Foreign Policy
Why Foreign Policy?
A vital element in the road to the creation of a Peace Economy is the development of levelheaded and Peace-Oriented foreign policy. Indeed, at the Peace Economy Project, we define peace as such: “Peace is not simply the absence of violence, but an environment free of the very factors that inspire violence.” Whereas all citizens seek to be free from violence (which is not exclusive to military action), we must understand what motivates violence and seek to find appropriate policies to solve these problems before they escalate into unnecessary violence.
Globalizing Defense: Consequences of U.S. and India’s Growing Defense Ties
Amanda Boettcher
International Relations Fellow, the Peace Economy Project
October 13, 2010
A similar version of this article is available online at Foreign Policy Journal
In the United States, policy makers and advocacy groups have lobbied for defense spending cuts. On September 14, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a 5-year plan to reduce military spending by the Department of Defense beginning in 2012 for a total reduction of $100 billon. In January of this year as a result of the U.S. growing budget Sen. Claire McCaskill propose an amendment that would keep military spending below $600 billion until 2014. This summer, The Peace Economy Project a St. Louis organization that advocates for “reducing military spending in favor of social and infrastructure needs” sent their staff to the Capital with an appeal to Congress asking that the body reduce military spending in favor of funding our communities. While such reductions have not yet been achieved, contention to increases in U.S. military expenditures continues to grow. As vocal dissent increases, however, a glance at the other side of the globe shows that calls for reducing military spending require an increased level of sophistication in order to avoid unintended conflicts.
Arms Peddler to the Globe
According to the Congressional Research Center, arms transfer agreements between the U.S. and developing countries climbed from $12.4 billion in 2007 to $29.6 billion in 2008. Russia ranks second in arms transfers with agreements totaling just $3.3 billion. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is by far the most dominant weapons dealer in the developing world. Arms contracts with developing countries have raised little opposition from members of the U.S. government on either side of the aisle. After helping to secure a $30 billion Boeing defense deal with Saudi Arabia, Republican congressman Todd Akin’s press official told Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the congressman was supportive of the deal, and “you have to look at the overall balance of power in the region.” Boeing expects to generate 25 percent of its revenue from outside the U.S. within 5 years.
Recent Indian military purchases from U.S. defense contractors have enflamed tensions along their Chinese and Pakistani borders. In 2009, Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, issued a joint statement with India stating that both sides are committed to “mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of defense.” Although most government officials in the U.S. support arms sales to India, the increased sales, facilitated by the U.S. government and profiting the Boeing Corporation, whose defense headquarters are based in St Louis, have compromised strategic American interests in China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Why the recent interest in these arms purchases, though?
More...
Chain of rivalries: India/U.S. cooperation intensifies regional disputes
Amanda Boettcher
International Relations Fellow, the Peace Economy Project
October 1, 2010
In the past two decades U.S.-India relations have improved dramatically. Throughout the 70s and 80s, the U.S. attempted to isolate the country and condemned them for their nuclear ambitions. Today, U.S. has attempted to become a partner with India in trade, nuclear cooperation, and defense.
While the U.S. and India build their strategic relationship, analysts are debating the consequences of this relationship as they affect other strategic relationships in Asia. The U.S. is currently a partner with Pakistan in the war against Islamic extremists in Afghanistan. While facilitating multibillion-dollar defense deals with India, the U.S. continues to give extensive military aid to Pakistan, India’s historic rival. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Pakistan from 2002 to 2008 has received $11 billion in economic and military assistance. China fought a war with India in 1962 and there is still disputed territory along their border. With the challenges facing the region, is the U.S. improving relations with India at the expense of regional stability in Asia?
More...
China India Relations
Amanda Boettcher
International Relations Fellow, the Peace Economy Project
September 28, 2010
It is no secret that China and India are growing economic powers. The growth of the two countries has lead to the forming of a new buzz word called Chindia and is defined by the Center for Strategic and International Studies as the “rise of both China and India and its impact on Asia and the world at large.” U.S. companies are clamoring to get a piece of the Chindian pie as illustrated by the U.S. agreement for nuclear cooperation and St. Louis’s push to get a Chinese cargo hub.
As both countries’ economic and military power grows, many wonder about the relationship that the two nations will share. In some ways economic growth has helped the two nations’ relationship grow in cooperation. In other ways historic disputes have persisted and lead to deeper divisions.
History of War
The Sino-India border is the largest contested border in the world. India and China went to war in 1962 over disputed territory along their shared border. After gaining independence from Britain in 1947, India took over parts of China that Britain had occupied. India pushed its border to the McMahon Line, which further pushed into China’s territory. In 1953, India invaded and occupied 90,000 square kms of Chinese land, claimed the town of Aksai Chin and 33,000 kms of the Xinjiang Uygur region of China. With the two sides unable to reach a compromise over the disputed territory, on October 20, 1962, China crossed the border of India. By November 21st, China had reclaimed their territory and a cease-fire was declared between the two nations.
Today, the borders are still contested, but both nations understand the importance of a stable, bilateral relationship. The two countries pledged a new cooperation in 2005. According to the Washington Post, China “formally abandoned its claim to the tiny Himalayan providence of Sikkim,” and presented India a redrawn map showing the new providence as Indian territory.
Trade
The continuing border dispute has not hampered bilateral trade expansion. In 1984 China and India entered into a trade agreement that gave them the status of “Most Favored Nation.” This year, according to the China Daily, bilateral trade between the two nations is expected to exceed $60 billion. India has also stated that it aims to double trade with China in the next four years.
Trade between the two nations goes beyond goods and services and has gone into defense as well. In 2006, China and India signed a Memorandum of Understanding of Defense Cooperation. This was the first of its kind between the two states, and laid out a framework for military exchanges, joint military exercises, and training.
