restrictions on civil society, concerns over human rights are likely to bleed into the bilateral relationship.
Nope. The opposite is the case. The Hindu diaspora will cancel out the Muslim diaspora as a consideration in internal politics. It has happened already in England. It will happen in America. Unlike Muslims who have other concerns- e.g. Palestine- Hindus have only one extra-territorial loyalty.
The other point is that America has a blind-spot about Bangladesh- which is now better off than Pakistan. Excluding Sheikh Hasina from the Democracy Summit while inviting Imran- who refused the invitation at the last moment- was a stupid move. It now appears that a lot of the human rights claims against Bangladesh were fabricated. Even if this is not the case, America will have to curb its Magnitsky mania. It has lost Myanmar. It pissed off the Philippines. If China softens its stand on North Natua, Indonesia too will give Uncle Sam the cold shoulder.
There is another factor. Suppose China can really bring about a settlement between Hamas and Israel based on infrastructure investment. That would be a game-changer. Suppose, further, that China can make a profit on making Afghanistan peaceful. Then China will be the Afro-Asiatic hegemon bringing peace and prosperity where America brought only greed and internecine conflict.
The United States sees India as a partner with “shared values,”
No it doesn't. It sees India as a shit-hole where, however, some people are making lots of money. This is a reasonable view- at least in the view of Indians who are paying an arm and a leg to get their kids a Green Card.
but these shared values must be something that the United States encourages in India.
The US can't encourage shit because it has no fucking courage. Biden has made this abundantly clear. The Biden doctrine is- if you can protect yourself, we'll only give you grief about human rights. But if we are protecting you, you are fucked because all we care about is getting our little porcelain soldiers out of harm's way.
That does not mean I think it is for the United States to have a role in any kind of internal intervention in what is essentially an Indian affair.
Come to think of it, the CIA did spend a fair amount of money to ensure Shastri succeeded Nehru. But so did the KGB and MI 5. Everybody, it seems, was keen that the useless tosser, Nehru, was replaced by a little sparrow of a man whom Indians so despised that he was booed in Cinema Halls when he appeared on newsreels. The official story is that Shastri was less shite than he appeared. But that's not saying much.
Rather, the United States should make clear what kind of democracy it believes it shares values with.
But the US is less democratic than India. This is because it has 'dual sovereignty' and thus can't have a Election Commission on the Indian model. Also the Judiciary isn't really independent- like the Indian Bench. It is politicized. As for human rights, Manmohan's daughter has shown- by taking up the case of Guantanamo prisoners- that America doesn't give a shit about any such beastie.
When there are injustices that are going on, then it is everyone’s job to point them out.
Unless they are being dealt out by Stalin- who is the CM in the State where Suhashini's bosses are based.
To stay silent, or worse, to condone them or pretend as if they are not happening is not something any country should do.
But Suhashini has a duty to shit on India when talking to the American Foreign Relations Council coz she is a virtue signaling presstitute with a career to advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment