India does have a President who is elected by the central and state legislatures, but is mostly a ceremonial figure, with no real power.
Comparing Modi to Xi is emblematic of the ignorance and condescension that is embedded into how even people who might claim to be “India hands” view India.
Xi is a dictator. Modi, on the other hand, has won election after election since 2002, but has worked his ass off to win those votes. He has then governed as both a moderniser and a welfare-statist focused on getting Govt benefits directly into the hands of the poor. And it is they who are his most ardent supporters, even more than urban Indians, who where his party(the BJP)’s base originally.
5 Indian states with a collective population a little less than that of the US just concluded in India, with the results out yesterday. Modi’s party was the incumbent in 4 of them and won all 4 handily; they got clobbered in the 5th (Punjab), but have always been a marginal player there. One of these states (Uttar Pradesh) has 220M people, and has never re-elected a state government since 1985. And in fact, most Indian states rarely re-elect their state Governments, which is why this lack of anti-incumbency is so astonishing, even to veteran observers of Indian elections. And no one doubts that it was Modi that was the deciding factor in all these states.
This reinforces my belief that I, and every other patriotic Indian, need to work to strengthen the Modi government and the Hindi base as much as possible. Otherwise India would end up becoming a satellite state, susceptible to be bullied by American liberals -- who will gain much more prominence in coming years. We must do everything we can to empower and strengthen the Indian right further to negate the American influence as much as possible.
Second, a miscalculation in this post is that current Indian government is "forced" to choose sides because of dependence on Russian military equipments. That assertion ignores the fact that Modi was sanctioned and had his US visa denied before becoming the prime minister. He is totally aware of the danger American liberals pose to everything from India's national security interest to family values. India would have abstained, irrespective of its dependence on Russia.
I wish India could make it clear that time-tested friendship with Russia is not up for sale. But the current diplomatic and geopolitocal realities doesn't allow for that. Nevertheless, the Indian political establishment need to be more careful of the United States and stay wary of it going forward.
This paragraph (and the post in general) suffers from low quality historiography:
"Nowhere did shifting alliances make more of a difference than in the middle of World War 2. In late 1940, Nazi Germany had conquered France and was allied with Japan, while the USSR had helped Hitler devour Poland. The U.S. was neutral, still hobbled by isolationism. It looked as if totalitarian powers would dominate the globe. But a year later, when Hitler turned on Stalin and Stalin allied with the U.S., the tables were entirely turned — the Allies now had a coalition that could beat the fascist powers."
It was a surprise to few that Hitler turned on Stalin in tearing up Molotov-Ribbentrop--an alliance of convenience. What was surprising was the million man Red Army getting bogged down in tiny Finland in late 1939. Additionally, (I learned this from an Adam Tooze interview) no one was more surprised by the rapid Nazi take over of France, than the Nazis themselves. The blitz is now seen as a deliberate and brilliant success, but even its commanders had no expectation it would go so well. These events boosted Hitler's confidence that the time was ripe to go after Russian oilfields, which he was bound to do anyway.
The contingency of these events was an important cause of the "shifting alliances" that Noah chalks up to savvy decision making. My point is you can put together the biggest and best alliance in history, but nobody knows how things will play out--look at the Brooklyn Nets with KD, etc. If you are trying to recreate the magic, you better do your research and say your prayers.
Honestly, I don't see the upside in NOT pivoting to Iran. The Saudis and Emiratis are already in Putin's corner. Iran, despite its overtly autocratic regime, has an oddly strong tradition of democratic competition among its complex and admittedly illiberal institutions. Iranians are also highly educated and have a tradition of liberal-mindedness, again despite their regime. They're not as "open for business" as the Saudis are, but they're probably the lesser of the two evils at this point.
I'm obviously biased (half Cuban, half Venezuelan) and I bring no solution, but there's no "good faith" to be had with the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela.
"by convincing the Cuban people that their economic woes are America's fault, it probably solidifies the regime's control."
You assume the Cuban people are convinced of this because that's what the left says. The Cuban people are not convinced of this.
"Opening up to Cuban people and goods won't make them ditch communism in a day"
You assume Cuban people embrace communism, as if they're thinking, "this would be great if we could just get rid of that pesky embargo!". Not so.
"Maduro has obviously been making overtures in this direction"
No shit. If you think this will benefit the common Venezuelan you're mistaken.
We may have to choose between the lesser of two evils, but we cannot let them or us forget the policies that we find objectionable. Such alliances will expose the United States to charges of hypocrisy which is very useful if we are to correct our unrepresentative form of government and our extreme economic inequality.
A large part of this piece echos Jeanne Kirkpatrick's seminal Commentary article Dictatorships and Double Standards. For some, that would be a slight, for me, that is a compliment. Regardless of our aspirational foreign policy morality, we live in a flawed world, which demands a practical, operational morality. Your piece addresses these complex questions quite well. Thanks.
I absolutely agree. We've spent the last few decades staining ourselves by association with the Saudis and others, no reason to close ourselves to new and better alliances just because they don't fit our moral standards either.
I like this article, but I think you've got but things majorly wrong with Iran. The Iranian regime is a fanatical theocracy, which devotes its meagre resources to funding terrorists around the Middle East. To abandon traditional US allies and empower Iran (by lifting sanctions) would hugely destabilise the region, not just threatening oil producers but leading to a the nightmare of a nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And if both Iran and Saudi Arabia become nuclear powers, who knows which other regional actors will follow.
The analogy used is faulty. US allied with Stalin after Hitler broke the Nazi-Soviet alliance. US allied with China about a decade after the Sino-Soviet split and after they and the USSR came to blows. By contrast, with the possible exception of India, none of the regimes here are willing to outright switch sides. It would be more akin to normalizing with Cuba _during_ the Cold War, when they were still allied with the USSR - a domestic and foreign policy disaster. Lets leave India aside and talk about the clear cases.
Foreign policy wise, these regimes don't _want_ American policy to work. Aside from ideological convictions, you're asking them to abandon a stable alliance for a country (US) that they have good reason to believe will stab them in the back the moment it gets stronger.
We see a live demonstration of this in the new Iran talks: Russia is making trouble with new demands. It would be easy to cut off Russia, their only importance is for Uranium storage; The original JCPOA deal already used a different mechanism for dealing with excess Uranium. However, Iran is unwilling to abandon their Russian ally, ergo deadlock. Meanwhile, you will get blowback from all the US's previous allies, also for perfectly understandable reasons. The Saudis can definitely pump less since they also profit from higher prices. Israel can easily decide to cooperate more with China. Same could apply to Latin America: Many LATAM countries refused to condemn Russia for their invasion of Ukraine.
Domestically, this idea is also a disaster. There are too many Hispanic victims of Chavez/Maduro. The original outreach to Cuba already played a role in losing Florida. Another public outreach and the Dems will be underwater with Hispanics. By the same token Iran will never abandon their call to eliminate Israel, and this is distinctly unpopular.
Lastly, this is horrible precedent. There's no doubt Putin is looking at this, and wondering whether a decade from now people will call to normalize with Russia to counter China when they make a move - while Russia is still holding Ukraine.
The only viable way to improve relations with Cuba/Venezuela/Iran is for them to commit to the side of the US against their former allies, while toning down policies that the US public opposes. There's no way ideological regimes can do that, and given the blowback this may not be worth it for the US. India might be possible since Modi is not defined by hostility to US and can afford some compromise, while few US voters care about India.
Well, this is an interesting piece. America finally admits it needs help. The years of being the global sheriff, and doing rather badly at it, thankfully seem to be over.
First off, anyone under the delusion that China and Russia are better alternatives to America probably can no longer be helped. However, it is actually a good thing that China is now the first legitimate rival America has had in fifty years: post-1970 Soviet Union doesn't count.
The simple truth is everyone behaves better and acts smarter when there's competition. This is true of leaders, lovers, companies, economies, and as we can see, countries. Rivalry spurs technological innovation and reinstates a healthy balance between parochial nationalism and arrogant condescension on the global stage.
So, this might actually be the start of a very flourishing period again for America. Although several other things have to go right first.
On to India, I am very skeptical of any true alliance with the USA. India has a long, successful history of sitting on the fence. It won't change that now. But it certainly won't be joining up with China and Russia in any kind of alliance either.
Finally, there should be more concern over the fate of Saudi Arabia. If renewables fully or significantly replace fossil fuels as the engine of the global economy, we are looking at a country in which almost non-existent education, severe religious conservatism, significant numbers of young people, and a corrupt, unaccountable ruling class could all combine into a very explosive mix.
International law is simply the actions of power followed up with 'moral' justifications. And there's not too much wrong with that as long as that power is accountable. But we should not pretend like this isn't the case. That would simply be another immoral act.
[Haven't read yet, just wanted to add this cuz I like the headline...]
One of my favorite personal takes about Star Trek's United Federation of Planets is that its diplomatic corps serves as a "fourth branch of government". Because the Federation is essentially a President + Senate, IE with 1 rep per planet, the diplomats are basically their primary means of greasing the wheels of democracy. They mediate its crisis management on the ground in a way that interstellar communications simply can't substitute for.
It just makes me wonder what kind of role your new notion of diplomacy is going to play in the "optimal timeline" where Earth actually does manage to overcome the challenge of autocracy and unite in a one-world government.
Appreciate the opening disclaimer. Wish we saw more of that. Anyway, I like the idea of going neutral in the middle east. Agree that Saudi Arabia would be mad. I don't understand the history of their relationship to Yemen, and would be curious as to why we are involved
Noah you are so close! Did you notice how your column about Russia spent 2/3rds of its time on China and India? I’d like to offer that’s because China and India are important and Russia really isn’t. I try to think about it this way, is there a way Russia could dominate Europe? Given that the EU has 3-4x times the number of people and Germany alone has 3-4x the GDP, I just don’t see how that happens. So why is the US paying to “protect” EU countries. When the EU was a 9 year old pip squeak, it made sense to protect him from the bully on the block. But it’s all grown up now. The EU is a 6 foot 3 man and the bully is a 5 foot 13 year old. What are we doing?
2nd question is there a way China dominates Asia? Clearly I think the answer is yes. It might not be likely but it is possible, so we should concentrate there. In this case the bully, China, is a grown man with knives and guns. We need to organize the block and boot him out. To torture my metaphor, the EU lives two towns over and doesn’t really care about the bully in India’s neighborhood. In fact, they’ll do deals with him (see German/Chinese trade. Germany actually has a trade surplus with China). So Europe isn’t a steadfast ally against China. They’ll bail because they aren’t threatened by the Chinese bully. As I see it we are spending our time and money protecting someone who doesn’t need protecting and who won’t help us with the real threat. Your piece works if you just drop the league of democracies stuff. The EU ain’t going to be there to help and we should get out while there is still time to concentrate on China.
Modi is India’s Prime Minister, not President.
India does have a President who is elected by the central and state legislatures, but is mostly a ceremonial figure, with no real power.
Comparing Modi to Xi is emblematic of the ignorance and condescension that is embedded into how even people who might claim to be “India hands” view India.
Xi is a dictator. Modi, on the other hand, has won election after election since 2002, but has worked his ass off to win those votes. He has then governed as both a moderniser and a welfare-statist focused on getting Govt benefits directly into the hands of the poor. And it is they who are his most ardent supporters, even more than urban Indians, who where his party(the BJP)’s base originally.
5 Indian states with a collective population a little less than that of the US just concluded in India, with the results out yesterday. Modi’s party was the incumbent in 4 of them and won all 4 handily; they got clobbered in the 5th (Punjab), but have always been a marginal player there. One of these states (Uttar Pradesh) has 220M people, and has never re-elected a state government since 1985. And in fact, most Indian states rarely re-elect their state Governments, which is why this lack of anti-incumbency is so astonishing, even to veteran observers of Indian elections. And no one doubts that it was Modi that was the deciding factor in all these states.
For now, Modi IS India.
This reinforces my belief that I, and every other patriotic Indian, need to work to strengthen the Modi government and the Hindi base as much as possible. Otherwise India would end up becoming a satellite state, susceptible to be bullied by American liberals -- who will gain much more prominence in coming years. We must do everything we can to empower and strengthen the Indian right further to negate the American influence as much as possible.
Second, a miscalculation in this post is that current Indian government is "forced" to choose sides because of dependence on Russian military equipments. That assertion ignores the fact that Modi was sanctioned and had his US visa denied before becoming the prime minister. He is totally aware of the danger American liberals pose to everything from India's national security interest to family values. India would have abstained, irrespective of its dependence on Russia.
I wish India could make it clear that time-tested friendship with Russia is not up for sale. But the current diplomatic and geopolitocal realities doesn't allow for that. Nevertheless, the Indian political establishment need to be more careful of the United States and stay wary of it going forward.
