Search

The shift in U.S.-Indian relations around the turn of the twenty-first century provides an ideal opportunity to test competing explanations of global power relations. Through examination of primary and secondary source materials, this paper investigates the timing of and justifications for the rapid changes in the relationship between the United States and India. This evidence is used to test the utility of explanations based on political regime type, extent of economic liberalization, global and local balance of power considerations, and nuclear proliferation concerns in light of changes in U.S.-Indian relations. Although the United States currently has friendly relations with China, this paper finds that the U.S. government is engaging India as a balancer against Chinese power. This suggests that the United States' role as a regional hegemon encourages it to promote a balance of power in Asia, even if the immediate threat of China is arguably minimal, implying that U.S. foreign policy decision-makers feel compelled to intervene in order to remain the sole regional hegemon. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how well the concept of "strategic culture" explains the tendency for India's foreign policy to lag behind its rapidly expanding economic interests. Realist analyses of Indian foreign policy and security strategy tend to find that the country is not living up to its potential. This leads to a consideration of strategic culture as an explanatory variable for India's suboptimal performance. The strategic culture aspects of political military culture (civil-military relations) and military culture (martial traditions of the armed forces) tend to point towards a strategic culture that has been shaped by civilian politicians and bureaucrats. The dominance of civilians and general exclusion of the military from decision-making has hindered India from becoming a power that regularly uses the military as an instrument of policy. The factor of domestic strategic culture (including attitudes towards the use of violence and the domestic political order) explains the short-term focus of Indian leaders and the lack of strategic vision. Structural factors, such as the entrenched foreign affairs and defense bureaucracy, produce a narrow and procedural focus and prevent the development of strategic analyses and planning. In conclusion, the strategic culture concept appears to play a significant role in explaining India's suboptimal foreign policy and security strategy. On the basis of those findings, one must expect the India-US relationship to move forward slowly on a number of issues and on future interactions. The possibility of an eventual alliance between the two powers is unlikely given India's strategic culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increasing economic and strategic clout of China and the vulnerability of the American power in the Gulf, the US policy makers are searching for a new strategy in the Asia Pacific region. Their ultimate purpose is to neutralize the preeminence of China.Pentagon is trying to forge a new alliance of three well-established democracies-US,India and Japan. On April 16,2007 all the three nations began a joint military drill in the Pacific. More or less at the same time, the first India-US Defence Joint Working Group met in New Delhi.These two develpments have certainly raised the temperature in Beizing.Recently China has raised its defence budget by 17.8 percent and successfully tested its antisatellite ballistic missile.No doubt the Pacific military exercise by US, India and Japan has been taken as an alarming signal by China.The proposed paper will try to explore the evolving strategy of the US in the Asia Pacific region.One has to explore as to what extent such a three nation joint exercise is addressing the unprecedented rise of China in the politico-economic and strategic affaires of the region. We will also examine as to how far the existing American policy of strategic engagement with China is being reexamined. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how domestic politics influenced the July 2005 agreement between India and the United States for civilian nuclear technology transfers to India. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the responses of the governments of India and Pakistan to the war in Iraq. Criticism of the Indian government against the war; Counter-hegemonic strategies of India; Effect on the relations of the countries with the U.S.

