From the Asia Times Online:
"Manmohan will no doubt continue to place primacy in foreign policy on India's partnership with the US. The accent will be on harmonizing India's regional policies with the US approach in theaters such as the Indian Ocean and South Asia, Middle East and the Far East; on boosting military-to-military cooperation, and, in overall terms, on striving to become a participant in the US's global agenda and strategies."
(The complete article can be found here.)
Is anyone else alarmed by this? I've been worrying about it for a while, but I suppose there's no point in me wringing my little hands, wishing India wouldn't jump on the US' War On Terror bandwagon. The Bush era is over, you say? Perhaps. But there hasn't been much change in US foreign policy. The debris left behind by the previous administration needs to be dealt with, and it looks like the new administration is doing the same old thing: an approach closer to slash and burn than sift and clean. The latter is dirty work, and Hillary probably prefers not to be up to her elbows in bearded men who want to cover her up. Having attempted a makeover of his nation's image, Obama probably doesn't want to hear "America Murdabad!" So off they go, with 17,000 troops to kill the Talibacteria from the inside. Anything that falls in the way, be it magnificent cities or mere civilians, risks destruction too. No holds barred. When America is threatened, all means are necessary. Palestinians and Pakistanis become terrorists by association, and layers of history are whittled down to strategic interest.
And in all this, India is willingly getting on board, allowing its local specificities to become subsumed in global generalities.
I know it's a little more complicated than an angsty blogpost. But, really, isn't this what it boils down to? Taking sides on the playground of global politics? Choosing teams? "You look like you have a good GDP, I want you." Bullies win, outcasts sit out, the little ones get pummeled. Do we want to play this game? Of course. Dissidents are called punks and punched out. Better make good with the punchers. Be friends. Allies. Thing is, I'm not sure powers HAVE allies. Agents, yes. And armies. The rest participate in their games, their wars, their agendas. For what?
I, for one, would prefer not to be sacrificed at the alter of material greed, cultural mimicry, and political ambition. But who the hell am I?
"Manmohan will no doubt continue to place primacy in foreign policy on India's partnership with the US. The accent will be on harmonizing India's regional policies with the US approach in theaters such as the Indian Ocean and South Asia, Middle East and the Far East; on boosting military-to-military cooperation, and, in overall terms, on striving to become a participant in the US's global agenda and strategies."
(The complete article can be found here.)
Is anyone else alarmed by this? I've been worrying about it for a while, but I suppose there's no point in me wringing my little hands, wishing India wouldn't jump on the US' War On Terror bandwagon. The Bush era is over, you say? Perhaps. But there hasn't been much change in US foreign policy. The debris left behind by the previous administration needs to be dealt with, and it looks like the new administration is doing the same old thing: an approach closer to slash and burn than sift and clean. The latter is dirty work, and Hillary probably prefers not to be up to her elbows in bearded men who want to cover her up. Having attempted a makeover of his nation's image, Obama probably doesn't want to hear "America Murdabad!" So off they go, with 17,000 troops to kill the Talibacteria from the inside. Anything that falls in the way, be it magnificent cities or mere civilians, risks destruction too. No holds barred. When America is threatened, all means are necessary. Palestinians and Pakistanis become terrorists by association, and layers of history are whittled down to strategic interest.
And in all this, India is willingly getting on board, allowing its local specificities to become subsumed in global generalities.
I know it's a little more complicated than an angsty blogpost. But, really, isn't this what it boils down to? Taking sides on the playground of global politics? Choosing teams? "You look like you have a good GDP, I want you." Bullies win, outcasts sit out, the little ones get pummeled. Do we want to play this game? Of course. Dissidents are called punks and punched out. Better make good with the punchers. Be friends. Allies. Thing is, I'm not sure powers HAVE allies. Agents, yes. And armies. The rest participate in their games, their wars, their agendas. For what?
I, for one, would prefer not to be sacrificed at the alter of material greed, cultural mimicry, and political ambition. But who the hell am I?
No comments:
Post a Comment