This paragraph (and the post in general) suffers from low quality historiography:
"Nowhere did shifting alliances make more of a difference than in the middle of World War 2. In late 1940, Nazi Germany had conquered France and was allied with Japan, while the USSR had helped Hitler devour Poland. The U.S. was neutral, still hobbled by isolationism. It looked as if totalitarian powers would dominate the globe. But a year later, when Hitler turned on Stalin and Stalin allied with the U.S., the tables were entirely turned — the Allies now had a coalition that could beat the fascist powers."
It was a surprise to few that Hitler turned on Stalin in tearing up Molotov-Ribbentrop--an alliance of convenience. What was surprising was the million man Red Army getting bogged down in tiny Finland in late 1939. Additionally, (I learned this from an Adam Tooze interview) no one was more surprised by the rapid Nazi take over of France, than the Nazis themselves. The blitz is now seen as a deliberate and brilliant success, but even its commanders had no expectation it would go so well. These events boosted Hitler's confidence that the time was ripe to go after Russian oilfields, which he was bound to do anyway.
The contingency of these events was an important cause of the "shifting alliances" that Noah chalks up to savvy decision making. My point is you can put together the biggest and best alliance in history, but nobody knows how things will play out--look at the Brooklyn Nets with KD, etc. If you are trying to recreate the magic, you better do your research and say your prayers.
Honestly, I don't see the upside in NOT pivoting to Iran. The Saudis and Emiratis are already in Putin's corner. Iran, despite its overtly autocratic regime, has an oddly strong tradition of democratic competition among its complex and admittedly illiberal institutions. Iranians are also highly educated and have a tradition of liberal-mindedness, again despite their regime. They're not as "open for business" as the Saudis are, but they're probably the lesser of the two evils at this point.
Stick with economics
I'm obviously biased (half Cuban, half Venezuelan) and I bring no solution, but there's no "good faith" to be had with the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela.
"by convincing the Cuban people that their economic woes are America's fault, it probably solidifies the regime's control."
You assume the Cuban people are convinced of this because that's what the left says. The Cuban people are not convinced of this.
"Opening up to Cuban people and goods won't make them ditch communism in a day"
You assume Cuban people embrace communism, as if they're thinking, "this would be great if we could just get rid of that pesky embargo!". Not so.
"Maduro has obviously been making overtures in this direction"
No shit. If you think this will benefit the common Venezuelan you're mistaken.
We may have to choose between the lesser of two evils, but we cannot let them or us forget the policies that we find objectionable. Such alliances will expose the United States to charges of hypocrisy which is very useful if we are to correct our unrepresentative form of government and our extreme economic inequality.
A large part of this piece echos Jeanne Kirkpatrick's seminal Commentary article Dictatorships and Double Standards. For some, that would be a slight, for me, that is a compliment. Regardless of our aspirational foreign policy morality, we live in a flawed world, which demands a practical, operational morality. Your piece addresses these complex questions quite well. Thanks.
I absolutely agree. We've spent the last few decades staining ourselves by association with the Saudis and others, no reason to close ourselves to new and better alliances just because they don't fit our moral standards either.
What about African countries? I believe China is building alliances and dependencies across the continent.
I like this article, but I think you've got but things majorly wrong with Iran. The Iranian regime is a fanatical theocracy, which devotes its meagre resources to funding terrorists around the Middle East. To abandon traditional US allies and empower Iran (by lifting sanctions) would hugely destabilise the region, not just threatening oil producers but leading to a the nightmare of a nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And if both Iran and Saudi Arabia become nuclear powers, who knows which other regional actors will follow.
The analogy used is faulty. US allied with Stalin after Hitler broke the Nazi-Soviet alliance. US allied with China about a decade after the Sino-Soviet split and after they and the USSR came to blows. By contrast, with the possible exception of India, none of the regimes here are willing to outright switch sides. It would be more akin to normalizing with Cuba _during_ the Cold War, when they were still allied with the USSR - a domestic and foreign policy disaster. Lets leave India aside and talk about the clear cases.
Foreign policy wise, these regimes don't _want_ American policy to work. Aside from ideological convictions, you're asking them to abandon a stable alliance for a country (US) that they have good reason to believe will stab them in the back the moment it gets stronger.
We see a live demonstration of this in the new Iran talks: Russia is making trouble with new demands. It would be easy to cut off Russia, their only importance is for Uranium storage; The original JCPOA deal already used a different mechanism for dealing with excess Uranium. However, Iran is unwilling to abandon their Russian ally, ergo deadlock. Meanwhile, you will get blowback from all the US's previous allies, also for perfectly understandable reasons. The Saudis can definitely pump less since they also profit from higher prices. Israel can easily decide to cooperate more with China. Same could apply to Latin America: Many LATAM countries refused to condemn Russia for their invasion of Ukraine.
