Search Toggle display of website navigation Shadow Government: America is losing out badly on the bigger game. May 12,5:
February 4,5: Brookings Institution Press, In many aspects, India and Pakistan are not exceptional. Like so many other former European colonies, they struggle to reconcile modern borders with ancient identities. Elites govern at the expense of ordinary citizens. Foreign countries feature prominently in their economic and political activities, especially as India and Pakistan seek to compete at a global level.
In this light, India and Pakistan seem no different than the many postcolonial states scattered throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. What makes India and Pakistan special, however, is how much they hate each other.
Despite numerous fits and starts at rapprochement, the countries have reconciled little in the nearly seven decades since independence from the British.
Instead, they have moved in the opposite direction, strategically crafting national identities and policies along a singular concept: In Shooting for a Century: The British crown assumed direct control in over the subcontinent, and did more damage in ", when it partitioned India and decamped.
At partition, "Indian princes were advised by the British to choose either India or Pakistan…and the rush to force them to join one or the other ignited several significant conflicts.
Since independence, however, India and Pakistan have sustained and deepened the rivalry to be just as culpable as the British. Today the two countries have three wars between them, a game of proxies inside Afghanistan, and a nuclear arms race, as well as a smattering of disputes over territory, water, and trade.
Cohen thoroughly explains these problems and ironies, offering several explanations: But the real strength of Shooting for a Century is its ability to detail the often-enigmatic psychology of the conflict in both Indian and Pakistani minds.
By taking this approach, he invokes a historical sense of togetherness that is often neglected in the discussions of the conflict. Indian political psychologist Ashis Nandy has eloquently described this paradox: Yet the book offers no new ideas.
Ironically, Cohen spends most of the book detailing the intractability of the conflict, claiming chances are high it will never be resolved, only to include a chapter on "Prospects. It is at this point that Shooting for a Century becomes repetitive, and the continued onslaught of reasons why India and Pakistan hate each other begin to fatigue the reader.
Cohen does acknowledge that a "qualified optimism is emerging on both sides and enthusiasm among Pakistanisespecially after the decision in to accept Indian trade terms.This aspect of U.S.
foreign policy toward the region has inspired skepticism among East Asian countries about whether the United States has a clear vision for the Asia-Pacific. More on: Security. American foreign policy in Southeast Asia from to the present can be Keywords: United States, Southeast Asia, foreign policy, “benign neglect,” policy toward Southeast Asia was usually limited to reactions to speciﬁc and often unanticipated events.
Washington’s policy was aptly characterized by. The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from to , but then President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved toward strong support of the Allies in their wars against Germany and Japan.
The United States has a long-standing interest in the political events of South Asia. This research focuses specifically on U.S.
foreign policy toward the Islamic nations of this region, Pakistan and Afghanistan (Referred to as Islamic South Asia). A country’s brand is a valued commodity, especially when that nation is the world’s largest economic and strategic power.
And, in , America’s image remains strong in much of the world. The Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year (FY) provides an overview of the Department’s financial and performance data to help Congress, the President, and the public assess our stewardship over the resources entrusted to us.