In the United States, policy makers and advocacy groups have lobbied for defense spending cuts. On September 14, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a 5-year plan to reduce military spending by the Department of Defense beginning in 2012, for a total reduction of $100 billon. In June of this year, a commission formed by Rep. Barney Frank published a report on how to reduce military spending by $1 trillion over the next decade. Later in the summer, The Peace Economy Project, an organization that advocates for “reducing military spending in favor of social and infrastructure needs”, sent their staff to the Capital with an appeal to Congress asking that the body reduce military spending in favor of funding our communities. While such reductions have not yet been achieved, contention to increases in U.S. military expenditures continues to grow. As vocal dissent increases, however, a glance at the other side of the globe shows that calls for reducing military spending require an increased level of sophistication in order to avoid unintended conflicts.
According to the Congressional Research Center, arms transfer agreements between the U.S. and developing countries climbed from $12.4 billion in 2007 to $29.6 billion in 2008. Russia ranks second in arms transfers with agreements totaling just $3.3 billion. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is by far the most dominant weapons dealer in the developing world. Arms contracts with developing countries have raised little opposition from members of the U.S. government on either side of the aisle. After helping to secure a $30 billion Boeing defense deal with Saudi Arabia, Republican congressman Todd Akin’s press official told Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the congressman was supportive of the deal, and “you have to look at the overall balance of power in the region.” Boeing expects to generate 25 percent of its revenue from outside the U.S. within 5 years.
Recent Indian military purchases from U.S. defense contractors have enflamed tensions along their Chinese and Pakistani borders. In 2009, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a joint statement with India stating that both sides are committed to “mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of defense.” Although most government officials in the U.S. support arms sales to India, the increased sales, facilitated by the U.S. government and profiting the Boeing Corporation, have compromised strategic American interests in China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Why the recent interest in these arms purchases, though?
India’s Economic and Military Growth
India is a growing economic power, producing a GDP of $3.57 trillion in 2009. While India’s economy is still less than half the size of China’s, India’s growth rate from 2004-2010 has averaged 8.8 percent, reflecting India’s potential to continue growing over the next ten years. With this newfound economic growth, the country is now looking to expand its military capabilities. India’s 2002-2003 military budget was $15 billion; today, its military budget is close to $30 billion.
India’s military spending is modest compared to the U.S. defense budget of $719 billion and China’s of $90-150 billion, but India’s military purchases from the U.S. defense industry over the past two years have been ambitious. From 2002-2009 India ranked second in overall defense trade agreements with the United States, and two large deals have been inked in the past two years. In 2009, India made a deal for eight Boeing P-81 maritime patrol aircraft worth $2.1 billion. In April of this year, the U.S. and India agreed on a sale of 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Aircrafts. This $5.8 billion deal is the largest defense deal with India in U.S. history, but relations have not always been so cozy.
From Condemnation to Cooperation
Prior to 2000, the United States and India’s relationship was mixed with cooperation and condemnation. In December of 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower spoke to the United Nations about a new initiative called Atoms for Peace. The program would give developing countries access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. India was one of the developing countries that the U.S. assisted through the new program. But the relationship between the U.S. and India shifted after India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and test fired its first nuclear weapon in 1974. Since 1974, the U.S. held the position that they would not help India attain nuclear energy if the country was not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and party to all IAEA safeguards.
After September 11, 2001, though, the U.S. and India’s relationship gained strength. India offered the U.S. use of Indian military bases for its counterterrorism operations. In a 2001 meeting between President Bush and India’s Prime Minister Vajpayee, the two agreed to broaden ties in many areas that included “regional security, space and scientific collaboration, civilian nuclear safety, and broadened economic ties.”
July 18, 2005 marked the culmination of the strategic partnership, as the United States and India announced a new “Civil Nuclear Cooperation.” The agreement, according to the U.S. State Department, allows the two countries to create a partnership for nuclear power enrichment. This means that U.S. nuclear companies will now be able to contract with India to create nuclear power equipment and facilities, and the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) will be able to safeguard the process to some extent.
Why Cooperation with India?
There are many theories as to why the U.S. is now cooperating with India after years of condemnation for its nuclear ambitions. First, the cooperation may balance the power of China in Asia. China has the third largest GDP in the world behind the European Union and the United States. Many believe that China will compete with the U.S. as the current lone superpower, creating a bi-polar world similar to the Soviet Union and the U.S. during the Cold War.
Bill Emmott, in his book Rivals: How the Power Struggle between China, India and Japan will Shape our World, writes that the only explanation for India’s exceptional treatment for issues like the U.S. nuclear cooperation can be attributed to the U.S. attempt to balance power. “Where Nixon had used China to balance the Soviet Union, Bush was using India to balance China.”
John Mearsheimer, Political Science professor at the University of Chicago, says that the U.S. is leading the balancing coalition in Asia. India, Japan and Russia are “worried about China’s ascendancy and are looking for ways to contain it.” India has been willing to help the United States in its efforts to balance the power in Asia because India, along with other nations, are fearful of China’s rise and are willing to work with the U.S. to contain China.
In contrast to these views, the popular thesis, Structural Realism After the Cold War, by political theorist Kenneth Waltz, explains that the U.S. is not looking to balance or share power with other countries. With regard to China, he writes, “when Americans speak of preserving the balance of power in East Asia through their military presence, the Chinese understandably take this to mean that they intend to maintain the strategic hegemony they now enjoy in the absence of such balance.” The U.S. continues to enjoy the dominance that it has on the world stage and will work tirelessly to maintain that power.
This article implies that democratic India should be marginalized while two of her primary antagonists, Pakistan & China (both nations that have waged aggressive war on India) pampered at her expense. The logic that this strategy somehow serves American interest anywhere boggles the mind.
Ms Boettcher- what has the United States gained by lavishly arming & financing Pakistan? How many terrorists have come streaming out of that mis-governed despotate? and in your opinion – how many more should we pay for?
This article accuses India of human rights violations – I suppose China, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all paragons of virtue when it comes to this topic and only mean, bad India needs to be called out on this…
Pakistani obsession with India did not begin with the American courtship of India, and it will not end if the Indo-US relationship cools. It is the fetish that keeps the military in power in that unfortunate country – your assessment of US military difficulties in Afghanistan vis a vis the Taliban is also way off the mark – It seems to me that the mistake we have made is in relying on Pakistan to kill its own child.
I would much rather see my tax dollars at work here at home. I am also convinced that India will be a better partner than Pakistan ever was.
I don’t see how the article implies any such thing.
Completely second George’s comment. The article seemed to make some vague sense for the first half, then it goes off on an anti-India tirade like India is the root cause of US foreign policy problems in SE Asia. The writer is either a paid Pakistani lobbyist (they have quite a few in DC) or works at the UN where Pakistan makes a show ever year about the human rights abuses of minorities (read Muslims) in India.
Like George said in his comment, Taliban is Pakistan’s child (US being the mid-wife). It is nonsense to say they cannot ‘defeat’ the Taliban because they have to focus on defending themselves against an aggressive India. They have no intention of defeating the Taliban and never will. Why would they kill their own child that they spent years nurturing. Pakistan’s focus has always been anti-India, even to the point of risking self-destruction.
Despite citing so many references, it looks like Ms.Boettcher really missed her history classes. A simple wikipedia search would give the history of Pakistan as a nation carved out of India 60 yrs ago, on a religious basis (Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan, Bangladesh being the other half, was East-Pakistan originally). To say the dispute between the two countries is ‘territorial’ demonstrates her gross ignorance or that region’s history. Pakistan of today is a de-facto military ruled, radical Islamic state and #1 terrorism exporter. India is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic democracy (although chaotic but still working) with more Muslims than the entire population of Pakistan. On the other hand all ethnic minorities in Pakistan have been systematically wiped out. Even other sects of Islam like sufi, Ahmadi have been eliminated by the Saudi fueled Wahabi (Sunni) Islam, the same brand espoused by their beloved Taliban and Al Qaeda. The problem is radical Islam vs moderate and multi-cultural India.
The premise of the article is: aiding India – bad, mollycoddling Pakistan and China – good. Just beware who you are aiding, it may come and blow up in your face. Oh.. that’s right.. it already did in Sep, 2001. 9/11 was hatched in Pakistan (majority of hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, zero Iraqis BTW). It’s also interesting that the timeline coincides with the author’s own of warm up in US-India relations – 2002 onwards – after decades of backing Pakistan over India. Guess what led to the change of heart. (No points for guessing though).
Although US-India relations have warmed up, Pakistan still fits in US strategic goals, mainly because of their location. But to think that somehow they will serve up the Taliban if only they are allowed to, is not just naive, but very dangerous thinking. Pakistan plays a expert double game, both as a terrorism fighter on the outside and a dangerous terrorist sponsor on the inside. Iraq was a dead horse even before invasion, North Korea is just a strategic pawn used by China to corner Japan and South Korea. Iran is a regional threat (read Israel) not a serious global threat atleast to the US. Pakistan has transformed itself since the Russian retreat from Afghanistan to be the #1 global terrorism exporter in manpower and expertise. First on a regional level to India (Kashmir in the 90s) to globalizing it in the 00’s.
