India

By Daniel Dombey, US Diplomatic Correspondent

A large part of covering modern ministerial visits consists of spending long hours in confined spaces in the middle of very big countries. This blog has been written in the darkened interior of the last car in Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ convoy, parked in the midst of Sir Edwin Lutyens spectacular government complex in Delhi.  Monkeys clamber on the rooftops of the buildings here and pigeons fly through the corridors. It is a very grand place – and it is unlike almost anywhere else the US has to deal with.

That’s partly the lesson of this trip – the US is keen for its ties with India to develop further and faster than Delhi is comfortable with. Though the relationship has come on in leaps and bounds, India has yet to sign three technological agreements that have been on the table since as far back as at least 2002. The deals would enable more cooperation between the two countries’ militaries and – hardly the least important detail – would also make US military hardware more attractive to Delhi by bundling it with fancier software. That way, aircraft sold by the US to India could include state of the art navigation and targeting systems.
But India, which is well aware of its status as a rising great power, is reluctant to do anything that would group it together with  mere US allies

By Daniel Dombey, US Diplomatic Correspondent

Another thing that strikes me about Bob Gates’ trip to India is the strategic vagueness of it all. In the map of the 21st century world, the US sees India as an indispensable partner, even if the country’s size, prospects and independent-mindedness means it will never become a full ally.

Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both paid extended visits to the country, a courtship that ultimately produced a civil nuclear deal between Washington and Delhi and – this is where Gates comes in – plans to intensify military co-operation.

The next big goal seems elusive, even though the US wants to encourage Delhi to become more of a counterweight to China and is keen in the extreme for India and Pakistan to cool mutual tensions (so allowing Islamabad to focus more on battling the Taliban than on its powerful neighbour).

By Daniel Dombey, US Diplomatic Correspondent

I am travelling with the US defence secretary Robert Gates and a clutch of itinerant journalists to India and there’s a certain dowdy potency about the whole experience.

Gates, a CIA and White House veteran who has served some seven presidents, is a very big fish in Washington and well beyond.

His record of working for President George W. Bush – during which time he presided over the successful surge in Iraq- has given him massive clout in the Obama administration, and his support for sending 30,000 more troops may well have been decisive in the recent debate over Afghanistan.

But Gates himself is a low-key guy, who slipped into jeans as soon as he was on board the airplane and who rates his own common sense approach to problems more than any more flashy qualities.

Pinn illustration

In Winnie-the-Pooh, there is a significant moment when the bear is asked whether he wants honey or condensed milk with his bread. He replies “both”. You can get away with this sort of thing if you are a much loved character in children’s literature. But it is more problematic when great nations start behaving in a childish fashion. When Americans are asked what they want – lower taxes, more lavish social spending or the world’s best-funded military machine – their collective answer tends to be “all of the above”.

The result is that the US is piling up debt. A budget deficit of about 12 per cent of gross domestic product is understandable as a short-term reaction to a huge financial crisis. What should worry Americans is that, with entitlement spending set to surge, there is no credible plan to bring the budget deficit under control over the medium term.

The US has formidable strengths that will allow its government to be profligate for far longer than other nations could get away with. But if the US keeps running huge deficits, sooner or later the country will start flirting with bankruptcy. Oddly, it might be best if the crisis came sooner rather than later. For a surprising number of countries, running out of money has been the prelude to national renewal.

The remainder of this article can be read here. Please post comments below.

Ever since 1945, the US has regarded itself as the leader of the “free world”. But the Obama administration is facing an unexpected and unwelcome development in global politics. Four of the biggest and most strategically important democracies in the developing world – Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey – are increasingly at odds with American foreign policy. Rather than siding with the US on the big international issues, they are just as likely to line up with authoritarian powers such as China and Iran.

The US has been slow to pick up on this development, perhaps because it seems so surprising and unnatural. Most Americans assume that fellow democracies will share their values and opinions on international affairs. During the last presidential election campaign, John McCain, the Republican candidate, called for the formation of a global alliance of democracies to push back against authoritarian powers. Some of President Barack Obama’s senior advisers have also written enthusiastically about an international league of democracies.

But the assumption that the world’s democracies will naturally stick together is proving unfounded. The latest example came during the Copenhagen climate summit. On the last day of the talks, the Americans tried to fix up one-to-one meetings between Mr Obama and the leaders of South Africa, Brazil and India – but failed each time. The Indians even said that their prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had already left for the airport.

The remainder of this article can be read here. Please post comments below.

By Geoff Dyer, China bureau chief

Barack Obama has already moved on to the next aspiring Asian superpower – today he meets India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh – but plenty of people are still trying absorb what really happened on his visit to China last week.

The US press has come in for some a bit of a mauling for the highly-critical way it covered the China trip – go to James Fallows at The Atlantic and Howard French at the Columbia Journalism Review. Some of this criticism is a little unfair. The Chinese government did not actually censor the “town hall” meeting in Shanghai, as some of the coverage implied, but they did go to elaborate efforts to limit its audience and to generally ensure that the young, charismatic US president had little chance to win the hearts and minds of young Chinese.

But on another point, the criticism is valid. This was never going to be a trip about quick wins and big breakthroughs, it was about Obama setting out a long-term project to engage China as a partner on some of the most important international issues.

In many cases, it could take several years to see how this plays out, but there is one exception where we might get an early test of Obama’s engagement strategy and that is Iran.

With Tehran giving plenty of indications that it will reject the current proposal over its nuclear programme, Beijing is playing coy about whether it will support tougher sanctions. But if the proposal collapses, China could be forced to make a tough choice. The Iran issue falls directly into the new fault line of Chinese foreign policy. Beijing opposes nuclear proliferation and values good relations with the US as a key priority. But worried about energy security, China is also building up extensive energy ties with Iran and the oil industry is so politically powerful that some analysts even talk of an “oil faction” in the Communist party hierarchy. Iran could provide a fascinating insight into just how much sway Obama now has with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao and into what China’s real foreign policy priorities are.

