U.S.-India versus U.S.-Pakistan: Strategic Dialogue Outcomes
Published in Xinhua
(China) on 15 June 2010
by Zhou Rong (link to original)
Having attracted the world’s attention and inspired many different predictions about America’s future relations with India and Pakistan, the first round of U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue in Washington D.C. and the second round of U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue in Islamabad finally came to an end on June 4 and 10.
U.S. officials speak highly of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue. In the second half of the century, the world will be under the influence of America and India, noted the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. She even hinted that America and India may be the most influential countries in the 21st century. The public in India is infatuated with America’s high comments. The Indian press keeps repeating the idea that “the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is a milestone in the history of U.S.-India relations” and other similar notions. They even believe that India is getting to be particularly important for America.
Some Indian scholars, however, who still maintain a clear mind, point out that this U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is nothing more than a mere ritual. America has its strategic thinking and India knows its own strategic interest.
Comparing India’s and America’s importance in the world economy, they are not at the same level at all and their friendly, cooperative relationship is not built on an equal foundation. Thus, the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is only Obama’s olive branch. No breakthrough agreement has been reached, and this is the best proof of the real essence of this dialogue. The so-called shared ideology and values can’t help America and India overcome their divergence regarding national interest or conflicts that stand in most of the world issues.
In contrast, the second round of the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue is much smaller in scale but much more dynamic and practical. The dialogue regarding military cooperation discusses many very specific points, and both sides feel content about the result. The dialogue between America and Pakistan is better in quality than the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, said a Pakistan official who did not wish to reveal his name.
Pakistan is the key point of winning the Afghanistan war — the Obama administration knows this very well. To a certain extent, America needs the cooperation with Pakistan in short term strategically more than that with India. America supports India to rise up, but it is not expecting it to become another America. America does not want to put Afghanistan in danger of becoming the new battlefield in the India-Pakistan conflict. America speaks highly of India on one hand, but on the other urges India to accept the truth that America has to provide large-scale military aid to Pakistan in the long run for anti-terrorism purposes.
There’s more to it than America and India’s reciprocal compliments. It is said that America feels deep anxiety about India’s quickly expanding power in Afghanistan, and shows caution regarding India’s intention of replacing America to be the major power in Afghanistan after America’s withdrawal next year. According to an anonymous White House official, America wishes to achieve a balance of power between Pakistan and India in Afghanistan, without either one of them being able to dominate the future affairs in Afghanistan. So, the core of these strategic dialogues lies in the notion that America will continue to give large-scale economic and military aid to Pakistan, making it strong enough to strike terrorism and recover and develop their economy — which, of course, incurs discontent from India, but what could they do about it anyway? Although America promised not to interfere with the India-Pakistan conflict and welcome India to play an important economic role in Afghanistan, after the Mumbai incident, America still holds “a natural veto power” in the India-Pakistan conflict. America takes up a double strategy of “restraining while moderately encouraging” towards India concerning its expanding power in Afghanistan. Therefore, the U.S.-India and U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogues didn’t change the countries’ relations, nor did they have any influence on the regional structure of world power.
U.S. officials speak highly of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue. In the second half of the century, the world will be under the influence of America and India, noted the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. She even hinted that America and India may be the most influential countries in the 21st century. The public in India is infatuated with America’s high comments. The Indian press keeps repeating the idea that “the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is a milestone in the history of U.S.-India relations” and other similar notions. They even believe that India is getting to be particularly important for America.
Some Indian scholars, however, who still maintain a clear mind, point out that this U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is nothing more than a mere ritual. America has its strategic thinking and India knows its own strategic interest.
Comparing India’s and America’s importance in the world economy, they are not at the same level at all and their friendly, cooperative relationship is not built on an equal foundation. Thus, the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue is only Obama’s olive branch. No breakthrough agreement has been reached, and this is the best proof of the real essence of this dialogue. The so-called shared ideology and values can’t help America and India overcome their divergence regarding national interest or conflicts that stand in most of the world issues.
In contrast, the second round of the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue is much smaller in scale but much more dynamic and practical. The dialogue regarding military cooperation discusses many very specific points, and both sides feel content about the result. The dialogue between America and Pakistan is better in quality than the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, said a Pakistan official who did not wish to reveal his name.
Pakistan is the key point of winning the Afghanistan war — the Obama administration knows this very well. To a certain extent, America needs the cooperation with Pakistan in short term strategically more than that with India. America supports India to rise up, but it is not expecting it to become another America. America does not want to put Afghanistan in danger of becoming the new battlefield in the India-Pakistan conflict. America speaks highly of India on one hand, but on the other urges India to accept the truth that America has to provide large-scale military aid to Pakistan in the long run for anti-terrorism purposes.
There’s more to it than America and India’s reciprocal compliments. It is said that America feels deep anxiety about India’s quickly expanding power in Afghanistan, and shows caution regarding India’s intention of replacing America to be the major power in Afghanistan after America’s withdrawal next year. According to an anonymous White House official, America wishes to achieve a balance of power between Pakistan and India in Afghanistan, without either one of them being able to dominate the future affairs in Afghanistan. So, the core of these strategic dialogues lies in the notion that America will continue to give large-scale economic and military aid to Pakistan, making it strong enough to strike terrorism and recover and develop their economy — which, of course, incurs discontent from India, but what could they do about it anyway? Although America promised not to interfere with the India-Pakistan conflict and welcome India to play an important economic role in Afghanistan, after the Mumbai incident, America still holds “a natural veto power” in the India-Pakistan conflict. America takes up a double strategy of “restraining while moderately encouraging” towards India concerning its expanding power in Afghanistan. Therefore, the U.S.-India and U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogues didn’t change the countries’ relations, nor did they have any influence on the regional structure of world power.