I didn’t mean it to be a lengthy post, but the premise of the article seemed so off-base that some facts had to set straight, hoping the author would see some light and not bring disrepute to the illustrious foreign policy journal.
“It is nonsense to say they cannot ‘defeat’ the Taliban because they have to focus on defending themselves against an aggressive India.”
The author didn’t say that. She merely observed the fact that arming both Pakistan and India fuels the fire between the two countries, and is thus a shortsighted policy. A fairly elementary observation, actually, which should hardly be controversial.
What an senseless article! I am not sure how much India is interested in buying US arms but India definitely concerned about US arming of Pakistan and arm buildup of china, countries who attacked India several times.
You didn’t say what you think is “senseless” about it, and then repeated observations the author made therein. Maybe you should actually read the article.
already got whole lot of explanations from other readers. one thing i am sure that writer has no idea of Indian culture and its complex history and society. she has criticized the defense expenditure of India based on human rights and other national needs. India is complex society and i am sure no gov Alon can bring the change in society on humans rights just like that and there are improvement in terms of humans rights and other fronts in India in past 10-20 years as a result of democracy and awareness among the people of their basic rights. I believe its much much better than countries like china and pakistan where people even don’t have freedom to speak openly.Even poorest people has right to defend themselves…India defense expenditure is much less in terms of GDP as compared to china and Pakistan and its because India is fully aware of other national needs. The main problem in India is not defense expenses but corruption. India can save 100$ billions dollars if India can try to control corruption and writer has no where mention that while mentioning the humans rights violations and other national needs. Here both are related, we just cant have separate thread or article for corruption . How long India will tolerate Mumbai like terror attack, previous attacks from various countries and terrorist organizations.
I totally support George’s comment. By reading this article makes me wonder if Ms. Boettcher is even qualified to write an article about Inida. Does she ever been to India? Does she know the India’s history? Does she know India is a biggest democracy in the world? Does she know both China and Pakistan are authoratorian governments and people absolutely have no freedom? How can she compare India with China and Pakistan on the human rights? This article is completely ridiculous and an worth being published in a reputed websote like this. The author needs to first read India’s history and find out how it conduct its business in a democratic way prior to writing an article like this.
This bogus half truth article should deserve no respect. Absolutely ridiculous.
Total nonsense article. The author’s analysis is not correct. Turth is not told.
What is nonsensical about it? What is incorrect? What untruth was told, or what truth was not told?
I would rather support India than China or Pakistan. I don’t want my tax dollars pumped into Pakistan for working against our own interests. What did US gain for all the billions of dollars aid poured into Pakistan? The Pakistanis are using the US fund to arm Talibs and terrorists to fight US and Nato forces. And arming thier military against India. Chinese are supporting these acts indirectly. Both Pakistan and China are working against US and India. The US should forge a strong alliance with India and bring Indian troops to Afghanistan if she ever wants to win the war in Afghanistan. Supporting Pakistan will only prolong the war. Perhaps the war should be condcted within Pakistan because that is where worlds terror machines are being built and distributed every where.
Why should we view it through a lens of a choice between either supporting India or supporting China and Pakistan? I reject that false dichotomy.
I strongly supports George’s comment. I think Ms. Boettcher is either not aware or the history of India and the essence of democracy or a paid Pakistan/China lobbyist. Any common man can understand who is the exporter of terrorism. What US gaining from arming and pouring billion of dollers in Pakistan – only one thing, US have a supply route in Pakistan. I think US is pleasing Pakistan for the security of US otherwise they will blow up everything. I am more worried about one thing, within a short while of time, Pakistan will use terrorist (actually their child) to attach US and its allies with nuclear weapons. Then they will say that these are non-state actors and they have no control in them. For the security of US and its allies, they should take away all nuclear weapons from Pakistan – otherwise – wait and see. I strongly recommend foreignpolicyjournal official’s to evaluate all articles before publish it because we expect genuine information from a reputed journal like this. Ms. Boettcher, please have some information about Pakistan, China and India before writing this kind of article.
You didn’t say what you think is wrong with the article, other than strangely denying that it contains any information about Pakistan, China, and India.
@Jeremy R. Hammond
October 17, 2010 – 1:55 am
What is nonsensical about it? What is incorrect? What untruth was told, or what truth was not told?
—————
Fair enough. The answers to these questions should be fairly obvious to anyone with some knowledge about that region. However let me try.
