McCain failed in his first executive decision. The first decision was choosing a running mate and he decided, rather foolishly, on the governor of Alaska – Sarah Palin. This lady, except being big on conservative wedge issues like Abortion and gun rights is the biggest doofus you could imagine in the position of a VP. She doesn’t even know what a VP does, and yet, she didn’t BLINK when offered this position.

Right wing and left wing pundits and the media have rightly lambasted her for her goof-ups; the most recent of which came on her interview with Katie Couric. She actually had the nerve to defend her statement that she has foreign policy experience because it is right next to Alaska. How absurd does it have to get before we get up and say, enough is enough!!!

Laugh, I say, if you can for a moment forget who you are entrusting your country to.

What I have always failed to understand is the almost unconditional support to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Anyone with the temerity to question it and set some conditions has to be labelled a communist sissy without so much as a second thought to the concerns raised. Whether those concerns are valid or not could only be determined with careful consideration but that almost never happens. While I want to make it clear that I am “for” the deal, although it is yet one more example of the hypocrisy of the US foreign policy, it should not be unconditional and without safeguards.

And the first safeguard should be non-intervention by the US in India’s foreign policy or internal affairs. For anyone who has read ever the bare minimum about US foreign policy or taken a peek into the history, there are multiple examples of the arm-twisting of nations by the United States. And that makes it a very valid argument. Today came yet another example of a US attempt to influence and India’s policy with a letter by Democrat Tom Lantos to the Indian prime minister warning him that “New Delhi’s ties with Iran had significant potential to harm India-U.S. relations and the landmark deal.”. According to this report:

The letter — signed by Democrat Tom Lantos, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, senior Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and others — was the third, and strongest, in recent days expressing concern over relations between New Delhi and Tehran.

They urged India to end what they said was “military cooperation” with old friend Iran and terminate participation in the development of Tehran’s energy sector.

And this is not new. There has been instances in the past too where the US has tried to further its own interests by trying to influence Indian foreign policy. The Indian government should, and I believe it will, protest at this open interference in India’s internal affairs and foreign policy. I wonder what the realists think of this interference.

As Douglas MacArthur said -“No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation”

Economist has a good analysis of the gradual shift in India’s foreign policy which is keeping up with the time at least on some levels. As The Economist mentions in the footnote to the article, some idealists are less than happy with this gradual shift yet, it is worth keeping in mind that is quite consistent.

India is surrounded by countries which are autocracies. Pakistan and Bangladesh are under emergency rule. China and Myanmar are dictatorships. Nepal and Bhutan are monarchies and are just beginning to change track. Gone are the idealist days of Nehru where India found it almost impossible to maintain any sort of detachment from the idealistic position. Two events in the recent few months have provided a very clear example of the shift in New Delhi’s position and the way it deals in this hemisphere. First came the protests in Burma and the rather brutal crack-down by the ruling junta. If we were still living in the good ‘ol Nehruvian days, India would have stomped its foot and raised a lot of dust and tabled a UN resolution. But that didn’t happen now. India has a lot invested with the junta and there are real considerations about energy and the growing Chinese influence as well as the anti-India forces which periodically take refuge in Myanmar and the cordial relations with the junta have helped curb those. There were some symbolic statements made but thats where it stopped.

Then came the Pakistan situation with the General (read dictator) imposing emergency rule. Again, even if we go back just 10-12 years, we can clearly see how India would have reacted. It would have taken an idealist position and criticized the General and of course the Pakistanis would have rebuffed such interference in their internal affairs. Instead what we saw this time was a very cautious statement that was neither here nor there. This is India’s statement to the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. “We regret the difficult times that Pakistan is passing through,” this ambiguousness was a welcome change. One thing missing was a plan B at least publicly. It seemed from the reaction that India was hedging all its bets on the General and there seemed to be a lack of Plan B but there is no way to know whether that was indeed the case. It is a bit foolish to expect the India government lay out all its cards on the table. They might indeed have been talking with Benazir Bhutto or indeed, even Nawaz Sharif, but in all probability the General is here to stay at least for a few more years and it doesn’t make any sense to overtly reach out to Bhutto or anyone else and antagonise the General who still holds the reins.

Overall the policy shift shows a growing maturity in the sort of foreign policy that we might see in the coming years. And it is a welcome change.

Please also read the Economist article.