Domestically, this idea is also a disaster. There are too many Hispanic victims of Chavez/Maduro. The original outreach to Cuba already played a role in losing Florida. Another public outreach and the Dems will be underwater with Hispanics. By the same token Iran will never abandon their call to eliminate Israel, and this is distinctly unpopular.
Lastly, this is horrible precedent. There's no doubt Putin is looking at this, and wondering whether a decade from now people will call to normalize with Russia to counter China when they make a move - while Russia is still holding Ukraine.
The only viable way to improve relations with Cuba/Venezuela/Iran is for them to commit to the side of the US against their former allies, while toning down policies that the US public opposes. There's no way ideological regimes can do that, and given the blowback this may not be worth it for the US. India might be possible since Modi is not defined by hostility to US and can afford some compromise, while few US voters care about India.
Well, this is an interesting piece. America finally admits it needs help. The years of being the global sheriff, and doing rather badly at it, thankfully seem to be over.
First off, anyone under the delusion that China and Russia are better alternatives to America probably can no longer be helped. However, it is actually a good thing that China is now the first legitimate rival America has had in fifty years: post-1970 Soviet Union doesn't count.
The simple truth is everyone behaves better and acts smarter when there's competition. This is true of leaders, lovers, companies, economies, and as we can see, countries. Rivalry spurs technological innovation and reinstates a healthy balance between parochial nationalism and arrogant condescension on the global stage.
So, this might actually be the start of a very flourishing period again for America. Although several other things have to go right first.
On to India, I am very skeptical of any true alliance with the USA. India has a long, successful history of sitting on the fence. It won't change that now. But it certainly won't be joining up with China and Russia in any kind of alliance either.
Finally, there should be more concern over the fate of Saudi Arabia. If renewables fully or significantly replace fossil fuels as the engine of the global economy, we are looking at a country in which almost non-existent education, severe religious conservatism, significant numbers of young people, and a corrupt, unaccountable ruling class could all combine into a very explosive mix.
International law is simply the actions of power followed up with 'moral' justifications. And there's not too much wrong with that as long as that power is accountable. But we should not pretend like this isn't the case. That would simply be another immoral act.
[Haven't read yet, just wanted to add this cuz I like the headline...]
One of my favorite personal takes about Star Trek's United Federation of Planets is that its diplomatic corps serves as a "fourth branch of government". Because the Federation is essentially a President + Senate, IE with 1 rep per planet, the diplomats are basically their primary means of greasing the wheels of democracy. They mediate its crisis management on the ground in a way that interstellar communications simply can't substitute for.
It just makes me wonder what kind of role your new notion of diplomacy is going to play in the "optimal timeline" where Earth actually does manage to overcome the challenge of autocracy and unite in a one-world government.
Appreciate the opening disclaimer. Wish we saw more of that. Anyway, I like the idea of going neutral in the middle east. Agree that Saudi Arabia would be mad. I don't understand the history of their relationship to Yemen, and would be curious as to why we are involved
Noah you are so close! Did you notice how your column about Russia spent 2/3rds of its time on China and India? I’d like to offer that’s because China and India are important and Russia really isn’t. I try to think about it this way, is there a way Russia could dominate Europe? Given that the EU has 3-4x times the number of people and Germany alone has 3-4x the GDP, I just don’t see how that happens. So why is the US paying to “protect” EU countries. When the EU was a 9 year old pip squeak, it made sense to protect him from the bully on the block. But it’s all grown up now. The EU is a 6 foot 3 man and the bully is a 5 foot 13 year old. What are we doing?
2nd question is there a way China dominates Asia? Clearly I think the answer is yes. It might not be likely but it is possible, so we should concentrate there. In this case the bully, China, is a grown man with knives and guns. We need to organize the block and boot him out. To torture my metaphor, the EU lives two towns over and doesn’t really care about the bully in India’s neighborhood. In fact, they’ll do deals with him (see German/Chinese trade. Germany actually has a trade surplus with China). So Europe isn’t a steadfast ally against China. They’ll bail because they aren’t threatened by the Chinese bully. As I see it we are spending our time and money protecting someone who doesn’t need protecting and who won’t help us with the real threat. Your piece works if you just drop the league of democracies stuff. The EU ain’t going to be there to help and we should get out while there is still time to concentrate on China.