-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Dan Runde
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 10:05 AM
Share
I just returned from my third trip to India in four years. Every time I am struck by its confidence facing an ever more integrated world. Retaining relatively high growth rates, India has been relatively unscathed by the financial crisis. India's confidence about its future comes from a number of factors, including the success of the India diaspora across the globe and its definitive break with failed Indian- style socialism in the early 1990s. They have signed on to a model of development that requires increasing openness and they see the U.S.as a key partner.
The United States and India have many shared interests and much of the credit goes to former President Bush for successfully "resetting" the India relationship. After visiting Brazil and Russia in the last three months for a project at my day job, I conclude that a new President will have a most willing partner in India and a most able partner in Russia.
I met with senior officials of the U.S. and Indian governments, leaders in the NGO sector, and think tank scholars who were all very openly pro US. It was refreshing after meeting with Brazilians and Russians with a laundry list of "issues" about the U.S. relationship. The U.S.-India relationship benefits from the best "atmospherics" of the three. One senior Indian official described the United States as the "greatest country in the world" without hyperbole or sarcasm. These are people with whom we can do A LOT of business.
Some facts to think about as we look to the 2012 election:
- India has consistently provided a top number of troops to the U.N. Peacekeeping Mission and continues to do so -- hundreds ahead of other donor countries.
- The number quoted to me is 3 million "overseas Indians" in the U.S. The most prominent Indian American politicians are Republican -- Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley.
- India is slated to become the 3rd largest economy in the world within the next few years.
- With 1.1 billion people, it has something like 400 million very poor people. India has more poor people than all of sub-Saharan Africa.
- At the same time, India has sought to increase its foreign aid to other countries and has a joint space exploration program with Russia and is a member of the G-20. About eight years ago, India kicked many smaller European donor countries out of the country because the transaction costs were too high in exchange for the money they were getting.
- This past year, our trade with India hit nearly $50 billion, up from only $5 billion in 1990 -- a relatively small number compared to other U.S. trading partners. For example, U.S. trade with Canada totaled nearly $495 billion in 2009 while trade with China totaled $390 billion.
- Indian officials see the world much like those in the United States with similar interests and concerns. The concerns about terrorism were ever present in my visit -- constant metal detector stops at hotels, metro stations, airports and government ministries -- a far cry from Brazil's splendid isolation and sense of safety.
The opportunities with India are immense and our assistance and other cooperation programs need to radically reposition our relatively small amounts of foreign aid away from social service delivery to a number of smaller catalytic activities that leverage Indian expertise, deepen the institutional relationships between the two countries, and export India expertise and innovation to third countries in line with Indian aspirations as a global player. USAID and the State Department have started to make some steps, but need to take much more aggressive steps over the next several years. It will be hard to justify an annual foreign aid program in India as it becomes wealthier, but there are a large number of opportunities to work together with India requiring small and shrinking amounts of foreign assistance over time.
A new Republican administration would do well to heed the following:
- Science and technology. Much has been written about the Indian Institutes of Technology, one of which was funded and set up by the United States in the 1960s through USAID funding. There is a strong desire to link scientists and leverage India's lead in what is called "frugal innovation" (which means solving problems in poverty-based contexts, such as selling consumer goods in smaller/cheaper ways than traditionally imagined). The Obama administration, to its credit, is working this area with enthusiasm (I note as a good start the new innovation fund set up in December through USAID).
- Agriculture. Norman Borlaug, one of America's least famous (in the U.S.) Nobel Peace Prize winners, is a revered figure in India because of the USAID-supported Green Revolution of the 1960s that dramatically increased agricultural productivity in South Asia and helped feed hundreds of millions of people. India still has agricultural challenges, but is ready and willing to engage with the U.S. in third countries on agriculture. We should take them up on this.
- Democracy Promotion. India is the largest democracy. It is often described as having "too much democracy." At the same time, India is an ideal partner for any number of democracy promotion projects in third countries. We are only just beginning to identify opportunities here. In a future administration with a more outspoken Freedom Agenda, we should be looking to bring India and others in on a more strategic basis.
- Economic Integration. India has massive energy and raw material consumption needs. India's needs are a part of the bigger South Asia equation including China, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere. Engaging India in the greater South Asia challenges is a U.S. priority, but continues to be stymied by the Indo-Pak dysfunctional relationship.
