High tariffs have contributed to the United States $8 billion-plus trade imbalance with India (India, 2004).
There have been numerous diplomatic and business lobbying efforts over the past several years to further open India's markets to American goods. And, to a certain degree, those efforts have achieved success. India has reduced tariffs on a number of product categories and has cut its basic ceiling tariff rate from 25% to 20% (India, 2004). However, there were notable exceptions to that cut and India's average weighted tariff actually increased to 28% in 2004 compared to 21% in 2001 (2006 Index, 2006). In short, tariffs continue to be high in key product categories.
The good news is that India has been receptive to discussions on lowering its tariffs, but India still remains a protectionist economy that is not completely open for business. The government even controls pricing in certain sectors - such as energy and pharmaceuticals - and tries to regulate pricing in others (India, 2004). India's trade practices remain a sticky issue in U.S.-Indian relations and have closed off the Indian market to some American companies. Although dialogue is ongoing, this is an issue that will need to be addressed.
Arguably India's most pressing security issue is its rivalry with northern neighbor Pakistan, and most of the dispute between the two countries centers around who should control Kashmir in northern India. The dispute over Kashmir - which dates back to even before Pakistan's founding in 1947 - has led to wars between the two sides and frequent lower-level military conflict and terrorist attacks. Both India and Pakistan have aggressively courted the United States' support on the Kashmir issue and have been disappointed by America's near neutrality, even though the United States probably has limited ability to mediate the conflict (Kapila, 2002). Both sides are suspicious about any words or activities from American officials that would seem to indicate the U.S. supporting one side or the other. In this way, the Kashmir issue has had a dominant influence on U.S.-Indian relations.
Needless to say, there was no small amount of paranoia in India when Pakistan became a key American ally after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In exchange for Pakistan's support, the U.S. agreed to sell Pakistan military technology, such as F-16 fighter jets - military technology that, if history is any guide, could one day be used on India (India takes, 2005). To appease India, the United States sold it slightly better technology (India takes, 2005). Such is the balancing game that is necessary if the United States hopes to maintain friendships with both India and Pakistan.
Whenever the Kashmir situation escalates, the United States, as the world's greatest superpower, can not avoid being dragged into it. And it is critical to U.S.-Indian relations that the U.S. not appear to validate Pakistan's claim to Kashmir, even though Pakistan is a key ally in the war on terror (Mandelbaum, 2002). Fortunately, this political hot potato seems to be cooling for the moment. Both India and Pakistan have been working more closely to peacefully resolve the Kashmir issue, a process that was largely spurred by the 2005 earthquake that devastated parts of Kashmir. The two sides have cooperated on transportation and economic aid issues and, thus far, have not allowed attempts by extremists to undermine the peace process (Musharraf upbeat, 2005). Any resolution of the Kashmir issue - or any moves that keep it on the back burner - will be helpful for U.S.-Indian relations.
The other major security issue in U.S.-Indian relations is India's possession of nuclear technology and how the U.S. has dealt with it. When India first developed nuclear capabilities in 1974, the basic U.S. position was that India was a rogue nuclear state. India was not - and is not - a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which establishes various safeguards in nuclear countries. The fact that India possessed civilian and weaponized...
To slap India with economic sanctions that lasted from 1998 to 2001 (Gwertzman, 2005).
India, in its defense, maintains that the non-proliferation agreement is financially punitive to developing countries and that it has followed the provisions of the agreement, even without becoming a signatory (India takes, 2005). There is, in fact, evidence that India has been a conscientious nuclear power and the country has not conducted a test nuclear detonation since a global test ban treaty in 1998 (India takes, 2005). During the later years of the Clinton presidency and the early years of the Bush administration, America began to change its view of India as a rogue nuclear state. In fact, Bush was able to push through a Republican Congress in 2005 an agreement that allows U.S. nuclear technology to be sold to India for civilian purposes (Gwertzman, 2005). In supporting the agreement, Pres. George W. Bush stated that India had proven itself a responsible user of nuclear technology, which signified a major policy shift from the previous American insistence that nuclear nations be signatories to the non-proliferation agreement. In addition, the economic sanctions against India that were waived in 2001 allow for more military technology to be sold in India, and this business has become brisk and growing (Gwertzman, 2005).
The issue over India's nuclear capabilities seems to be evolving into a non-factor in U.S.-India relations. The relationship between India and Pakistan is the greatest risk to U.S.-India ties, as the United States has essentially been playing both sides. If the Kashmir dispute flairs again, America will again be drawn into the middle. Further, if military conflict ever arises again between India and Pakistan, it will not go unnoticed in India when the Pakistani army is dropping American-made bombs from American-made jets. In essence, the United States may proclaim neutrality in such a conflict, but there is plenty to undermine the appearance of that neutrality. Peace between India and Pakistan is simply critical to U.S.-Indian relations.
India and the United States are still in the early stages of what will hopefully be a strong and prosperous friendship. These two nations both have a democratic tradition and are strategically important to each other. However, decades of mistrust and friction have left lingering issues that will need to eventually be resolved if relations are to fully flourish. On the economic side, India has developed protectionist trade practices that have caused a significant trade imbalance in India's favor. American companies have imported thousands of jobs to India, but the nation's tariffs keep it closed for business to many American companies who would like to sell to India's considerable consumer base. As long as India keeps slapping American and other foreign products with punitively high tariffs, there will always be a degree of economic friction between the U.S. And India.
The major security issue between the United States and India will continue to be India's relationship with Pakistan, which has become a critical U.S. ally in the war on terror. The United States has become a military and economic partner to both nations, and if tensions flair again over Kashmir, a neutral U.S. policy might not be acceptable to either side.
Clearly, there are remaining issues that must be resolved to broaden U.S.-Indian ties, but they are not necessarily any worse than the issues the U.S. faces with a great number of other nations. Important progress has been made by both nations in the past 10 years, and both sides seem interested in continuing the forward momentum.
2006 Index of Economic Freedom" (2006). Retrieved Nov. 29, 2006 from the Web site for The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=India
Bhatnagar, Parija (2005). "Is India's outsourcing honeymoon over?" CNN, Aug. 24. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2006 from the Web site for CNN at http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/23/news/international/india_outsourcing/index.htm
Bloch, Hannah (2001). "Pakistan seeks peace and credibility." Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from the Web site for CNN at http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/kashmir/feature.html.
Bokhari, Ashfak (2004). "Will India remain the 'king' of outsourcing?" Dawn, Feb. 9. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from the Web site for Dawn at http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/09/ebr6.htm.
Bowman, Michael (2005). "Bush Welcomes Indian Prime Minister to White House." Bowman Report, July 18. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 at http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-18-voa25.cfm?CFID=65452041&CFTOKEN=25800719.
Das, Gurcharan (2001). "India's Growing Middle Class." The Globalist, Nov. 5. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from the Web site for The Globalist at http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2195.
Fortune 500 firms simply love India" (2005). Economic Times, Nov. 5. Retrieved Nov. 29, 2006 from the Web site for Economic Times at http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1163097.cms.
Gujral, I.K. (1997). "Defence and Security in the post-Cold War Scenario." Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from the Web site for the Embassy of India at (http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Foreign_Policy/coldwar (gujral).htm
Gwertzman, Bernard (2005). "Scheinman: New U.S.-India Agreement Undercuts U.S. Allegiance to Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons." Retrieved Nov. 28, 2006 from the Web site for the Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.cfr.org/publication/9149/scheinman.html?breadcrumb=default
Hopkirk, Peter (1995). "Setting the East Ablaze: Lenins Dream of an Empire in Asia." London: Oxford University Press.
India" (2006). Retrieved Nov. 27,…
U.S. Government and ethical issues of outsourcing Description of Ideas-5 Analysis of Concepts-6 Evaluation with Reasons-7 Possible Solutions-9 U.S Government and Ethical Issues of Outsourcing USA is at present one of the fastest growing countries as a target for outsourcing. Of late outsourcing which was once the buzzword of corporate America has been looked down upon in recent years because of growing concerns of ethics involved in outsourcing the same. Majority lament the outsourcing of jobs
" It seems perfectly apparent that this was the original policy of the U.S. In Afghanistan specific to the Soviet Union. The CSR Report for Congress entitled: "Afghanistan: Current Issues and U.S. Policy" Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs writes that the policy objectives of the United States in Afghanistan have: "...long gone beyond establishing political stability and combating terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan." (Katzman, 2005) IV. PRESENT U.S. INVOLVEMENT
U.S. Automotive Industry Chosen industry: automotive industry is the focus of this analysis. More emphasizes are made on the large -- scale automobile manufacturers. This is because of the inherently interesting industry as a result it being competitive and projected to go through a major restructuring due to globalization in the near days to come. The issue of decreasing oil reserves is the other reason that is going to trigger this
U.S. has not Signed the U.N. Convention Treaty on the Rights of Children This paper presents a detailed examination of the Treaty on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. The writer explores the treaty and the nations that have signed it. The writer than delves into some of the reasons the United States has not signed it. This paper is written from a legal standpoint therefore there
' Indians across the political spectrum, especially the country's powerful nuclear weapons establishment, are critical of the NPT, arguing that it unfairly warps international hierarchies to the disadvantage of the non-nuclear-weapon states" (1998:15). In its efforts to balance the pressures from the international community with its own self-interests in formulating foreign policies, the position adopted by India has been starkly different than other countries. In this regard, Karp concludes that,
A second lesson was found in Kennedy's management of the crisis. The basic lesson learned was that, in the midst of such a crisis, leaders need time away from the glare of the media to resolve their own thinking and communications, and they need the self-confidence to limit their objectives to only what is needed to resolve the crisis, not "win" it. It is believed that the Soviet's lesson was that