Commentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
Report
The Strategic Rationale for Deeper U.S.-Indian Economic Ties
The U.S.-India relationship was often distant during the Cold War, but the partnership is now critical for both countries’ strategic aims.
Published on Aug 7, 2015
The U.S.-India relationship was often distant during the Cold War, but the partnership is now critical for both countries’ strategic aims. India is important to the U.S. effort to maintain its international primacy, while the United States is essential to India’s attainment of its great power ambitions. Deepened economic intercourse, including one day through a comprehensive U.S.-Indian free-trade agreement, is vital to realizing both countries’ aspirations.
The Case for Deeper Economic Cooperation
- The United States has consistently pursued a policy of securing hegemony, yet China now threatens the economic and geopolitical underpinnings of U.S. power.
- India, since the British Raj, has harbored aspirations for great power status and regional hegemony alongside ideals of liberal internationalism.
- Through stronger bilateral economic ties, American resources could enhance India’s productivity, expand its technological frontier, and spur further economic liberalization. Meanwhile, the United States would gain access to India’s lower-cost exports, relatively cheap labor, and vast domestic market, increasing America’s international competitiveness.
- Increased U.S. competitiveness internationally would reinforce Washington’s global primacy, permitting it to effectively balance China’s rising power. The economic benefits accruing to India from deeper economic links with the United States would advance Indian national development, regional hegemony, and international prominence.
How the United States and India Can Promote Economic Cooperation
- The United States must be willing to walk difficult roads to enhance economic cooperation with India, given that such integration is essential to its regional and international interests. While domestic U.S. constituencies have become wary of Indian economic practices and free-trade agreements more generally, they must be outweighed by larger considerations of revitalizing economic growth bilaterally and preserving U.S. global hegemony.
- India must understand that sustained economic growth hinges on expanding its global trading links, and that its prior policies of trade expansion through shallow free-trade agreements are no longer viable. Partnership with the West, particularly the United States, is critical to achieving India’s twin aspirations for national development and regional primacy. India’s existing tactic of buying time and space for domestic development without making commitments to genuine trade liberalization is counterproductive for these aims.
- A step-by-step approach to deepening bilateral trade and investment to make a free-trade agreement possible at some point in the future may be the most effective way to advance each country’s specific geopolitical interests. Such an approach would incrementally tackle challenges to a comprehensive agreement, and it would best serve India’s development aspirations and buttress the United States’ international preeminence.
Read Full Text
About the Authors
Ashley J. Tellis
Former Senior Fellow
Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.
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.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane
- Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio PoliticsArticle
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
- Delimitation After Defeat: India’s Unfinished Debate Over RepresentationPaper
The battle over representation and regional power has been delayed—not resolved—and will shape the future of India’s federal balance.
Louise Tillin, Milan Vaishnav, Andy Robaina
- In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone AttacksCommentary
The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
