The Dangers of South Asia

The Middle East has had national attention as a trouble spot (to say the least) for thousands of years. It is a cross-roads between three continents and the home of our three major world religions. From the ancient civilization of Mesopotamia, to Alexander the Great, to the Umayyad dynasty, to the Ottoman Empire, to the inception of the state of Israel, it has been heavily contested, even more so with our growing dependence on oil.

However, with a great number of troops moving from Iraq to Afghanistan, is our geo-political focus shifting? As Al Qaeda operatives began moving across the southern border, Pakistan has come into focus, argued by some like Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria to be of utmost importance in U.S foreign policy. The U.S Government has been executing drone bombing in Pakistan, which has already resulted in civilian casualties. The Pakistani government insists it is on our side, but with internal population issues, government inefficiencies, and an unfolding military coup d'etat (one that is Al Qaeda friendly), it is difficult for them to execute the job we need them to. Militants moving in from Afghanistan in the regions of Swat and South Waziristan have caused the Pakistani Army to intervene, displacing more than 2 million families from the region, only adding to the turmoil.
Pictured above is a mob of displaced men rioting over not receiving food and supply rations. (A note: I do not own this photo, it belongs to Reuters.) It increasingly seems that our attention will once again be shifting, this time from Central Asia (Afghanistan for those geographically challenged) to South Asia. The Kenny-Lugar Bill was already passed in October of 2009, giving Pakistan 7.5 billion dollars in aid over the next five years.

However, Foreign Policy columnist Barbara Crossette argues that the real pain in South Asia, no, in all of Asia, is India. Yes, India. The rising global power with 15% of the world's population, "Gandi, Bollywood, and chicken tikka." Crossette outlines five major areas in which India is defying international standards and refuses cooperation in her article.

1) Nuclear Testing & Proliferation: India has tested nuclear weapons and yet has rejected the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, originally provisioned in 1968. Their own testing has raised tensions with their neighbor "fr-enemy" Pakistan, who then also began its own testing after India's second round in 1998, essentially starting an arms race. This was only two-years after they both rejected the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. To quote the article's own quotation:

"...defense analyst Matthew Hoey recently wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "India's behavior has been comparable to other defiant nuclear states [and] will undoubtedly contribute to a deteriorating security environment in Asia." "

This is evidence of the realist tenet of international anarchy, that there is no globl accountability. India, just like N. Korea, openly defies treaty provisions with no international consequences.

2) Trade: In 2008, India single-handedly foiled global trade talks that would have benefited the developing nations of the world.

3) Environmentalism: Five months before the G20 UN Climate summit in Copenhagen, India's Environment Minister stated that his country, one of the fastest-growing producers of greenhouse gases would not accept binding emissions targets. The lack of such targets is considered by many to be a failure of the summit. Yet again, another realist sign of a lack of international accountability.

4) Corruption: The Indian government worked behind the scenes to prevent Paul Wolfowitz from becoming World Bank president due to his plans to expose Indian corruption. The country had diverted $600 million dollars on World Bank relief funds for the millions of people suffering from HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, etc. Former bank employee Steve Berkamn states the level of corruption is no different from that in some countries in Africa.

5) Human Rights: Although the people of India do enjoy some freedoms, it is by no means a liberal democracy. India limits assistance to non-governmental organizations and education institutes, refuses visas for human rights activists (including Irene Kahn, the head of Amnesty International.) It restricts the work of foreign scholars and journalists and bans books. There are also no restrictions on police search and seizure. Within the U.N General Assembly and the U.S Human Rights Council, India tends to vote on the sides of human rights violators and enemies of democracy.

The article concludes discussing India's desire for a permanent seat on the Security Council and the concern their rising power raises. If anything, this is indeed a proven case for realism. We have set in place international institutions that attempt to apply standards. In fact, in all five cases we have established an international organization to try and improve conditions in their field. In all five cases is an example where India has defied international authority. In all five cases, to little or no consequences. The realist asserts that the state is the principle actor in the internal world, not any organization. If emissions standards would hurt India's rising industry, which it would, they would act against it for their own self-preservation. An idealist would call this wrong. A realist would call this instinctive. Maybe this next decade will be the period of international institutions. Maybe one day we can hold nations accountable for their actions and set an international standard. Mhmmm...what a comforting thought. For now, I'll stick with my realism.