- Free Trade. Taking the long view -- the United States is a long way away from a free trade agreement with India partially because of the closed nature of the economy. However, technical discussions have begun between the U.S. and India on a "Bilateral Investment Treaty," which is sort of a starter free trade agreement. The U.S. should watch if the British are able to establish a "free trade agreement on services" because the UK is the largest foreign player in services. If that takes hold, the U.S. could follow if we made it a focus over two presidential terms.
- Overseas Indian Community. "OICs" are going to be the new Irish or Italians in U.S. domestic politics -- loved by all and very invested in their home country. The Obama administration has invested a lot in what they can offer in terms of expertise and appetite for investment and engagement, but much more could be done to help provide brokering, convening, training and seed capital. Small amounts of money will go a long way in India and will be recognized at home.
I think the writer may have missed the numerous moments when India was at odds with the U.S about U.N resolutions, how to deal with Iran, the North African/Middle Eastern revolutions etc. Also the mentioned 'reset' involved nicely ignoring India's nuclear weapons program, weakening the IAEA as a result (and strengthening Iran's position) for absolutely nothing in return.
India and the U.S agree on a dislike of Muslim terrorists and a wariness around China but I haven't seen much else.
Is it always neccessary and desirable to agree 100% with the US. The sole super power title seems to have gone to the US head and it thinks it can bark, bite and sweet talk others to ignore their interests for the sole gain of US. Thankfully those days are coming to an end and the US seems to growling like a Rabid dog and whose prime days have paased.
Indian Muslim population exceeds the population of every Muslim country other than Indonesia and Pakistan. Despite this, Obama and Americans continue to remain popular in India. George Bush was popular in very few countries after the Iraq war, India was included in the list
India is the only uninterrupted democracy in South Asia in last 65 years. A country with a huge market for American companies. India might not be another American lackey but it is not a dog that is barking on America.
For Americans to remain a super power, it needs lesser enemies. One of the fastest growing economies in the world, India could be the American bastion between ever growing China and vehemently anti American Islamic terrorists. Foreign policy is realpolitik, a convergence of shared benefits.
With China and Russia firmly behind Iran, if India is added to the list, it won't be easier for Americans to deal with Iran. Indian strategical silence actually helps US in one way or other.
If India and the U.S agree on little then they're only allies in a vague sense and hardly a strong friend. If that's the case then India shouldn't be treated as one but rather as the somewhat friendly nation that it is. I'm seeing far too many India-philes where such enthusiasm simply isn't justified.
India would be nowhere without the US. All the jobs, industry and $ it has came from the US. Everyone in the USA knows the US economy is a disaster because of India. The 3 million Indian wealth siphoners are hated beyond measure in the US. India is delusional if it thinks it can get any more out of USA than it already has. Americans are on the verge of revolt because of what Indian lobbyists like NASSCOM and US-INDO-PAC have done to the US. The days of India raping the US are long over and Indians are being denied visas left and right.
USA has NOTHING to gain from India, but India deperately needs to attach itself to the US like a bloodsucking leech.
IITs were ranked 350th in world university rankings and they cannot even get accrediation.
India is delusional. Indian tech professionals have destroyed every US tech company they have touched.
Not to forget the $2 billion annual cost of brain drain to India, the American Indians are most of the most highly educated communities in USA.
The new research by US National Foundation for American Policy (USNFAP) 2011 says that 46% i.e. 23 of the country's top 50 venture-funded companies had immigrant founders.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-23/ahmedabad/30550775_1_indian-immigrant-business-owners-gujarati
Indian companies are spread over 40 of American states and are creating jobs. The 35 top Indian companies in the U.S. employ over 60,000 people across 40 states and over 80 per cent of these are local hires.
http://www.thehindu.com/business/article1588319.ece
The whole outsourcing bogey is blown out of the proportion. Outsourcing in India employs
just a very small percentage of Indians and contributes just 7 percent to Indian GDP.
It is the American companies that earn from outsourcing. The cheap Indian workers will work for peanuts. By estimates the American Outsourcers will save around $280 billion in 2012. And above all, the jobs outsourced to India are dull and soul destroying.
Hillary Clinton called new relations between India and USA as web 2.0. She expects American companies to earn from the second largest country in the world. Not only one of the fasting growing economy but also one of the largest markets for American MNCs.
Companies ruined or almost ruined by imported Indian labor
Adaptec - Indian CEO Subramanian Sundaresh fired.
AIG (signed outsourcing deal in 2007 in Europe with Accenture Indian frauds, collapsed in 2009)
AirBus (Qantas plane plunged 650 feet injuring passengers when its computer system written by India disengaged the auto-pilot).
Apple - R&D CLOSED in India in 2006.
Australia's National Australia Bank (Outsourced jobs to India in 2007, nationwide ATM and account failure in late 2010).
Bell Labs (Arun Netravalli took over, closed, turned into a shopping mall)
Boeing Dreamliner ES software (written by HCL, banned by FAA)
Bristol-Myers-Squibb (Trade Secrets and documents stolen in U.S. by Indian national guest worker)
Caymas - Startup run by Indian CEO, French director of dev, Chinese tech lead. Closed after 5 years of sucking VC out of America.
Caterpillar misses earnings a mere 4 months after outsourcing to India, Inc.
Circuit City - Outsourced all IT to Indian-run IBM and went bankrupt shortly thereafter.
ComAir crew system run by 100% Indian IT workers caused the 12/25/05 U.S. airport shutdown when they used a short int instead of a long int
Computer Associates - Former CEO Sanjay Kumar, an Indian national, sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for accounting fraud.
Deloitte - 2010 - this Indian-packed consulting company is being sued under RICO fraud charges by Marin Country, California for a failed solution.
Dell - call center (closed in India)
Delta call centers (closed in India)
Fannie Mae - Hired large numbers of Indians, had to be bailed out. Indian logic bomb creator found guilty and sent to prison.
Goldman Sachs - Kunil Shah, VP & Managing Director - GS had to be bailed out by US taxpayers for $550 BILLION.
GM - Was booming in 2006, signed $300 million outsourcing deal with Wipro that same year, went bankrupt 3 years later
HP - Got out of the PC hardware business in 2011 and can't compete with Apple's tablets. HP was taken over by Indians and Chinese in 2001. So much for 'Asian' talent!
HSBC ATMs (software taken over by Indians, failed in 2006)
Intel Whitefield processor project (cancelled, Indian staff canned)
JetStar Airways computer failure brings down Christchurch airport on 9/17/11. JetStar is owned by Quantas - which is know to have outsourced to India, Inc.
Kodak: Outsourced to India in 2006, filed for bankruptcy in Jan, 2012.
Lehman (Jasjit Bhattal ruined the company. Spectramind software bought by Wipro, ruined, trashed by Indian programmers)
Medicare - Defrauded by Indian national doctor Arun Sharma & wife in the U.S.
Microsoft - Employs over 35,000 H-1Bs. Stock used to be $100. Today it's lucky to be over $25. Not to mention that Vista thing.
MIT Media Lab Asia (canceled)
MyNines - A startup founded and run by Indian national Apar Kothari went belly up after throwing millions of America's VC $ down the drain.
Nomura Securities - (In 2011 "struggling to compete on the world stage"). No wonder because Jasjit Bhattal formerly of failed Lehman ran it. See Lehman above.
PeopleSoft (Taken over by Indians in 2000, collapsed).
PepsiCo - Slides from #1 to #3 during Indian CEO Indra Nooyi' watch.
Polycom - Former senior executive Sunil Bhalla charged with insider trading.
Qantas - See AirBus above
Quark (Alukah Kamar CEO, fired, lost 60% of its customers to Adobe because Indian-written QuarkExpress 6 was a failure)
Rolls Royce (Sent aircraft engine work to India in 2006, engines delayed for Boeing 787, and failed on at least 2 Quantas planes in 2010, cost Rolls $500m).
SAP - Same as Deloitte above in 2010.
Singapore airlines (IT functions taken over in 2009 by TCS, website trashed in August, 2011)
Skype (Madhu Yarlagadda fired)
State of Indiana $867 million FAILED IBM project, IBM being sued
State of Texas failed IBM project.
Sun Micro (Taken over by Indian and Chinese workers in 2001, collapsed, had to be sold off to Oracle).
UK's NHS outsourced numerous jobs including health records to India in mid-2000 resulting in $26 billion over budget.
Union Bank of California - Cancelled Finacle project run by India's InfoSys in 2011.
United - call center (closed in India)
Victorian Order of Nurses, Canada (Payroll system screwed up by SAP/IBM in mid-2011)
Virgin Atlantic (software written in India caused cloud IT failure)
World Bank (Indian fraudsters BANNED for 3 years because they stole data).
