REQUIRED IMAGE
Source: Carnegie
Summary
For much of the past half century, U.S. relations with India and Pakistan were perceived in the region and by Washington as part of the same equation. Improvements in U.S. relations with one were generally perceived (and sometimes intended) to come at the expense of the other. Since last September’s attacks, however, the United States has found itself in the unaccustomed position of having good relations with India and Pakistan at the same time. The Afghan crisis is testing whether Delhi and Islamabad can adjust to this new reality. It is also a test for Washington and whether it can leverage its new position to address core concerns, including the dispute over Kashmir, Pakistan’s crisis of governance, and the evolving nuclear and missile rivalry in the region.
These essays focus on the interconnected challenges for U.S. policy in and around the subcontinent in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Yet they address longstanding concerns which, in light of the current crisis, may now get the attention they require.
Click on the link above for full text of this Carnegie Paper.
About the Authors
Lee Feinstein, a former visiting scholar at the Carnege Endowment's Non-Proliferation Project, is a Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund. James Clad holds the Henry R. Luce Foundation Research Professorship of Southeast Asian Studies in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Lewis A. Dunn is senior vice president at Science Applications International Corporation. David Albright is president and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.
Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?
Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.
Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh
