Blogs and Stories
Obama's Forgotten Friends
Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo
With India disappointed with Obama, the president has vowed to "work even closer" with its prime minister. Tunku Varadarajan on the cost of ignoring our allies.
On Tuesday evening, the world’s most consequential turbaned man, Manmohan Singh, will glide through White House security and take his place at a dinner table beside Barack and Michelle Obama. He is the prime minister of India, a country that could, if Mr. Obama shoots his diplomatic hoops right, come to be a preeminent American ally in the 21st century, taking its place alongside Britain, Israel, and, assuming the bolshie Yukio Hatoyama doesn’t live forever, Japan.
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize the political, strategic, and moral worth to America, the world’s most powerful democracy, of a strong alliance with India, the world’s largest. Mr. Obama, by no stretch a man of tepid intelligence, has calibrated things artfully: Not only is Mr. Singh the first state visitor to Washington since the president took office in January, his trip is the first time that India has headed an American president’s list for a state visit—ever. (Richard Nixon must be turning in his grave.)
For all his emphasis on diplomacy in dealing with hostile states, Mr. Obama has failed to grasp the diplomatic importance of tending to alliances.
And yet, until this moment, Mr. Obama has been indifferent to India. No doubt his mind has been focused on other matters: the American economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian and North Korean nuclear shenanigans—not to mention health-care reform (although one must ask what prompted him to add that burden to an already heaving haversack of misfortune). What has been left of Mr. Obama’s attention has been consumed by China, itself inseparable in so many ways from any resolution of America’s economic crisis. (Treasury Secretary Geithner has done more hard yards on China than Secretary of State Clinton.)
Given all this swirl, Mr. Obama has had scant inclination to pay much attention to, let alone court, Delhi. This has not gone down well in India, a country surrounded by a wall of thin skin. India had grown used, under Mr. Obama’s predecessor, to alpha-dog treatment. George W. Bush was the best American president India ever had, and Mr. Obama’s ability to take India for granted is, in some measure, a tribute to the extent to which Mr. Bush locked the two countries into a presumptively inseparable alliance. But for all his emphasis on diplomacy in dealing with hostile states, like Iran, or inveterate competitor-states, like China, Mr. Obama has failed to grasp the diplomatic importance of tending to alliances, whether they be old and true ones, such as the one with Israel, or young and sensitive ones, such as the one with India.
India is not the India of Eisenhower’s time, or Nixon’s, or Carter’s, or Reagan’s. Sometime in the early 1990s, India finally acquired a “foreign policy” to replace the vexatious, preachy “postcolonial policy” that had previously guided its international relations. Equally, the United States, under Bush, finally acquired an “India policy,” as opposed to a “Pakistan policy” of which India was a mere byproduct. In fact, under Mr. Bush, improved relations between the two democracies came to acquire an almost moral imperative, one than can—and must—survive the short-term reliance on Pakistan in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
In any case, this is a war in which the U.S. has not, so far, been able to count on worthwhile Pakistani support. True, that country has taken pains to maintain the appearance of an ally; but every passing day brings new strains, and new cynicism. Pakistan is “in” so that it can use the war to its advantage in its messianic conflict with India. Besides, its overriding aim is to re-establish a Taliban regime in Kabul: How much plainer does its dissonance with American aims in Afghanistan have to be before Mr. Obama works out that his country’s long-term interests in the region lie with New Delhi, not Islamabad?
Finally, a broader word about India and its relationship with America: Unlike China, which is inherently competitive for global leadership—and which will never accept American leadership or direction—India is a country that would, like Britain or Japan or Germany, settle for a partnership with the United States that guaranteed mutual benefit and respect. India’s natural state, if nations can be said to have such a thing, is neither triumphalist nor antagonist; it is cooperative and redemptive, much as America’s tends to be. One trusts that Mr. Obama will come to see these qualities as clearly as his predecessor did. If not, this could be one area in which history will judge Mr. Obama to have been “dumb,” and Mr. Bush to have been the “smart” one.