The article does make some sense until about midway when it gets into “Regional Consequence of India Defense Ties” and it starts displaying complete ignorance about the region. It singles out US – India defense ties as the main cause of intensifying “conflicts” in the region, ignoring all other destabilizing forces, central to that being Pakistan’s covert support and export of terror.
#1 “The growth of India’s military is intensifying regional conflicts with its historic rival, Pakistan.”
There has been no active conflict between India / Pakistan or between India or any of its other neighbors during this period of warm up in US – India ties and has actually been a stabilizing influence. The last active Indo-Pak conflict was the Kargil war between May and July 1999 (yes, more than a decade ago and 2 yrs before 9/11). There was no major US-India military ties back then and Pakistan was the aggressor. It was started by Pak soldiers and terrorists infiltrating into Kashmir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
So what exactly is being intensified? Assuming by conflict she refers to the proxy war Pakistan has been waging on India since 1990’s, yes it has intensified, but by who? Pakistan, lacking conventional military parity with India, has been trying to bleed India (death by thousand cuts) by infiltrating terrorists across the border, first leading to frequent bombings in Kashmir in 90’s, now in the form terrorist attacks across India (Mumbai recently). Now please read the line again and tell me how it makes sense, especially when the aggressor happens to be Pakistan? What is true is the converse, military support to PAKISTAN is intensifying TERRORISM in India.
#2 “For India and Pakistan’s relationship, additional weaponization appears to have had an adverse effect in their relationship”
If we’re referring to Pakistan’s weaponization, yes, arming a rogue state is just insane and is destabilizing not just the neighborhood but as we discovered now, the whole word. If we’re referring to US – India military relations since she’s cast that the central issue, the stated period 2002 – 2009 has been the MOST stable going back several decades. No major cross border incidents occurred during the period and India – Pakistan have held several ‘talks’. By contrast 1990’s was the bloodiest when there was NO US – India military coooperation either in arms or intelligence. Terrorism flared up in Kashmir with Pakistan’s backing (funneling US military aid) culminating in Kargil war in 1999. 00’s have been the most peaceful in recent history in that region. Again the author suggests that US aid to Indian military has worsened Indo-Pak relationship when in fact it has stabilized the region considerably.
#3 “The U.S. gave Pakistan about $11 billon in military aid between 2002 and 2009. Pakistan recently received a U.S. shipment of new F-16 fighter jets and had previously purchased F-15 jets. The country has been given this military assistance to fight extremism on the Afghan/Pakistan border region but has been accused of using these funds to bolster defenses against India instead.”
#4 “Zia Mian, a physicist at Princeton and columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus says that the arming of Pakistan has hurt the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Pakistani generals are more concerned with the U.S.-India strategic relationship and its border with India than with the Taliban.”
Absolutely right on both counts. Pakistan’s concern has always been getting even with India militarily. Any US – India military cozy up is bound to give them nightmares. So what happens when US weaponizes Pakistan: They simply transfer resources provided for its fight against terror to build itself up against India, EXACTLY. The author just said it above.. But doesn’t that go against her premise that the growing US – India military relationship is the main culprit. She just identified, although by accident, the real problem. Pakistan moving resources meant to fight America’s war on terror to bolster itself against India, undermining both the war on terror, failing US in its Afghan war and destabilizing the region. The author just argued against herself.
Consider the following lines from the article that appear within a few paragraphs.
#5 “Beijing is concerned with “the strategic ramifications of India’s rising power”. As a response to this ascension, China is moving CCS-5 nuclear capable ballistic missiles closer to the Indian border.”
What does Ms.Boettcher’s say next?
#6 “India’s growing defense budget has also come at the expense of other national needs…. That $30 billion a year spent on its military could greatly help the plight of the poor.”
So that’s her prescription for India? According to her own statistics $30B is the entire Indian defense spending, compared to $90-150 for China. China has nukes pointed at you, and you’re supposed to WIPE OUT your defense spending?!! What world is she from? Or is she really a middle school girl writing an essay about world peace. It’s like saying US should rather spend the $700 B defense expense on healthcare for its citizens. Ab-so-lute-Non-sense. It makes you question the real intent of the author, seems more of a hack job paid for Pakistani / Chinese PR.
#7 “Cozy Indo-US relations have also hurt American military operations in Afghanistan, forcing Pakistan to focus too much attention on India and not on reducing the risk of violent extremism”
This has been Pakistan’s excuse for its unwillingness to hand over Bin Laden. The fact it it is just a convenient cover to fool unquestioning western journalists like Ms.Boettcher, and keep operating its real export industry: terrorism. They have no intention of shutting down their core competence industry, when it works great in keeping India bleeding and in extracting billions from US by outright blackmail: give us $$$ and XYZ weapons or else nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists.
