« on: April 13, 2009, 09:02:02 PM »
SNIP
When President Obama was elected, there were cross-currents in the American and Indian press and blogospheres about the implications for the young alliance. Many felt that Obama’s greater focus on Afghanistan would necessarily draw the United States back into Pakistan’s orbit. Candidate Obama’s focus on the al Qaeda and Taliban presence in the now-famously lawless northern provinces of Pakistan, his Vice President’s famous opinion on convenience stores, the particular brand of realism the Democratic Party was embracing, and the candidate’s mockery of Hillary Clinton for her support in the Indian-American community (“D-Punjabâ€) and proposed intervention in Kashmir did nothing to allay this. Others, pointing to all of the reasons why we had so closely allied with India in the first place, scoffed at the idea. The President-elect’s own messaging on the matter was not a model of clarity, so the question remained open: Would Obama side with India, or Pakistan?
The answer, from the Obama Administration, appears to be Yes, we can.
No, you can’t. This is one of those unfortunate rules of modern international relations: Great powers cannot be neutral arbiters between India and Pakistan. There is too much bad blood between them, too many disparate alliances, too many emotionally charged, unsettled issues. President Obama learned this when protests from India forced him to withdraw Kashmir from former AIG board member Richard Holbrooke’s diplomatic portfolio.
Much as with Obama’s turn at “Make Peace In The Holy Land†(a game American Presidents play too often as if the Israelis are unhelpful opponents instead of an old, democratic ally), Obama’s India policy has all the signs of being confused, amoral fantasizing disguised as hard-nosed realism. On the one hand are repeated, pointless sleights, like not calling the world’s largest democracy after being elected; neglecting to include India in Hillary Clinton’s first trip abroad as Secretary of State; and subtly letting India know that the Obama Administration sees India’s nuclear development as out of place in the world. On the other hand are gentle — ultimately probably futile — attempts to have Pakistan divulge detail on which faction of its intelligence services perpetrated the Mumbai massacre.
All of that show is the worse for the substance: When he finally deigned to turn his attention to that part of the region which does not exclusively end in –istan, the President sided with Pakistan and called for the two countries to engage in “effective dialogue†to resolve their generations-old hostility. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has bothered to watch the area since 2004 — instead of, presumably, running for President — Pakistan was overjoyed. That rookie error did more damage to our relationship with India than all of the failed telephone calls imaginable, India’s PM’s recent show of ebullience at the mere sight of Obama notwithstanding.
SNIP
http://newledger.com/2009/04/obamas-india-pakistan-mess/Ruh-Roh....
Logged
I can see November 2 from my house!!!
Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.
Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------
No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle
