Content Type: Journal Article / Publishing Institution: Center for Strategic and International Studies / Political Geography: India / Journal: The Washington Quarterly / Topic:

Author:: Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta
Publication Date:: 03-2011
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Washington Quarterly
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: One of the most remarkable attributes of India as an independent state has been its reticence to use force as an instrument of policy. From the delay in sending troops to defend Kashmir in 1947 to the 24-year hiatus in testing nuclear weapons before 1998, Indian decisions on military force have come as an unwelcome last resort, and with rare exception, have been counterproductive, solidifying the wisdom of restraint.
Political Geography:: India and Kashmir

Author:: C. Christine Fair
Publication Date:: 03-2011
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Washington Quarterly
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: On December 24, 1998, five Pakistani terrorists associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) a Pakistani jihadist organization hijacked an Indian Airlines flight in Kathmandu with the goal of exchanging three Pakistani terrorists held in Indian jails for the surviving passengers. Pakistan's external intelligence agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), facilitated the hijacking in Nepal. After a harrowing journey through Amritsar (India), Lahore (Pakistan), and Dubai (United Arab Emirates), the plane landed at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, then under Taliban control. Under public pressure, the Indian government ultimately agreed to the terrorists' demands to deliver the three prisoners jailed in India. Both the hijackers and the terrorists who were released from prison transited to Pakistan with the assistance of the ISI. Masood Azhar, one of the freed militants, appeared in Karachi within weeks of the exchange to announce the formation of a new militant group which he would lead, the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JM).
Political Geography:: Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, India, Nepal, Dubai, Lahore, and Amritsar

Author:: Daniel Twining and Richard Fontaine
Publication Date:: 03-2011
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Washington Quarterly
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: In his November 2010 speech before the Indian Parliament, President Barack Obama cited shared values as a key element in the U.S.—India relationship. Pointing to a ''final area where our countries can partner strengthening the foundations of democratic governance, not only at home but abroad,'' Obama emphasized an issue that has long received short shrift from those focused on building a new, robust bilateral relationship. Despite deep skepticism among many experts about the prospects for U.S.—Indian cooperation to advance universal values, the president told India's Parliament, ''[P]romoting shared prosperity, preserving peace and security, strengthening democratic governance and human rights these are the responsibilities of leadership. And as global partners, this is the leadership that the United States and India can offer in the 21st century.''
Political Geography:: United States and India

Author:: Thomas Wright
Publication Date:: 07-2009
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Washington Quarterly
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: The past eight years have been a period of retreat and revival for multilateralism. Retreat in the face of the most concerted unilateralist strategy undertaken by a U.S. administration in half a century, and revival because, during the Bush administration's second term, there was an emerging political consensus that multilateralism was a critical element of U.S. power. Revival, however, promised not simply restoring multilateral institutions in U.S. strategy, but reforming or even replacing those institutions themselves. The ongoing financial crisis_with the Group of 20 (G-20), including leaders from Argentina, China, India, and South Africa, among others, taking on a leading role_has merely been the latest sign that greater multilateral cooperation is both necessary and difficult.
Political Geography:: United States, China, India, South Africa, and Argentina

Author:: Teresita C. Schaffer
Publication Date:: 07-2009
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Washington Quarterly
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Two snapshots convey the flavor of India's pursuit of a larger role in global governing councils. The first dates from India's most recent accession for a two-year term to the United Nations Security Council in January 1991, just as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was coming apart and the end of the Cold War was in sight. The first major issue to come before the council was the package of resolutions that would end the first Iraq war. Harried Indian diplomats, faced with draft resolutions being pressed on them with great insistence by their U.S. counterparts, spoke of their need to ''find the non-aligned consensus.'' Whatever decision India made was bound to alienate an international constituency it cared about. For Indian officials, this moment captured both the advantages and drawbacks of participating in the world's decisionmaking. The then—Indian ambassador to the United States, Abid Hussein, expressed considerable frustration in a private conversation with me at the time: ''Do you realize that we will have to do this for two years?''
Topic:: Cold War
Political Geography:: United States, India, and Soviet Union

Author:: C. Christine Fair
Publication Date:: 04-2009
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Washington Quarterly
Institution:: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:: Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States has sought to help Pakistan transform itself into a stable, prosperous, and democratic state that supports U.S. interests in the region, is capable of undermining Islamist militancy inside and outside its borders, commits to a secure Afghanistan, and actively works to mitigate prospects for further nuclear proliferation. Washington has also hoped that Pakistan, along with India, would continue to sustain the beleaguered peace process to minimize the odds of a future military crisis between them. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2008, the United States has spent more than $11.2 billion, presumably to further these goals. The FY 2009 budget request includes another $1.2 billion.
Topic:: Islam
Political Geography:: Pakistan, Afghanistan, United States, Washington, and India

Refine your search