China more open to India’s UN Security Council bid
India has recently been lobbying for Security Council reforms that would make them a permanent member of the council. Permanent membership is currently given to 5 states (U.S., Russia, France, Britain and China) and those members are given veto power in the Security Council. China has previously blocked India’s bid for a permanent seat, but recent statements by the Chinese government suggest that they may be more open to India’s council bid as a non-permanent member. During an August visit to Beijing from India’s President Pratibha Patil, Chinese premier Wen Jiabo said they wanted “a greater role for India in the UN especially in the Security Council.” China has said that they would support a non-permanent seat, which would mean a two-year term for India on the Security Council, but did not firmly support a permanent membership. China, according to a Brookings Institute report on the upcoming Security Council meeting, “is comfortable being the only permanent Asian member of the Council” and “is skeptical towards any major alterations.” The likelihood of Chinese support for India in the Security Council beyond a non-permanent member would represent a drastic shift for China, but the statement by Premier Jiabo demonstrates that they understand the importance of supporting India.
Difficulties maintaining a stable relationship
More...
Next Stop Shanghai? St. Louis Looking Globally to Spur Local Investment and Job Growth
Amanda Boettcher
International Relations Fellow, the Peace Economy Project
September 10th, 2010
With the Missouri unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, lawmakers are looking east for job growth and I’m not talking about New York City. With the growth of China’s economy, St. Louis officials are looking to capitalize on the country’s expanding market. St. Louis is in high-level discussions with Chinese officials to have Lambert St. Louis Airport become a new Chinese cargo hub. Specifics of the deal are still being worked out, but reports suggest St. Louis and Chinese officials are both highly interested in the case. The project poses many questions; how will St. Louis draw business from major hubs like Chicago that also have cargo traffic from China? Will St. Louis businesses be able to fill cargo shipments to China? Can this become a viable long-term growth project for the state of Missouri?
More...
India-US Nuclear Deal vs. China-Pakistan Nuclear Deal
Amanda Boettcher
International Relations Fellow, the Peace Economy Project
September 8, 2010
India and the United States reached a landmark nuclear energy agreement in 2005. Many journalists, research professionals, and think-tanks have mulled the ramifications of enacting this nuclear cooperation deal and how it affects U.S./India relations, China’s nuclear ambitions with Pakistan, and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India-US Nuclear Cooperation
On July 18, 2005, the United States and India announced a new “Civil Nuclear Cooperation.” The agreement, according to the U.S. State Department, allows India and the U.S. to create a partnership for nuclear power enrichment. This means that U.S. nuclear companies will now be able to contract with India to create nuclear power equipment and facilities and the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) will be able to safeguard the process to some extent.
More...
Nuclear rules must reflect changes in balance of power
Harsh Pant
August 23. 2010
The National
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100824/OPINION/708239952/1080%C2%A0
When the then US president George W Bush helped to end India’s status as a nuclear pariah, allowing the country to sell civilian nuclear technology, the long-term implications were obscure.
With Japan, a long-time critic of India’s bid for a nuclear weapon, lining up for deals with India, and China proposing to offer similar technology to Pakistan, the geopolitical import of the 2008 Indo-US agreement is becoming clear.
More...
Optimism for President Obama’s Policy in the Middle East Declines
Amanda Boettcher
Foreign Policy Fellow, Peace Economy Project
August 24, 2010
Perceptions of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy have dropped drastically from 2009 to 2010 according to the 2010 Arab Public Opinion poll conducted by the Bookings Institution. The poll surveyed 3,976 people in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. The group was asked, “How would you describe your attitudes toward the Obama Administration policy in the Middle East?” In 2009, 51% responded with “hopeful” as their answer. In the same poll in 2010, the respondents that answered “hopeful” dropped to 16%.
The same polling group was asked the question “If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, which of the following is the likely outcome for the Middle East region?” In 2009, 29% said it would be “more positive.” In 2010, 57% said it would be “more positive.”
Why is this significant to U.S. foreign policy?
More...
New Start stalling in congress?
Amanda Boettcher
Foreign Policy Fellow, Peace Economy Project
August 20, 2010
Five months have past since President Obama declared the New START Treaty “an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation.” Unfortunately, America is waiting for the Senate to realize that this is a critical not only to American-Russian interests, but to maintain U.S. power in nonproliferation on the international stage.
The idea of nuclear arms reduction is not a new concept. Article VI of the Treaty of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, ratified 1970) states “Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on the effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” The U.S. ratified the NPT and proceeded to take steps to live up to the obligation set fort in Article VI with START I Treaty signed in July of 1991.
Yet in the American political climate of today, national government officials are resistant to live up to international obligation because they fear being labeled “soft on defense” while others fear alienating their ultra conservative base. Former National Security Advisor to George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft said of the issue that "much of the debate is not about the issue but other issues we might have only dimly related to what is before us.”
More...
Current Issues: A Second Look at China and America
August 6, 2010
This article follows another PEP piece: China-US relations: Cold War Part Deux?
Jess Mitchell is an International Affairs Intern with the Peace Economy Project
Tensions between the US and China seem to have increased since my last article on the subject. Some of the issues are not defense related, such as disputes over climate change policy, energy consumption, and a meeting between President Obama and the Dalai Lama. Other recent events involve military provocations and armament exercises in a situation where both the US and China are beginning to test how far they can push their individual power. Here are some news updates as to the US-China conflicts in relation to defense.
QDR Lists China as one of “Greatest Challenges to the US”
The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review was released with comments in it that concerned China. The review says that China’s military development raises legitimate questions about its future military conduct and intentions. Beijing immediately announced its dissatisfaction with the comment, not long before the US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said “Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea pose the greatest challenges to the United States’ national interests.”
More...
| NEXT page |