Abstract
The USA’s strategy of “pivot” or “rebalancing” broadly argues for the refocusing of its strategic orientation toward Asia and in particular East Asia. As the USA seriously considers shifting strategic gravitas from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the strategy includes several components—high-profile military developments and exercises, expanding geopolitical presence in the Indian Ocean, and adopting a diplomatic stratagem where military means go hand in hand with civilian/governmental initiatives.
Parallel to the “pivot” and the USA’s reorientation toward the Asia-Pacific, India comes in as a rising power that seeks to advance its geopolitical influence in the same region. It could be argued that the USA’s strategy complements India’s expansion of its benign influence in the region. Does this mean India will play along with the USA? Is India going to “bandwagon” with the USA? Does India have a different explanation of its intent toward the region? What is India’s methodology toward the Asia-Pacific?
This paper critically teases out the complexities involved in the USA’s strategy toward rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific region and the views of emerging actors like India. The dynamics generated by the refrain over “rebalancing” and the reactions of individual actors make for the adoption of an approach that is critically evaluating, and the adoption of a critical stance throughout this paper is to highlight two issues: one, the importance of the Asia-Pacific security to both the USA and India; second, the complexity of the term “rebalance” for India, taking into account its overall security interests and history of relations with the USA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
1. US Department of Defense, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” January, 2, 2012.
- 2.
2. Wei Ling, “Rebalancing or De-Balancing: US Pivot and East Asian Order” American Foreign Policy Interests 35, no. 3, (May/June 2013): 148–154.
- 3.
3. Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane, “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework” in Ideas & Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, eds. Judith Goldtein and Robert O. Keohane (New York: Cornell University Press, 1993), 20.
- 4.
4. For US–Vietnam relations, see Mark E. Manyin, U.S.-Vietnam Relations in 2014: Current Issues and Implications for US Policy (CRS Report No. R40208) (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014); Murray Hiebert, Phuong Nguyen, Gregory B. Poling, “A New Era in U.S.-Vietnam Relations: Deepening Ties Two Decades after Normalization,” A Report of the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies, Center for Strategic and International Studies, June2014.
- 5.
5. For US–Philippines relations, see, Sheldon Simon, “US-Southeast Asia Relations: Philippines—An Exemplar of the US Rebalance,” Comparative Connections 15, no. 2 (October 2013) and Richard Javad Heydarian, “The Philippines-China-U.S. Triangle: A Precarious Relationship,” National Interest, May 1, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-philippines-china-us-triangle-precarious-relationship-10342
- 6.
6. India’s domestic liability law called India’s Compensation for Nuclear Liability and Damages law of 2010 “holds the suppliers directly liable in case of a nuclear accident.” Countries like France and the US have asked India to follow global norms under which the primary liability lies with the operator. The Obama visit also ensured for India that “US authorities wouldn’t insist on inspections over and above those by IAEA.”
- 7.
7. Shehzad H. Qazi, “Hedging Bets: Washington’s Pivot to India,” World Affairs (Washington), (November/December 2012), http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/hedging-bets-washington%E2%80%99s-pivot-india
- 8.
8. See Condoleezza Rice, “Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs 79, no. 1 (January/February 2000): 45–62.
- 9.
9. Amb. Karl F. Inderfurth and Ted Osius, “India’s ‘Look East’ and America’s ‘Asia Pivot’: Converging Interests,” U.S.–India Insight 3, Issue 3, Center for Strategic and International Studies (March 2013).
- 10.
10. Sarah Parnass, “Hillary Clinton Urges India to Lead in China’s Neighborhood,” ABC News, July 20, 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/hillary-clinton-urges-india-to-lead-in-chinas-neighborhood/
- 11.
11. Tim Roemer, “The Linchpin: Why India Needs to Be at the Center of the U.S. Pivot to Asia,” Foreign Policy, December 4, 2013.
- 12.
12. Suresh Reddy was appointed India’s first envoy to the ASEAN and EAS. See “India Names First-Ever Envoy to ASEAN” Times of India, April 24, 2014, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-names-first-ever-envoy-to-Asean/articleshow/34126010.cms
- 13.
13. Mr. Modi officially announced the Act East policy at the ASEAN-India Summit on November 12, 2014, in Naypidaw, Myanmar.
- 14.
14. S. Paul Kapur, “India and the United States from World War II to the Present: A Relationship Transformed” in India’s Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Sumit Ganguly (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 251.
- 15.
15. There are more than 3 million Indians in the USA and as a community have the highest rates of higher education (67 % in comparison to the American national average of 28 %) and highest household income of all ethnic groups (USD 88,538 in 2009) when compared to other ethnic groups like Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. Indian-Americans have also made a mark in US politics with the Democrats and Republicans having Indian origin people in administrative and gubernatorial posts.