I could post the whole list here but I don't want to crash any servers.
That short int instead of a long int is something that first year undergraduate computer science students are warned about. At the very least, where was the exception handling?
"GM - Was booming in 2006, signed $300 million outsourcing deal with Wipro that same year, went bankrupt 3 years later"
You're saying that GM went under because of outsourcing.
I too can rebut the whole list but I don't want to crash the server in your head. :-)
Next time you copy/paste at least READ the stuff that you're copying and think about it.
@ Grant,
You are right, the US and India have common interests in fighting the spread of Islamic terrorism and facing upto the threat of China, a totalitarian undemocratic and expansionist power.
Both these threats are long term and are likely to haunt the world for most of the 21st century.
Therefore you need to shed your typical American greedy approach of immediate (short term) gains from a relationship with India.
You Americans may either take it or leave it ............ !!
China is neither totalitarian nor expansionist, please check your terminology on a site about foreign policy. China is authoritarian. It does not assume control over all aspects of private life and has not done so for decades. Additionally China's most aggressive moves have been in areas that China considers Chinese, or at least within its reasonable sphere of influence. Obviously some of these such as Taiwan and the South China Sea are not acceptable to the U.S but that is in no way the same thing as China aggressively expanding into other East Asian states. It's a problem for the U.S but one that should be viewed with cold analysis of what China is realistically likely to do. This is not the same situation as the 1950s where the Soviet Union was earnestly considering how to best fight in Western Europe and did want to export its revolution abroad.
Additionally Islamic terrorism appears to be far weaker than it was five years ago. What influence have terrorists had over the affairs in Egypt, Libya, Syria or Tunisia? If they couldn't do anything to interfere at a time when the governments were so weak and the opposition so strong then the terrorists are not likely to be able to recover. The only major exception I can see is Boko Haram, and that appears to be more a nationalist anti-southern insurgency and not a group interested in international terrorism.
Not sure what you're advocating, Grant
From dictionary.com:
ally (n): a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose: Canada and the United States were allies in World War II.
It doesn't say that they can't have differences. It doesn't say that they may have not a laundry list of OTHER causes or purposes where they may not see eye to eye.
Ergo, it's context sensitive.
The US has interests in Asia and it should pursue them.
If you agree then I'd say that we need allies (unless we're planning on using our "unassailable" position in Afghanistan as a base).
Our allies WILL NOT agree with us on everything. But if they share our values (democracy, freedom of speech, religion ..), we are likely to agree on more things than we disagree.
Who do you have in mind? Or were you suggesting that we go it alone?
My point was that in international affairs there seem to only be two areas of real agreement between the U.S and India, and those two areas aren't even necessarily the most relevant ones, while many writers (especially the more military-prone ones) seem to see this as some grand alliance to usher in a 21st century Asian equivalent to NATO.
NATO had one area of agreement
giving the Russians (or the Soviets) hell if they crossed over. End of list.
That's why the scope addition attempts like Bosnia and Afghanistan met with so much internal turmoil and debate amongst the member countries.
That's why some of them are/were there and others weren't.
That's why almost nobody came over into Iraq.
That's why the Turks asked us to shove off when we wanted to invade Iraq using their territory.
NATO was a military alliance with countries that for the most part shared our ideals of democracy and other freedoms.
We also had other military alliances like SEATO, CENTO, MEADO - all of which disappeared over time. Few if any of those countries shared the values mentioned. Many were not even under threat from the Soviets. They were allies of convenience.
My point in all this is that discussion about an "alliance" with a country that shares our values and has foreign policy issues with the same countries that we have foreign policy concerns with - is not such a horrible idea.
Mr. Dan Runde, As an Indian I will repeat what Rhett Butler said to Scarlet 'Don't look so determined. You frighten me. I see you are contemplating the transfer of your tempestuous affections to me and I fear for my liberty and my peace of mind.'
Dan Runde's Career in Building an Optimistic, Positive Attitude
Runde has a distinquished, admirable track record, and his opinion shouldn't be taken lightly. However, the poor man does suffer under the severe genetic defect of liberalism, and he is determinedly positive and optimistic, to the extreme level of mental illness. Some time from today, if and when the Indian people can elect a trustworthy and competent government, then India might be worth investing in. Right now, and until that future date, wise executives will stay out of and far away from India, to avoid losing their shirts and their good reputation, in one bad mistake.
