American Graffiti
New Delhi and the dilemma of anti-US sentiments
Ronojoy Sen
Can any country afford to be anti-American? That’s the question being asked in different parts of the world. Tony Blair has last week in a foreign policy paper blasted the ‘anti-Americanism’ of certain European leaders. At around the same time, at the NAM summit in Havana, several heads of state, including the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents, have appealed for an anti-US front. The sharp polarity between Blair’s view and that held by some of the leaders present in Havana represent two competing visions of the world. Which way the debate goes is of some importance to New Delhi, now involved in a complicated tango with Washington.
Blair’s rant against the ‘anti-Americanism’ of some European politicians is nothing new. Earlier this year, he had made a similar point in a speech to Australian parliament. In both his paper and his speech, Blair suggests that Europe’s and America’s vision of the world is identical, and that it is in everybody’s interest that the US does not follow an isolationist policy. Blair writes, “The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in”. He adds that the issue is not that the US is too engaged with the world’s problems; rather the danger is if they decide to “pull up the drawbridge and disengage”. What Blair has posed in stark terms is this: You are either with the US or against it; there is no middle ground.
While Blair might be under pressure to constantly justify the absolute alignment of Britain’s foreign policy with America’s, his counterparts in Europe have also had to grapple with the same question. The post-World War II carving up of the world and subsequently the Cold War dictated the nature of Europe’s relationship with the US during the second half of the 20th century. But with the dismantling of the Cold War apparatus and disappearance of the Soviet bogey, the nature of Europe’s relationship with the US was significantly altered. The occasional cracks in the trans-Atlantic alliance widened considerably after George Bush became president. Relations hit a low during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 when France and Germany vocally opposed Washington’s unilateral action. Blair, of course, stood by Bush even then.
The anti-American mood in Europe during the Iraq invasion was not just a passing phase. A survey by the Pew Research Center last year revealed that a majority of French, Germans and Spaniards don’t trust America, and they want to see a loosening of trans-Atlantic ties.
Here, too, Bush is an important factor. In Spain, 76 per cent of those surveyed said Bush is the main reason for anti-US sentiment. The figures for Germany and France were around 65 per cent. The survey was conducted in six European countries — Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Only in Britain and Poland did a majority of respondents have a favourable opinion about the US. The differences between Britain and rest of Europe have surfaced on various issues: negotiations with Iran over its nuclear capabilities and Israel’s war against Lebanon.
Anti-American rhetoric is, however, ratcheted up several notches at NAM where a number of arch-foes of the US are part of the grouping. These include Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Just sample some of the sound bytes emerging from Havana. Cuba’s acting president Raul Castro, brother of the ailing Fidel Castro, said in his inaugural address to the NAM summit: ‘‘When there is no longer a Cold War, the United States spends one billion dollars a year in weapons and soldiers and it squanders a similar amount in commercial publicity. To think that a social and economic order that has proven unsustainable could be maintained by force is simply an absurd idea’’. He was enthusiastically backed by Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
But NAM also includes traditional US allies such as Thailand, Philippines and Pakistan, making it a collection of dissonant voices. So where does that leave India, which under Jawaharlal Nehru coined the term ‘non-aligned’ and was a founder-member of NAM? And how does New Delhi navigate a situation where it is actively trying to improve relations with Washington, but is at the same time attending a meet bristling with America’s avowed enemies? The first thing that the Indian government must realise is that the ties of anti-colonialism that bound together many NAM nations no longer hold. The world has moved on and so has India.
India has little in common with socialist Cuba, theocratic Iran or oil-rich Venezuela. It has more in common with countries like Brazil or Mexico. While superpower status for India might be some time away, economic power has decisively swung the way of developing countries. It is now well known that until the 19th century India and China were the world’s largest economies. The latest issue of The Economist predicts that they are well on their way to reclaim their former position.
In a rapidly changing global situation there is no need for New Delhi to hang on to the coattails of Washington like Blair; it also needn’t spew invective at the US like some NAM countries. India has the economic leverage to chart an independent course and form alliance with like-minded countries. A strategic relationship with the US can be part of this gameplan.
New Delhi and the dilemma of anti-US sentiments
Ronojoy Sen
Can any country afford to be anti-American? That’s the question being asked in different parts of the world. Tony Blair has last week in a foreign policy paper blasted the ‘anti-Americanism’ of certain European leaders. At around the same time, at the NAM summit in Havana, several heads of state, including the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents, have appealed for an anti-US front. The sharp polarity between Blair’s view and that held by some of the leaders present in Havana represent two competing visions of the world. Which way the debate goes is of some importance to New Delhi, now involved in a complicated tango with Washington.
Blair’s rant against the ‘anti-Americanism’ of some European politicians is nothing new. Earlier this year, he had made a similar point in a speech to Australian parliament. In both his paper and his speech, Blair suggests that Europe’s and America’s vision of the world is identical, and that it is in everybody’s interest that the US does not follow an isolationist policy. Blair writes, “The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in”. He adds that the issue is not that the US is too engaged with the world’s problems; rather the danger is if they decide to “pull up the drawbridge and disengage”. What Blair has posed in stark terms is this: You are either with the US or against it; there is no middle ground.
While Blair might be under pressure to constantly justify the absolute alignment of Britain’s foreign policy with America’s, his counterparts in Europe have also had to grapple with the same question. The post-World War II carving up of the world and subsequently the Cold War dictated the nature of Europe’s relationship with the US during the second half of the 20th century. But with the dismantling of the Cold War apparatus and disappearance of the Soviet bogey, the nature of Europe’s relationship with the US was significantly altered. The occasional cracks in the trans-Atlantic alliance widened considerably after George Bush became president. Relations hit a low during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 when France and Germany vocally opposed Washington’s unilateral action. Blair, of course, stood by Bush even then.
The anti-American mood in Europe during the Iraq invasion was not just a passing phase. A survey by the Pew Research Center last year revealed that a majority of French, Germans and Spaniards don’t trust America, and they want to see a loosening of trans-Atlantic ties.
Here, too, Bush is an important factor. In Spain, 76 per cent of those surveyed said Bush is the main reason for anti-US sentiment. The figures for Germany and France were around 65 per cent. The survey was conducted in six European countries — Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Only in Britain and Poland did a majority of respondents have a favourable opinion about the US. The differences between Britain and rest of Europe have surfaced on various issues: negotiations with Iran over its nuclear capabilities and Israel’s war against Lebanon.
Anti-American rhetoric is, however, ratcheted up several notches at NAM where a number of arch-foes of the US are part of the grouping. These include Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Just sample some of the sound bytes emerging from Havana. Cuba’s acting president Raul Castro, brother of the ailing Fidel Castro, said in his inaugural address to the NAM summit: ‘‘When there is no longer a Cold War, the United States spends one billion dollars a year in weapons and soldiers and it squanders a similar amount in commercial publicity. To think that a social and economic order that has proven unsustainable could be maintained by force is simply an absurd idea’’. He was enthusiastically backed by Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
But NAM also includes traditional US allies such as Thailand, Philippines and Pakistan, making it a collection of dissonant voices. So where does that leave India, which under Jawaharlal Nehru coined the term ‘non-aligned’ and was a founder-member of NAM? And how does New Delhi navigate a situation where it is actively trying to improve relations with Washington, but is at the same time attending a meet bristling with America’s avowed enemies? The first thing that the Indian government must realise is that the ties of anti-colonialism that bound together many NAM nations no longer hold. The world has moved on and so has India.
India has little in common with socialist Cuba, theocratic Iran or oil-rich Venezuela. It has more in common with countries like Brazil or Mexico. While superpower status for India might be some time away, economic power has decisively swung the way of developing countries. It is now well known that until the 19th century India and China were the world’s largest economies. The latest issue of The Economist predicts that they are well on their way to reclaim their former position.
In a rapidly changing global situation there is no need for New Delhi to hang on to the coattails of Washington like Blair; it also needn’t spew invective at the US like some NAM countries. India has the economic leverage to chart an independent course and form alliance with like-minded countries. A strategic relationship with the US can be part of this gameplan.