- 16.
16. John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (New York: Penguin, 2005), 124.
- 17.
17. John Lewis Gaddis, Ibid., 125. Also see Robert J. McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery: The United States, India, and Pakistan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
- 18.
18. Arjun Appadorai, The Domestic Roots of India’s Foreign Policy, 1947–1972 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981), 81.
- 19.
19. Gary J. Bass, The Blood Telegram: India’s Secret War in East Pakistan (New Delhi: Random House, 2013), 135.
- 20.
20. The economic rise of India, however, brought about an epiphany in Henry Kissinger who has lobbied quietly for better relations between the two countries and lauded India for being a democratic superpower like the USA!
- 21.
21. See “US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region,” Ministry of External Affairs, India, January 25, 2015.
- 22.
22. Robert M. Hathaway, “India and the US Pivot to Asia,” Yale Global Online, February 12, 2012, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/india-and-us-pivot-asia
- 23.
23. Shashi Tharoor, Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century (New Delhi: Allen Lane, 2012), 233.
- 24.
24. The most detailed account of the Mumbai attacks and the role played by David Headley/Dawood Gilani is to be found in the articles of Sebastian Rotella available at ProPublica. See “Pakistan’s Terror Connections,” http://www.propublica.org/topic/mumbai-terror-attacks/
- 25.
25. Sunil Khilnani et al., “Non-Alignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the 21st Century,” Centre for Policy Research (New Delhi), 2012, http://www.cprindia.org/sites/default/files/NonAlignment%202.0_1.pdf
- 26.
26. “Not Part of US’ Asia Pivot- India FM” BRICS Post, November 20, 2013, http://thebricspost.com/not-part-of-us-asia-pivot-india-fm/#.U-23WcWSySp
- 27.
27. David Brewster, India as an Asia Pacific Power (Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2012), 28. Also see George K. Tanham, “Indian Strategic Thought: An Interpretive Essay,” R-4207-USDP, National Defense Research Institute (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1992).
- 28.
28. Himanil Raina, “India’s Role in the U.S. Pivot to Asia?” International Policy Digest, August 14, 2014, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/08/14/indias-role-u-s-pivot-asia/
- 29.
29. C. Raja Mohan, “China’s Rise, America’s Pivot, and India’s Asian Ambiguity” Seminar (New Delhi) 641 (January 2013), http://www.india-seminar.com/2013/641.htm
- 30.
30. C. Raja Mohan, ibid.
- 31.
31. Ashley J. Tellis, “Productive but Joyless? Narendra Modi and U.S.-India Relations” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 12, 2014, http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/05/12/productive-but-joyless-narendra-modi-and-u.s.-india-relations
- 32.
32. Yu Lintao, “Modi Moment,” Beijing Review, no. 24, June 12, 2014, http://www.bjreview.com.cn/world/txt/2014-06/09/content_623173_2.htm
- 33.
33. Dennis Kux, India and the United States: Estranged Democracies, 1941–1991 (Washington, DC: Fort Leslie McNair, National Defense University Press, 1993), 451.
- 34.
34. Kenneth I. Juster and Ajay Kuntamukkala, “U.S.-India Initiative Series: Unleashing U.S.-India Defense Trade, Working Paper,” Center for a New American Security, October 7, 2010, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_USIndiaDefenseTrade_Juster.pdf
- 35.
35. Simon Denyer and Rama Lakshmi, “India Appears Ambivalent about Role as U.S. Strategy Pivots toward Asia,” Washington Post, October 13, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-appears-ambivalent-as-us-strategy-pivots-toward-asia/2012/10/13/254b05d0-0e18-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html
- 36.
36. Stephen P. Cohen and Dhruva Jaishankar, “Indo-U.S. Ties: The Ugly, the Bad and the Good,” Brookings Institution, February 2009, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2009/02/india-cohen
- 37.
37. Kurt Campbell and Brian Andrews, “Explaining the US ‘Pivot’ to Asia,” Chatham House, London, August 1, 2013, 4–5, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Americas/0813pp_pivottoasia.pdf
- 38.
38. Suhasini Haidar, “Needs to Co-Develop Defense Equipment: Hagel,” Hindu (New Delhi), August 10, 2014, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hagel-sees-need-to-jointly-develop-defence-equipment/article6299431.ece. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made this statement while delivering a lecture at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), New Delhi.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Dr. Shen Ming Shih of the National Defense University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Narayanan, R. (2016). India’s Response to US Rebalancing Strategy. In: Huang, D. (eds) Asia Pacific Countries and the US Rebalancing Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-93453-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-93453-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58797-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-93453-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)