Skip to main content

Why lecturing the rest of the world does not work: India and Iran

A multi-polar world is re-emerging in the aftermath of the Cold War, and that foreign policy reality is far more significant than the war on terror.

India, as has been noted here on several occasions, is not only poised to become a major world player in automobile manufacture, but is also pursuing military and nuclear links with Sarkozy's France.

The Bush administration response: lecture India on how to deal with Iran.

Here's the story from The Australian News (h/t to Sukrit Sabhlok at Thoughts on Freedom)

USING uncharacteristically strong language, India last night told the US to butt out and mind its own business after Washington attempted to tell the country how to deal with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he visits New Delhi next week.

Ahead of the visit, the first to India by the Iranian leader, a State Department official offered gratuitous advice to India on how to handle him, suggesting that it should take a tough line in pressuring Tehran on the nuclear issue to "become a more responsible actor on the world stage".

"We'd also encourage them (Indian diplomats) to ask Iran to end its rather unhelpful activities with respect to Iraq, with respect to support for terrorism," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

New Delhi officials made their displeasure clear in a statement issued last night.

"India and Iran are ancient civilisations whose relations span centuries," it said.

"Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention.

"Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations."

The timing of Washington's "advice" could not be worse, in the view of most commentators in New Delhi yesterday.

The Indian Government is having delicate negotiations with its leftist and communist critics over its nuclear deal with the US. These critics are sensitive to anything that signals a willingness to bow to the US.

Meanwhile, India's Oil Minister, Murli Deora, is in Islamabad to finalise a deal - despite Washington's strenuous objections - for a proposed $7billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that is vital for India's future.

New Delhi has, in the past, been critical of Iran's nuclear ambitions, though it supports the country's right to nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

Mr Ahmadinejad is due to spend only a day in New Delhi on his way back home from a trip to Sri Lanka where Iran is involved in big development projects.

But the New Delhi stopover is important given it is the Iranian leader's first visit.

It is also important for the protracted negotiations over the 2600km IPI pipeline that has been on the drawing board since 1994, but which now seems poised to go ahead.


Here's the new reality that neither Dubya, nor McCain, nor even the DemTwins seem to get: We are living in a world that is soon to become more and more dominated by regional mega-powers than a global superpower. In East Asia: China. In Southwest Asia and the Fertile Crescent region: India. In South America: Brazil. Russia. The European Union. The United States.

Each of those regions is going to have a supporting cast of characters--nations determined to make a place for themselves as aggressive, even militaristic regimes: Iran, Venezuela, North Korea. The age of the global superpower is waning, and as it does, India will increasingly go its own way in dealing with Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, or other, smaller countries.

This is not a bad development for us, or for our children, as long as the next administration in Washington DC comes to the realization that a different world calls for a different foreign policy and military structure.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...