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Tibet's Star Activist Warns Obama
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
Wole Soyinka's British Problem
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
A Post-Rhetorical Obama
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
fenngibbon
After all the work the Bush administration put into cultivating a relationship with India, it's a damn shame that the Chucklehead-in-Chief is allowing it to wither from neglect.
Such neglect, combined with his calculated betrayal of allies such as Poland and the Czech Republic leads me to contest the characterization of Mr. Obama as being "by no stretch a man of tepid intelligence." In terms of his foreign policy, he has been intensely stupid.
bigvic
fenngibbon, the czechs and the polish people never wanted the shield in the first place and only a fool will believe that the russians actually pose a threat to either the poles or the czech but if you believe that the russians are a threat to the poles then you most believe that the germans are a threat to western europe.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--nevermindfenngibbon
Why were there Czechs and Poles who weren't enthusiastic about the shield? Because they were afraid of the Russian response.
I suppose the Russians don't pose a threat to the Georgians or Ukranians, either?
I really can't believe that there's anyone so utterly clueless as to put their trust in Russia when it comes to its intentions to its neighbors.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--nevermindImNoPUNK
Hey bigvic...
I disagree with your comment on the eastern european missile defense shield, and I have plenty of facts to back up my opposition to your remark.
Firstly...Some 71 percent of Europeans favor the deployment of a NATO missile defense capability able to protect the continent from attack by missiles bearing weapons of mass destruction, according to a poll that was jointly sponsored by the George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies and Missile Defense Advocacy. On the flip side, only 16 percent think that NATO should not have this capability.
The poll was conducted by the polling firm of Novatris/Harris with a margin error rate of /- 2.9 percent in France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic,the Netherlands and Denmark. According to the poll, 56 percent of Europeans would support a deployment of BMD systems in their own countries. Further, 73 percent said it was a good idea for NATO to deploy BMD systems to protect troops in the field as well as citizens at home....... ( oops, forgive me, BMD = Ballistic Missile Defense)
Europeans were however, laid-back about potential ballistic missile threats from the two remaining nations in President Bush's "Axis of Evil" - Iran and North Korea. Only 5 percent said they were concerned with Iran's nuclear ascendancy and even fewer, 3 percent said they were concerned about North Korea.
There were clear majorities in favor of deploying missile defense systems in France 69%, Germany 68%, Britain 72%, Spain 54%, Italy 60%, Poland 84%, the Czech Republic 62%, the Netherlands 63 %. Denmark polled the lowest with only 44% supporting the idea, but ya gotta remember getting the Danes to vote in favor of just about anything is usually next to impossible.
Given these statistics, its clear your assessment of the western european sentiment was foolish. I will suggest a misrepresentation of the facts by the Obama administration is more than evident in your comment...and quite possibly is the reason for your ignorance of the true facts. After reading the information I've proffered here, one can only consider suspect the scrapping of the missile shield plans, and look upon the administration's action as a gesture of appeasement directed Moscow's way... I would also point out how Obama added insult to injury by his inability to garner any thing of substance in return from the Kremlin.
Jchic00
Bigvic,
Let me tell you as some one from Poland that you're a fool.
Of course Poles and Cechs wanted the shield. Unlike you, they understand hundreds of years of Russia's expansionist history. Wanting shield and negotiating for it are two separate things.
btw, did you know in September, Russia held war games where the practiced invading and nuking Poland? You probably didn't, cause if you did, you wouldn't make such moronic statements.
crypto
Where in the world do you get your information. The shield was never to protect anyone from Russia. I don't see how some of you can change around and screw up informative news this way.
mirzausman
In the historical context of US-Pakistan relations, it is obvious that the mutual relations between the two countries are based on convergence of common interests from time to time. Pakistan brought about President Richard M Nixon's visit to China in Feb 1972. Nixon's visit to China helped USA contain USSR in the cold war era and also effectively neutralised the then growing Chinese nuclear threat. Had the USA-China breakthrough not happened when it did and, instead, had USSR and China become allies in the seventies most of the world today would have been socialist and USA would not have been the sole super power of the world.
When the soviets invaded Afghanistan, The ISI played the lead role while the CIA provided backup support in terms of funds and weapons. The Soviets began to realise that they were fighting a losing battle. Had Pakistan not engaged the Soviet forces within Afghanistan they would have consolidated the Afghan occupation in a few weeks and have certainly made a dash to the Arabian Sea. Persian Gulf waters today would have been home to the Soviet Navy. Above all, the Soviet Union would have still been there, thriving and vibrant with total control of the world's largest reserves of oil in the Middle East.
Pakistan has helped the US capture several hundred operatives of the Al-Qiada organization and has allowed the US to execute military operations from its land, air and sea bases
When the US required U2 surveillance flight facilities and an intelligence base against the Soviets (1959-1968), backdoor diplomacy with the Chinese (1970-72), covert operations against the Red Army in Afghanistan (1980-88) and recently the war against terrorism (2001 - ??). For this America has extended its best hand forward in terms of military and economic aid to Pakistan.
twfelt
Whether in business or politics, a new leader should always first reaffirm and communicate with his supporting or allied companies/ suppliers/ customers or countries that we have prior alliances with to reaffirm them and assure them during a change of leadership. You don't first go to your competitors and those that would publicly be no-win situations, to give them your support and walk away empty handed while you ignore those who are and have been major contributors to what has been steadily contributing to successful support of a company or nation's growth, whether it be internal or external stabilility of the Organization/ Country's position, influence, finances or standing amongst it's peers. Clearly President Obama has no real experience in dealing with this issue and is trying to play Messiah to the world at the expense of the People of the United States. Notably his Nobel Peace Prize gives and means nothing to and for the everyday man in the street for the Nation of which he is the Chief Executive.
Johnnorth
The left will never ever give George Bush credit for anything and on this he did great work. Why,I wonder, is the left so blind to the world? Recently it started turning against the other strategic pillar of the Bush administration, Israel, for the sake of some politically correct b.s.
crypto
Remember who you're dealing with. Keeping the Republican leaders off the guest list says it all. It is my opinion that this guy is showing his true colors to the democratic bone. But pay back is hell sometimes and elections are acoming.
bigvic
sorry but i have to break this to you, the republicans can't use fork and knife.
ManchaTheo
I'm assuming that by "politically correct b.s." you are referring to respecting and upholding international law and treaties...?
Caspar
Bring it on, Tunku! Clear-headed, no-nonsense analysis. Nicely written too.
Georealist
What a surprise! He's spent great amounts of energy cow towing to Muslims in Cairo...Trying to sell the Olympics on Chicago....Shoving a health reform change down the throats of a nation that can't afford and doesn't need it....and..best of all..Travelling to Japan to bow like he's representing some third rate dust bin like Mexico and THEN..icing on the cake...lectures China on rights only to get taken to the woodshed for debasing his own currency! Terrific..and during ALL this self pumping exhibitionism he ignores India..a country that actually produces things and doesn't hate us..AND can't meet with Gen. McChrystal to set a plan in motion for Afghanistan! All the while..la de da...American soldiers die.
I stand by my call 6 months ago..BY THE TIME THIS LGHTWEIGHT IS FINISHED HE'LL MAKE THE INEPT GEO. BUSH LOOK BRILLIANT. Obama will also..and I once thought this impossible...make Jimmy Carter look decisive.
bigvic
At least we agree on one thing george bush was inept but i will go one step further he is an idiot.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--nevermindfenngibbon
Bush is an idiot? Obama ain't exactly dazzling anyone with his acumen, bigvic.
crypto
Yeah bigvic, coming from you that really bears conviction. I hope he doesn't hear of how you feel about him. He probably wouldn't sleep a wink There's a word for your type, which I won't print but the meaning is someting of irregular or inferior origin
JackDavis1
"Friendship" with Obama virtually guarantees the "friend" a trip under the bus.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--nevermindThis user is no longer registered.
n--Y--nevermindtomfarr
Gala in this case means a serving of dhal and some eggplant vindaloo, washed down with tea.
crypto
Let somebody else call him president. He accidently came upon the greatest opportunity the African American people have ever had. And he's blowing it all the way. Blood is thicker than water. But I wouldn't count on everybody jumping on his junk wagon next time around. he has proven already that his blood is too thin.
ndspinelli
I would like to provide a brief respite from the vitriol of both sides. Thank you, Mr. Varadarajan, for an informative piece. I can smell spin across a cow pasture..this is a straight piece of journalism. Thank you Daily Beast for providing a forum for intelligent authors. Finally, I'm not being Eddie Haskel...I mean what I just said.
flyoverland
He will probably announce he is outsourcing Biden's job to India.
guyfromla
Let's not be too giddy about the whole 'relationship' thing. India, not too long ago, was ruled by a religious fanatic party called "Bharatiya Janata Party" (BJP). To correlate, if Pat Robertson became the President, what would happen to democracy in the good old USA? That exactly what happened and BJP ruled India for almost a decade before secular factions took back the power. But thanks to Hindutva, they can always return to power. During BJPs rule, a riot in Gujarat cost 2000 muslim lives. But again if we don't consider muslims as human beings, that is different thing.
tomfarr
I have no doubt Pat Robertson would uphold the Constitution. I would be truly worried about my freedoms if the far left wing of the Democratic Party had unbridled power; they are notoriously vengeful and intolerant.
guyfromla
Just like now when they are 'shredding' the constitution by trying to stop eavesdropping on people's conversations, by giving a due process to anyone (which includes terrorists), by making our ports and points-of-entry safe by installing nuclear materials detectors, and by allowing 'birthers' uphold their 1st amendment right of voicing their opposition, carrying anti-semitic signs etc. If it were Bush, we would get arrested even if you were wearing an anti-Bush T-Shirt!!! So to hell with Democrats and lets welcome Pat Roberstson!!!!!
tomfarr
Nixon was correct in supporting Pakistan against India, in that
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend". India for most of the Cold War was a staunch ideological ally of the Evil Empire. The obnoxious Krishna Menon specialized in anti-US tirades.
The habitually socialist Indians finally figured out for themselves that they were in the losing camp, and Bush adroitly took advantage of this to improve relations with them.
Surprising though to see this acknowledged in the Daily Beast, the online equivalent of MSNBC.
sameres77
Did anyone read this insightful article? Almost 30 comments and must are the typical right v left vitriol. Grow up, people.
lachica6
Lets fix this relationship now all the bartender in chief has to do is bow then roll over. See everythings all better.
isanti
typical of O to forget who our friends are. his policies are going to ruin this country. lets keep bowing to china and see if they would like to help in afghanistan. now the brits are p.o. because O is taking his time in committing more troops. i hate to see more troops sent but its time to end this war. put the boots to them and get out! in the mean time O needs to realize that we can't keep disrespecting our allies. granted bush tarnished our image to the world but at least he had the guts to say get on board or get out of the way. i can respect that but what i can't respect is a man who is so afraid to commit. take a stand and stop making this country look so weak! maybe it to late maybe we should all learn to bow to china because they are the only one that matter!
EdNiece
Considering we have outstanding debt issues with India of nearly a $ trillion dollars borrowed from them, maybe India as China has is waking up to the fact of the Spender in the 'bleak house'. How many American dressmakers would have made M. Obama's dress in the Carolinas in any of several clothing factories that have been shut down for 10 years? And for a lot less too!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.