Pinn llustration

“A billion people, in a functioning democracy. Ain’t that something.” George W. Bush’s awestruck musings on the wonders of Indian democracy will be echoed all around the world this week.

Despite a sharp economic slowdown and a series of destabilising terrorist attacks, India’s 420m voters have just calmly voted the Congress party back into government, with a much increased majority.

In western capitals, admiration for the maturity of Indian democracy will be mixed with relief. There were fears that a government led by the rightwing BJP would take a more confrontational line with Pakistan – widening the conflict in south Asia in new and dangerous ways. Investors also seem to be impressed. The stock market shot up 17 per cent in the wake of Congress’s victory.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.

On the day I arrived in Delhi last September, terrorists had set off bombs in markets across the city. The receptionist at the Taj hotel told me that they were advising guests to stay inside to avoid danger. The hotel felt like a sanctuary from the chaos outside. When I set off the metal-detector coming back into the Taj, the security guard just laughed and bowed deeply.

My next stop was the Taj Palace hotel in Mumbai – the scene of last week’s tragic killings and siege. At the time, there was next to no security. That looks bad now. But the sad truth is that you can have very tight checks at these hotels and still be vulnerable. I also stayed at the Marriott in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, earlier this year. All cars entering its driveway were checked for explosives. But a couple of months ago, it was still destroyed by a bomb that caused scores of deaths.

Experts on terrorism will be poring over the attacks on Mumbai, looking for lessons and ideas. Here are three. First, hotels are increasingly the targets of choice for terrorists. Second, south Asia rather than the Middle East is the centre of the problem. Finally, terror thrives off conflict: so provoking a war between India and Pakistan would count as a triumph for the people who attacked Mumbai.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.

It’s been clear for some time that India has a serious and growing problem with terrorism. There were terror attacks in Delhi when I was there last September. At the time, the Indian reaction – both from the public and the government – seemed commendably calm. I wonder whether the calm will survive the latest horrors in Mumbai?

We still don’t know the full death toll – but it looks like it will run into the hundreds. The police are reported to be preparing to storm the Oberoi Hotel and there are hostages being held at the Taj Palace. (I stayed there in September, too.)

One always has to be careful with comparisons to 9/11. That was so spectacular, and so many people died. But this attack does have a ring of 9/11 – the terrorists have attacked some of the iconic buildings in the commercial capital of India. The fact that there were multiple attacks and that the gunmen in the Taj were reportedly trying to separate Americans and Brits, also makes it sound like an al-Qaeda style operation.

Why do countries suddenly start producing great novelists? When I was in Russia recently a friend complained to me that the transition to capitalism had killed Russian literature – under communism they had had Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, Akhmatova and Bulgakov. But modern Russians, my friend lamented, seem to be too busy consuming to read or produce great literature.

In India, however, an economic boom has gone hand in hand with a literary boom. Once again a novel by an Indian-born writer has carried off Britain’s leading prize for fiction. Last night Aravind Adiga won the Booker Prize with his first novel – “The White Tiger”. He follows in the footsteps of Salman Rushdie (1981), Arundhati Roy (1997) and Kiran Desai (2006). (And lots of people think that Vikram Seth should also have won with “A Suitable Boy” in 1993.) In the 1970s, a couple of novels about India – written by British authors (Paul Scott and Ruth Prawher Jhabvala) – won the Booker. But now Indian authors are regularly winning the prize in their own right.

Perhaps that is because, there are truly historic social and economic changes underway in India? Critics have described Adiga’s novel as Dickensian – and modern Indian cities do feel like something out of Dickens – seething with people, and with the middle-class and the economic under-class jostling up against each other.

The White Tiger – which I haven’t yet read – takes the form of letters written from a Bangalore businessman, Balram Halwai, to Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister. Halwai writes: “Out of respect for the love of liberty shown by the Chinese people, and also in the belief that the future of the world  lies with the yellow man and the brown man now that our erstwhile master, the white-skinned man has wasted himself through buggery, mobile phone usage, and drug abuse, I offer to tell you, free of charge, the truth about Bangalore.”

This sounds like a book I should definitely read. I was in Bangalore recently – but only got to see the GE and Infosys offices and the Taj hotel. I’m not sure that qualifies as “the truth”.

The World

with Gideon Rachman

About this blog About Gideon Blog guide
Gideon Rachman and his FT colleagues debate international affairs. Read more on the authors.

Gideon became chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times in July 2006. He joined the FT after a 15-year career at The Economist, which included spells as a foreign correspondent in Brussels, Washington and Bangkok. He also edited The Economist’s business and Asia sections.

His particular interests include American foreign policy, the European Union and globalisation
To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact gideon.rachman@ft.com about The World blog.

See the full list of FT blogs.

FT World News page

Read FT world news coverage from our network of international correspondents.

The FT’s Brussels blog

For views and opinions on the European Union from Peter Spiegel, Joshua Chaffin, Alex Barker and Stanley Pignal, follow the FT's Brussels blog here.

Tags

arab spring Argentina austerity bailout Barack Obama Berlusconi Bo Xilai Brussels China Colombia Cuba Davos ECB EFSF Egypt elections EU Europe European Commission Eurozone Eurozone crisis Fidel Castro France François Hollande Greece IMF In the Picture Iran Italy Klaus Schwab Live blog Merkel Mexico Nicolas Sarkozy Papademos Papandreou Putin Romney Sarkozy Spain Syria US election Venizelos WEF World Economic Forum

The blog day by day

« AprMay 2012
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031