———————–
@Jeremy R. Hammond
October 17, 2010 – 1:32 am
“It is nonsense to say they cannot ‘defeat’ the Taliban because they have to focus on defending themselves against an aggressive India.”
The author didn’t say that. She merely observed the fact that arming both Pakistan and India fuels the fire between the two countries, and is thus a shortsighted policy. A fairly elementary observation, actually, which should hardly be controversial.
—————————
Not exactly Mr.Hammond. Mr.Boettcher does single out US-India military tie up as the problem and even goes on to suggest that India wipe out its own defense spending. For what? Saving Pakistan from its self-induced anti-India obsession and HOPEFULLY get it to focus on the war on terror? Sadly the US is stuck with no good choices. It needs Pakistan to help with Afghan war and continues to feed its double game.
As Candidate Obama once rightly observed, the US funds both sides of the war on terror. To quote Stringer Bell, “It’s all part of the game”. Sad but true.
First of all, India is not dependent on US arms. India has Russia, France, UK to sell world class weapons. India is buying the US arms to have a good relationship with USA not because US arms will make India more secure.
Second, USA should worry building relationship with Democracies like India rather than worry about China, Communist country and Pakistan, Epicente of Terrorism. USA should strengthen Democracy in Asia, India can work with USA to work with other South Asian Democracies.
Third, USA is not able to see the fact that Pakistan was never a sincere ally. Pakistanis even today are sheltering the very same terrorists who kill US and ISAF troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan is nice to USA just for the sake of Financial and Military Aid which it gets from USA. Pakistanis love Chinese and given a chance will serve against USA in the South and Central Asia.
Fourth, USA should stop equating India and Pakistan. India is the worlds largest Democracy. Pakistan is the Epicenter of the Terrorism.
Fifth, India does not have any human rights violation issues as the writer has glorified or magnified, if it was so, why would whole world be silent about it.
Sixth, India is bound to be a very powerful country in Asia but never had nurtured the Idea of challenging any country with its military might. India in future will never challenge US but China and its loyal ally Pakistani will readily gang up against US.
Writer is clearly anti-India, pro-Pakistan and does not want any kind of positive relationship between India and USA.
I want to tell writer that India is not desperate or will be for US arms. India has Russia to supply Weapons with full Transfer of Technology. India can deal with China on its own. India can keep Pakistani Terrorism under check without USA.
India does not want itself to be seen as Ally to USA. Indians want USA to consider it as a Partner rather than an Ally.
Today Indians are not worried what USA will give to India, but Indians are worried what India can give to the world. India will work for the strengthening the Asian democracies, India will fight Terrorism, India will deal Chinese menace without USA. Mind it!!!!!
South Indian, why don’t you worry about feeding 500 millions hungry Indian who go without a hot meal, 200 millions children who still work and do not go to school, 100,000 farmers who kill themselve due to damage crop, 20,000 victims of honor killing, and more….. Indian should stopy worrying about Pakistan, China and whoesle and put their own house in order. India is about to see a revolution caused by wife gulf between rich and poor.
Amanda,
I am sorry, your article has been attacked by “Indians for hire”. These are the same dogs who are paid by Zionist master to keep eye on every website that comes across anti-Zionist. Posting comments for India is bonus. I know dozens of these guys who are paid between $150 – $500 a month by some unknown employers from US and Israel. These guys do not do anything but post messages and comments. Each of them have over 100 emails and various ids and they are very intmidating dogs. Once you knwo who they are you can cut their tail off. Every day thousands of Indians die because of hunger and there are few who want to spend 30 billions on useless weapon. Indian can not win a war wtih China, India has wasted over 20 billions in Kashmir but could not pacify a sizzling breakaway population. Pakistan has a nuke and would not be bothered by useless aircrarts or with Isareli made guns.
@north indian
I am sure if your IP address is followed it will lead back to pakistan or would be leading towards any India hater. What you want is actually what whole pakistan wants. so please make other comment and stop doing bad mouthing.
well,my impartial aspect is that
Pakistan which never experienced a suicide bomb before us led invasion to afganistan and post 9/11.is such a all time tested partner os USA.which usa cant find in its all history.
and about india which always shows eyes and fingures towards usa.
the beautiful pakistan is facing a 9/11 on daily routines.and i cant imagine from those guys for their anti pakistan behaviour
pakistan army has more than any army sacrifice in the whole soo called WAR ON TERROR
india is just a FAKE ally of usa…which have a history of unconditional support of former soviet union and when its fulfills it means then turns to WEST