Essentially, all Indians are innately criminal and corrupt. Whether that attribute is genetic or cultural is moot. One bad apple or fish in the barrel destroys everything, and no one can touch India without being tainted by its disease. A positive, optimistic attitude is all very well, and idealism is a useful, worthwhile tool, but business executives and national governments need to be practical and realistic to survive, in a highly competitive world. Maintaining a stubborn stance of optimism and a positive attitude about Indians is just immature foolishness.
@ FIRST ADVISOR,
Whoever you are ......
There are over two million American nationals of Indian origin, who are the most prosperous community in the US today on the basis of per capita income, perhaps second only to the American Jewish population. Over 25% of the start-ups in the Silicon valley are by those Indian Americans.
You therefore need to justify your statement that all Indians are criminals, attributable to genetic reasons................ failing which you would make yourself look like an a** hole ........... !
Why 'First Advisor'? Why this kolaveri di? Any sour grapes?
The author presents the good side of India but omits problems. 30% of India is engaged in the Maoist (Naxalite) Insurgency, and it is unsafe to travel by roads or railroads in these areas. India withdrew all of its helicopters used in UN peacekeeping missions and paid Ukraine to refurbish 125 Antonov military transports to move troops around in these areas. India also paid Ukraine to refurbish several squadrons of 45-year-old Mig-21 fighters to bomb insurgents, who have no antiaircraft capabilities, because Mig-21's are too old for modern combat. India bought $30 billion in arms from Russia, including fighters that can fly from India's aircraft carrier on its east coast against insurgent targets in eastern India and more Russian helicopters. In addition, other insurgents fight India over Kashmir and over border disputes with Bangladesh. Furthermore, India's infrastructure is antiquated. When Obama visited India at the end of 2010, Prime Minister Singh said that India needed $1 trillion in aid for infrastructure construction over the next five years to be a partner with the US. Of India's 63,000 kilometers of railroads, 18,000 or 28.6% are narrow guage built by the British Empire before 1947, and 45,000 or 71.4% are broad guage built by the Soviet Union before 1990. None run on standard guage rails, such as the US, EU, China, and most of the world uses, and they are between 20 and 100 years old. Half of India's 3 million kilometers of roads are dirt roads and the other half are "sealed" roads: dirt roads covered by a layer of asphalt. They are not up to western or Chinese standards. The electricity in most cities has wiring that looks like tangled string, and short circuits are common. Clean water is available indoors for the wealthy, but there are times when it is cut off, and most Indians get water from public taps and carry it in buckets to their homes. India's ground water table is falling, and public taps may run out in a few decades. The glaciers in the Himalayas are melting; temperatures are rising; India's rivers will not continue indefinitely; so the country is becoming a polluted desert. India has too many children and cannot care for all of them, so these undernourished, undereducated, unproductive children often turn to crime or join insurgent groups. Therefore, India's problems with insurgencies, poor transportation, poor electricity and water for drinking, reducing supplies of water for agriculture, and excessive numbers of children who need care keep India's growth between 2 and 3 percent below that of China. Insurgencies, water shortages, rising temperatures, and excessive numbers of children make collapse more likely than success for India.
The 30% of India refers to land area and not population. An insurgency with 360 million insurgents would remove the government quickly. In, addition, I pointed out the problems because the author stated all of the positive aspects and omitted all of the problems, including some that I did not mention, such as pollution in India's industries that hurt water supplies and agriculture.
Quite possibly the USA is closer to China sociological than to Indian politically.
The whole idea of India as a close ally is problematic.
Indian religosity dwarfs that of the USA.
If the premise is that we should ally with a country more like us against another less like us, alliance with India is illogiocal.
Practically, would India help contain China?
I doubt very much.
In diplomatic parlance, China is already contained for the most part.
The USA recognizes the Chinese claims over Taiwan and Tibet, and has no opinion on the South China Sea. What is there more to contain China?
Does the US want to constrict China with the aid of India? Can't be done. India trades with China just the same.
Taiwan trades with the Chinese mainland just the same.
Our allies are Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pakistan is our most trusted friend. If I was India, I wouldn't want a friendship with the United States, just Russia as a weapons supplier. Russia won the GAME, that's the reality. If the United States sought India as an ally ... we would have to beg American Hare Krishna devotees for consultation, the Sikh community and many others. We won't be up to speed with India as a global partner perhaps as late as 2120-2130. Decent post needs more work.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(22)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE