The improvement of Indo-US relations: Is India a counterbalance to China's rise?

[Farnan]

In recent years there has been a huge improvement in US-Indian relations in both the military and economic spheres. There has also been political progress between the world's two largest democracies. Furthermore the majority of Americans have a positive opinion of India and a majority of Indians have a positive view of America.

China and India are the two giants of Asia, and two historic leaders and cultural centers. Currently the US has good relations with both of them and they of each other, but could the actions to strengthen the US-India ties be done in order to counterbalance the rise of China?

[Big War Bird]

Not to be flip but does this need to be asked?

Being a democracy, India is a natural ally to the USA and the rest of the West. Of course the USA is purposefully seeking good relations with India to counterbalance China. China can be "boxed in" if it has strong neghbors. A strong Japan, S. Korea, India and Russia(?) are all in the best interests of the West when it comes to keep a lid any Chinese military ambitions.

[Mikelus Trento]

Friend? yes

Good friend? both democracies, yes

Formal treay ally? no

[roy34543]

Anyone who thinks India can counterbalance china has evidently never heard of their problems. Ok theres a small chance that they can, but i think theres a greater chance that china wont be that powerful anyway.

[Farnan]

Anyone who thinks India can counterbalance china has evidently never heard of their problems. Ok theres a small chance that they can, but i think theres a greater chance that china wont be that powerful anyway.

Both China and India have problems, however India is a powerful nation and has historic influence in the region.

Also, improved Indo-US relations can lead the US to be a mediator between Pakistan and India.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Anyone who thinks India can counterbalance china has evidently never heard of their problems. Ok theres a small chance that they can, but i think theres a greater chance that china wont be that powerful anyway.

That's one risk no one is apparently going to take.

To answer the OP's question, yes, India is quite obviously a counterbalance to China. The recent US civilian nuclear deal with India proves that if it indeed proves anything.

It's interesting to note that although part of the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement), India was always a close USSR 'ally'. With the USSR gone, China is emerging and while Japan is a pacifist country (which is something that won't change soon), the US finds a natural partner in India. Whilst America's neocolonialist states are predominantly Muslim, they're also too weak to stand up to China. India, on the other hand, will have more people than China in a decade's time and it already has chilly relations with its Socialist neighbor. They even went to war once in which India was defeated in a small border conflict.

Both China and India have problems, however India is a powerful nation and has historic influence in the region.

Also, improved Indo-US relations can lead the US to be a mediator between Pakistan and India.

I wish that were true. However, Pakistan was an American ally since 1947 yet the US did not act when it came to solving the pressing issue of Kashmir. In fact, in the 1971 Tashkent agreement, Pakistan and India agreed that Kashmir was a bilateral issue and no third party would be included in the settlement of the issue. This was signed after Pakistan had lost a major war against India. So if the US can't mediate any sort of agreement of Kashmir, I can't see how it can help bring about real peace.

Not to be flip but does this need to be asked?

Being a democracy, India is a natural ally to the USA and the rest of the West. Of course the USA is purposefully seeking good relations with India to counterbalance China. China can be "boxed in" if it has strong neghbors. A strong Japan, S. Korea, India and Russia(?) are all in the best interests of the West when it comes to keep a lid any Chinese military ambitions.

Japan: Not a military threat to anyone because of its constitution.
S. Korea: Already got its plate full.
Russia: It's neither a democracy nor is it a "Western ally". It's a bloc unto itself.

India's relationship with the US is only because of convenience. Indeed, India was a democracy since 1947 yet it allied itself with the dictatorial USSR instead of the "free" West. Right now, India needs the US for funding, investment and security and the US needs India as a friendly country against Chinese interests.

[Kamos]

India alone could not counter China but with US aid sure.

[roy34543]

That's one risk no one is apparently going to take.

Point taken. But i expect that if India will do anything as drastic as becoming leverage in the region for the US they will barter for it with US aid for dealing with pakistan. They will probably want protection in case theres a nuclear war or something.

Also, improved Indo-US relations can lead the US to be a mediator between Pakistan and India

I think its more likely the US will just have to choose to back one. thats the only strategy that traditionally works and probably the only one that will get you anything in return. Though i suppose becoming a mediator might improve americas image thats A:practically worthless B:Fragile and inconsistent . I guess if you see it as I do India is the obvious choice. Though of course you could also just ignore the entire thing.

Edit:

It's interesting to note that although part of the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement), India was always a close USSR 'ally'. With the USSR gone, China is emerging and while Japan is a pacifist country (which is something that won't change soon), the US finds a natural partner in India. Whilst America's neocolonialist states are predominantly Muslim, they're also too weak to stand up to China. India, on the other hand, will have more people than China in a decade's time and it already has chilly relations with its Socialist neighbor. They even went to war once in which India was defeated in a small border conflict.

China however can draft much more liberally then india can. at least now anyway, may be very different in a decade to be honest.

[Farnan]

I wish that were true. However, Pakistan was an American ally since 1947 yet the US did not act when it came to solving the pressing issue of Kashmir. In fact, in the 1971 Tashkent agreement, Pakistan and India agreed that Kashmir was a bilateral issue and no third party would be included in the settlement of the issue. This was signed after Pakistan had lost a major war against India. So if the US can't mediate any sort of agreement of Kashmir, I can't see how it can help bring about real peace.

However, India was not a US Ally in 1947...

Despite the treaty, the US can call for peace and push for it. Furthermore we can work to bring the leaders together and act to support the peace as necessary. For example if India and Pakistan decide on establishing a DMZ, the US can provide observers to enforce the DMZ. If there is a terrorist attack in India which is blamed on Pakistan, the US can investigate it and show who is to blame. Likewise, if India does bad stuff the US can investigate it.

I think its more likely the US will just have to choose to back one. thats the only strategy that traditionally works and probably the only one that will get you anything in return. Though i suppose becoming a mediator might improve americas image thats A:practically worthless B:Fragile and inconsistent . I guess if you see it as I do India is the obvious choice. Though of course you could also just ignore the entire thing.

Its in the US interest for India and Pakistan to be in peace. It does not matter the details as much as the peace.

Mordred: I agree in welcoming China into the world, I'm just analyzing this event and its relation to posturing. As I said the US and China have good relations right now.

[Exarch]

guess the question needs to be asked:

why are we 'containing china' given how isolationist the chinese have traditionally been?

[Gumpfendorfer]

why are we 'containing china' given how isolationist the chinese have traditionally been?

Because there are a lot of people who look at the world through the concept of "the great boogeyman."

Not to mention a military industrial industry who likes to enlarge itself. Scare tactics work, they always do.

Seeing China as a threat is ridiculous. China is doing everything it can to become part of the world. We should welcome that.

[Exarch]

Because there are a lot of people who look at the world through the concept of "the great boogeyman."

Not to mention a military industrial industry who likes to enlarge itself. Scare tactics work, they always do.

Seeing China as a threat is ridiculous. China is doing everything it can to become part of the world. We should welcome that.

sadly, this thread only proves that even in democratic western countries, our political elites still use the same scare tactics and 'boogeyman' tactics of any militaristic, fascist totalitarian state

[roy34543]

Seeing China as a threat is ridiculous. China is doing everything it can to become part of the world. We should welcome that.

I agree in principle, but i dont think people fear armed conflict as much as they do resource-hogging (as if the entire west hasnt been anything but a resource hog lol)

[roy34543]

sadly, this thread only proves that even in democratic western countries, our political elites still use the same scare tactics and 'boogeyman' tactics of any militaristic, fascist totalitarian state

Its a horrible hole. If you do nothing as a politician, Or god forbid try to make people thing there isnt a horrible negative thing thats about to kill one out there, then you have absoloutly no hope of getting votes because you seem to be "ignoring" the non-existant problem. It seems misery loves company goes for voting too.

Its in the US interest for India and Pakistan to be in peace. It does not matter the details as much as the peace

I guess its selfish, but you could also keep them at war and benefit by backing a side is the gist of what im saying.

[Farnan]

I guess its selfish, but you could also keep them at war and benefit by backing a side is the gist of what im saying.

Not really. The US needs Pakistan to be focused on fighting extremism and as long as its fighting India its not doing that. The US wants India to be a strong ally and fighting Pakistan doesn't help that.

[Exarch]

Not really. The US needs Pakistan to be focused on fighting extremism and as long as its fighting India its not doing that. The US wants India to be a strong ally and fighting Pakistan doesn't help that.

the US can still help india become a strong ally without violating its principles; criticizng iran for its nukes and yet helping improve india;s nuclear arsenal-india is a non signatory of the NPT

[Farnan]

the US can still help india become a strong ally without violating its principles; criticizng iran for its nukes and yet helping improve india;s nuclear arsenal-india is a non signatory of the NPT

Huh?

The US isn't helping India develop its nuclear arsenal...

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Huh?

The US isn't helping India develop its nuclear arsenal...

The US is helping India enhance its civilian nuclear program which is the same thing Iran has been trying to do and the US and the Euro-3 are trying to halt it.

However, India was not a US Ally in 1947...

Despite the treaty, the US can call for peace and push for it. Furthermore we can work to bring the leaders together and act to support the peace as necessary. For example if India and Pakistan decide on establishing a DMZ, the US can provide observers to enforce the DMZ. If there is a terrorist attack in India which is blamed on Pakistan, the US can investigate it and show who is to blame. Likewise, if India does bad stuff the US can investigate it.

In 1997, Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Nawaz Sharif in Lahore and the former refused quite stubbornly to the latter's demands that the US be used as a mediator in Kashmir. Vajpayee cited the 1971 agreement. In fact, Pakistan's request to deploy nuetral UN peacekeepers and inspectors in Kashmir were and still are vehemently rejected by India.

[Exarch]

Huh?

The US isn't helping India develop its nuclear arsenal...

dual use items

btw india is hardly a stable country with reports of terrorist bombs going on every coupla months, and regions and groups wishing to secededfrom it.
and the upsurge in india's population isnt necessarilya good thing considering that so many indians live in poverty and it doesnt have that much space and resources to feed more individuals.

heck, if u go to some parts of india today, u'll still see kids who've had their arms or limbs amputated by their parents to make them better beggars for westerners.

[bigfootedfred]

Huh?

The US isn't helping India develop its nuclear arsenal...

no not at all, not at all...


just giving them lots of equipment, material and stockpiles of required substances they need in order to do so...

hey its not like the US has any idea they might do something bad with it!

It reminds me of the "farming equipment" and "Chemicals" they sold to iraq, which iraq then handily chagned into chemical weapons to use on iran.

but the US didnt know they would do this (despite giving them all the base ingreidents) oh no, how could they have known!