Whereas European foreign policy used to be defined through the alliance with the United States, it is now clear that this one-sided orientation is no longer sufficient. This is especially the case for global environmental governance, where Europe stands in most negotiations, almost by default, against the United States. The core examples are the almost universally recognised biodiversity convention of 1992, its Cartagena protocol on safety in the trade of genetically modified organisms, the Basel agreement on the transboundary shipment of hazardous waste and their disposal, and, most crucially, the Kyoto protocol to the UN framework convention on climate change. All these agreements have been rejected by the United States of America. In this situation, we argue that if Europe wants to make progress in environmental and other issue areas, it needs new and stable alliances, in addition to the old transatlantic linkage. We will direct attention towards possible partners in Asia and primarily address the great powers of Asia: Japan, China and, in particular, the world’s largest democracy, India. We argue for a twofold strategy. Internally, Europe must unite more strongly. The old Kissinger question still has to be answered: which phone number does the US president?or the prime minister of India?have to call if he or she wants to get Europe’s opinion? The European Union must improve the coherence of its foreign policy, primarily through becoming further communitised. The office of a EU president could take joint responsibility for foreign and security policy in the medium term. Externally, Europe needs to reform its foreign policy and rethink well-trodden paths. This applies in particular to redefining the traditional North-South antagonism in international negotiations, which hardly corresponds any longer to the reality of the international system in many policy areas. New international partnerships between the European Union and the large Southern democracies could redress the traditional confrontation between the group of Western industrialised countries and the ‘Group of 77’, possibly pointing out solutions if global governance projects should threaten to fail because of unilateral rejection by the USA. The political drifting apart of the ‘First World’, the dissolution of the ‘Second World’ and the political, economic and social differentiation of the ‘Third World’ thus offer scope for the recharting of world politics. The development of a multilateral global governance structure requires a strong global alliance of democratic players: many recent environmental treaties?but also the international criminal court, the anti-landmine treaty and other examples?show that Europe and the Bush administration often no longer act together but rather against each other. The European Union must therefore look for other partners?to complement rather than replace the United States of America. We argue that increased dialogue and more intensive political co-operation on the part of Europe with the world’s biggest democracy, India, could be one element of such a reorientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study will determine the external and internal influences on the Eisenhower adminstration in its making of U.S. policy toward Tibet. Using the Kegley-Wittkopf model, research will focus on foreign influence from external sources such as China, India, Taiwan and the Tibetans themselves. Internally, the study will determine which governmental, societal, role and individual sources influenced Eisenhower in determining policy outcomes. It is hoped that the study will further illuminate U.S. foreign policy deliberations and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S.-India economic relations evolved substantially between the 1989 Super 301 trade dispute and the 2002 India-Pakistan crisis over Kashmir. Traditional models of economic diplomacy focusing on the leading role of governments and their relevant ministries, in which business had a subordinate lobbying role in the decisionmaking process, could be used to describe the low-level U.S.-India economic and security relationship that prevailed in the 1980s. However, the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round, the technology boom of the 1990s and other structural factors have intensified the economic relationship between the two countries significantly. The attacks on New York, Washington and New Delhi in 2001 culminated a process of convergence of the two countries’ security interests. A complex network of diplomatic interactions between governments, U.S. and Indian global firms, and the U.S.-Indian business and cultural diaspora contributed to convincing the Indian Government to defuse tension with Pakistan in summer 2002. Understanding this process requires an updated model of economic diplomacy that incorporates the role of non-state actors, multiple channels of communication and integration of domestic and international politics. Neo-Gramscian notions of hegemonic power structures integrating political leadership, transnational capital and civil society contribute to explaining the exercise of power in these newer, complex business-government diplomatic networks [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on to develop an understanding of the partnership developed and the implications of the developing security relationship. India's relationship with the U.S. is best characterized as soft alignment. Relations between India and the U.S. were relatively poor on many levels during the cold war.

Why have the United States and India only recently come to regard each other as close allies when strong common interests between them were apparent for decades? We argue that a shift in policy may not reflect a change in preferences or interests per se as it does a changed understanding of how the world works which removes constraints on decision makers' options. When India became independent from Britain in 1947 close relations with the US seemed a logical course to follow for at least two reasons. First it was logical to expect the US to sympathize with India's struggle for independence given the two peoples' similar experiences with British colonial rule. Second, India like the US, embraced democratic governance and a pluralist political system. Despite these commonalities, US-Indian relations were a casualty of policymakers in both countries following an oversimplified model of the world. The US containment strategy was based on a very narrow Realist interpretaion of how the world was structured. The dominant US mental model was bipolarity which interpreted the world and international power structures in terms of their impact on American security imperatives based on Realism. India's mental model of non-alignment was based on dependencia and anti-colonialism. The convergence of the two countries' policy orientations toward cooperation reflects a shift from realism and balance-of-power vs. Dependencia to Neoliberalism. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new relationship between the U.S. and India - the most powerful liberal democracy and the most populous - achieved in the last decade is an important event for geostrategic affairs and American foreign policy, and even for the theory of international relations, since it points to fundamental issues about liberal democracy and the foreign policy characteristic of it in an age of democratic expansion. This new partnership required policy makers in both countries to overcome a half-century of poor relations, and also to transcend the limits of the two dominant theories, realism and liberal internationalism. The now-overlooked philosophy of liberal moderation in international affairs, endorsed by Tocqueville and initially developed by Montesquieu, better explains this accord and its larger aim of liberal-democratic partnership. Important insights for the principles of American foreign policy arise through considering the limitations of the current schools or camps that dominate the theory and policy-making communities in international affairs, and also provide guidance about democracy promotion as American policy. The American principle of moderation in religion, praised by Tocqueville, may also be of benefit to India as it struggles with religious conflict and division. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a general expectation that states will comply with the provisions set forthin treaties that they ratify. However, we know that a compliance gap exists and thatcountries sometimes do not fully incorporate or implement international treaties towhich they formally are party. We look inside the state to suggest a domestic politicsexplanation for these outcomes. Using a formal model, we find equilibria in whichstates will sign and ratify treaties but then either not incorporate them into domesticlegal codes or else implement them in a sub-standard fashion. The model suggests threebehaviors that can limit treaty implementation: buck-passing, hand-showing and thefear of compliance failure. We illustrate these behaviors with reference to case studiesinvolving the United States, India and Russia. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today everyone knows that in the coming century India, like the Medici, has the intention and potential to enhance its wealth, prestige, and power.In this context, observers of world politics are wondering: How will India pursue those intentions? What will it do to realize its potential and assure its security? In the last year and half since the proposed Indo-US nuclear deal was announced, numerous experts have tried to induce answers to these questions from what is still a small universe of cases including India's attitude toward Iranian nuclear policy and energy (particularly pipeline) policy, toward US missile defense initiatives, toward the enlargement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, toward Chinese activity in South Asia (particularly vis-à-vis Pakistan and Nepal). But, above all, observers have focused on a proposed deal between the US and India on nuclear cooperation.The dimensions and general features of the arena in which India will act are clear. It is a triangular space with China, India, and the US at the corners. The view that a rising India will be the fulcrum of balance in Asia is now increasingly common. A 2004 editorial in the Chinese People's Daily is a good example. "Steadily warming India-US relations have resulted in widespread attention to the geopolitics of Asia. It is difficult to predict whether or not India will become a strategic ally of the US or of China, but the sudden attractiveness of India will sooner or later alter the regional balance of power between the three countries" (Joseph, 2004). The 2005 Indo-US deal was interpreted by many observers to be an obvious American effort to draw India onto the US bandwagon.In the real world, of course, actors are motivated and constrained by power, wealth, and prestige. Syncretic approaches such as the currently fashionable "analytic eclecticism" draw selectively on all three international relations traditions in rendering "explanatory sketches" of important international security questions such as the durability of US-South Korean alliance, the possible revisionist aspiration of a rising China, or whether it is international institutions rather than balance of power dynamics that are shaping strategy in South East Asia. Explaining the future direction of Indian strategy within the China-India-US triangle is as analytically demanding a problem as one is likely to find in contemporary international relations.The conclusion I draw from what follows is that India is very unlikely to balance or to get on the bandwagon. Equipoise is the policy dictated by India's geography, power capabilities, identity, and potential to be a robust actor in global and regional politics. Like the old and now discredited Indian grand strategy of nonalignment, equipoise shuns formal alliances. The term draws on the realist balance of power idiom to identify an alternative stance - neither balancing nor bandwagoning - that is in dynamic equilibrium. That equilibrium is struck between domestic and international dynamics; balancing contradictory domestic cultural and political forces (such as nationalism/cosmopolitanism, anti-Americanism/pro-Americanism, self-sufficiency/trade-optimism) and international appeals and threats (such as American democratic/technological/commercial affinity, American unilateral neo-Imperialism, Chinese commercial appeal, and Chinese threatening intrusion/pressure). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a process-tracing constructivist theory to reconstruct the interaction of the U.S., India and Pakistan between the Pakistani military coup of October 12 1999 and the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001. It also discusses how concurrent autobiographical narrations of interactions by international subjects generate actions and reproduce themselves collectively. It traces the processes of reproduction of structures in international society by specifying the impact of narratives upon actions and actions upon narratives.

Realists argue that order in international relations only has two possibilities: a) anarchy, where states are the ultimate sovereign power and no supra-state structure can check their behavior, or 2) hierarchy, where a single state dominates the system (hegemony or empire). This paper argues that the realist position neglects the foreign policies of four important cases â€" the early United States (circa 1750-1815), post World War II Japan, post World War II India, and the European Union â€" all of whom have attempted to peacefully transform the international system by proposing orders that overcome the anarchy-hierarchy divide. The first section of the paper discusses realist conceptions of anarchy and hierarchy as well as alternate conceptions of order in the IR literature such as international society, world confederation, and world state. The second section discusses the ordering arrangements proposed by the above four cases and explains why these orders were proposed. The final section contrasts the approaches to world order discussed in the first two sections in an attempt to create a more complete typology of ordering arrangements. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can institutions survive changing power alignments? Are they â€" as some have suggested â€" mere representations of participants’ capabilities at a point in time, and unable to affect state behavior thereafter? On the contrary, this paper argues that institutions are often used to entrench existing power relationships. I suggest that private domestic actors, in an effort to retain the advantages that institutions afford them, play an important role in their preservation. Theories of power transition abound in international relations research, but seldom arise in international political economy and international law. If anything, changing power dynamics have been used to explain the weakness of international institutions, which are viewed as “epiphenomenal” and subject to change in light of their participants’ altered capabilities. This project asks why some negotiators defer to existing law in some situations and not others. I hypothesize that legal deference is a means to retain power, and will examine the role of national negotiators and domestic interest groups in bringing about that result. Drawing on extensive archival and interview research, this paper compares US, Indian, and EU approaches to international negotiation. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper builds on existing norms literature in order to explain the process of international human rights norms diffusion into domestic settings using the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in the United States, South Africa and India. The CRC is the most widely ratified United Nations Convention with 192 countries party to the treaty. This widespread ratification suggests that a set of universal children’s rights norms may exist. The majority of the International Relations literature that addresses norm diffusion processes links the ratification of a human rights treaty by a state to the automatic adoption of the norms codified within the treaty into domestic law. Yet the process by which this happens -- and the extent to which it happens at all-- remains largely unexplored in the literature. This paper questions the idea that children’s rights are universally celebrated norms and that ratification of the CRC translates into full enforcement of those rights within a country. The paper's research suggests that the number of treaties ratified by a state is a weak indication of the existence of a universal human rights norm. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post-Soviet Central Asian states have increased in visibility recently, in particular regarding the evolving relationship of the external great powers - the United States, Russia, China, and to a lesser extent India. Varying forms and degrees of multilateral security regimes are under experimentation, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The United States, meanwhile, has chosen to maintain a bilateral approach to its relations in the region. In this paper, I explore the current status of security relations in the Central Asian region, seeking to determine those conditions and patterns of behavior consistent with the construction of a security community, and those consistent with an emerging security dilemma, adopting in particular the notion of "cooperative security dilemmas" as put forth by Holger Moelder in his study of the Baltic States. The paper also considers potential costs and benefits of the United States taking a more multilateral approach in the region, particularly in inter-institutional relations between NATO and the SCO. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the possessor of the "Islamic Bomb" and a front line in the war on terror, Pakistan presents special challenges for U.S. policy. This paper seeks to understand the development of Pakistan's nuclear program, the current status, and likely direction in the future. The paper will also examine the interaction among nuclear armed Pakistan, India, China, and the United States. The paper will examine Pakistani force structure as well as command and control. Finally, the paper will note implications for U.S. policy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that increasingly international conflict is likely to be a manifestation in countries that have not formulated a national identity and are hence "pariahs" in the global community. Such states, whose statehood depends precariously on dictatorship and/or external support, have not managed to carve a national idea and are not viable political entities with no adhesive to hold them together. The basis for the paper is the idea that all national identitites are manufactured and replenished, and states that are unable to do this successfully lose and collapse (such as Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Somalia etc.), while other states like the US, UK, France etc. successfully fashion and sell a national identity. The study will examine a successful nation-state - the United States; a moderately successful one - India, and a failed state - Iraq, and investigate the mechanisms by which each entity tried to evolve a national identity, and why the rate of success differed. In doing so, factors such as religion (Hindu-Muslim, Shia-Sunni, different Christian sects), external agents, and the role and nature of government will be examined. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States emerged as a 'factor' in India-Iran relations with Bush Administration's efforts to change the global nuclear order to accommodate India's interests. In turn, India supported the US-led drive to impose sanctions on Tehran. This led to chilling of India's once warm relations with Iran. Since then, however, India has begun to chart a course more independent of Washington by showing renewed interest in Iran's energy sector and by opposing unilateral sanctions on that country. Two factors have contributed to this shift. First, the Obama administration has ignored India in a bid to woo Pakistan, seen as crucial to brokering a political settlement in Afghanistan. Secondly, the US has also failed to persuade Pakistan to take Indian concerns about terrorism emanating from its territory, more seriously. Iran and Iran's interests converge on the issue of stability in Afghanistan, which involves facilitating trade and preventing pro-Pakistan Taliban factions from becoming a part of Kabul's power structure. This also entails reining in transnational terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil, which has long affected both the countries. This paper argues that areas of convergence between Indian and Iranian interests far outweigh differences and therefore the two countries will not abandon their mutually beneficial relationship. Issues - such as energy, terrorism, and Afghanistan - crucial to both will continuously draw them together in the foreseeable future. However, the dilemma posed by continuous pulls and pressures of ties with United States will certainly overstretch India's capacity to balance its relations with Washington and Tehran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US-India nuclear agreement is widely seen as a major shift in US policy, not only with respect to relations with India, but in terms of nuclear non-proliferation and global strategic alliances. India, self-proclaimed leader of the ‘non-aligned’ but perceived to be on the Soviet side during much of the Cold War years, also underwent a double policy volte-face in the last decade of the twentieth century. Faced with a severe international financial crisis it abandoned “socialist” economic policies and started on the road of economic reform; and in the ‘unipolar’world following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it cultivated relations with the sole superpower despite setbacks such as the immediate aftermath of its nuclear tests in 1998.The profound policy shift between US and India posed questions about the placement of Europe in this strategic re-alignment. Despite the march of the European project, “Europe” as a conceptual unit was largely missing from public discourse in India. As the US and India moved towards a new strategic embrace, it remained to be seen to what extent Europe in this context would be viewed and view itself as part of the transatlantic community, and to what extent it might develop a distinct strategic identity in a future multi-polar world.This paper will explore the representation of the shifting strategic relations between the US and India, and its implications for Europe’s strategic self-perception, in selected newspapers in the US, India and Europe. It will do so by examining the coverage of the US-India nuclear agreement, focusing on three ‘moments’ in this developing ‘story’: the initial understanding during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Washington in July 2005, the passage of the agreement through the US Congress, and the failure of US-India talks on finalizing the deal in India in May 2007. The representative newspapers are the Washington Post in the US, The Hindu and Indian Express in India, Le Monde in France and Die Zeit in Germany. All are newspapers noted for discussions and critiques of national policy and international security issues. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most significant developments in the nonproliferation regime in recent years has been the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement, which was first announced in July 2005. It seeks to allow nuclear cooperation between India and the U.S. New Delhi is not a member of the Nonproliferation Treaty, and because it does not maintain full-scope safeguards on its nuclear installations, full nuclear cooperation has been denied to it ever since it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974. Under the agreement, U.S. companies will be allowed to supply India with nuclear technology; in return, India will submit 14 of its 22 existing reactors under safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), putting them on a 'civilian' list. The remaining eight reactors will be put under a 'military' list for use in India's strategic nuclear program. While this is the basic structure of the agreement, several steps have to have be taken before its implementation. They include amending the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and concluding a safeguards framework with the IAEA. But the first, and arguably most crucial step, has been concluding a bilateral nuclear agreement between India and the U.S., under Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act. It specifies the benefits that India will receive as well as the concessions it will have to make with regard to its nuclear program. The '123' agreement also requires approval from the U.S. Congress.However, despite some expectations that the bilateral agreement would be concluded speedily, several hurdles cropped up between India and the U.S., reflecting long-standing differences between the two sides on the future of nuclear energy and fissile material production. These differences include - whether India would legalize its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests; whether India would be allowed to reprocess spent fuel; and whether India would be granted assurances of permanent supply of fuel for nuclear reactors. This paper examines the '123' agreement negotiations between New Delhi and Washington, in context of their broader bilateral relations as well as their positions on nuclear proliferation-related issues. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the US, thousands of individuals were swept up by the long arm of the law. Two of these were Muslim men from the city of Hyderabad in South India?Mohammed Azmath and Syed Shah-who were accused by American authorities of being linked to the 9/11 terrorists. Azmath and Shah were finally released and deported in 2003 after having served time for credit card fraud. During this time, Indian authorities also tried to deport Azmath?s wife, who was revealed to be a Pakistani citizen who had overstayed her visa in India. This story is a microcosm of the intersections of nationalism and globalization, overlaid with new concerns about terrorism and religious militancy. The contradictions between ethnicity and citizenship are played out both in the US and in India as both these multicultural states struggle to redefine themselves in the face of concerns about Islamic fundamentalism. Using the story of two individuals, this paper shows how immigration complicates the security calculations of states, focuses their fears, and demonstrates the limits and extent of their power in an age of globalization. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States and India have embarked on an ambitious plan to synergize their strengths across various sectors such as nuclear energy, aerospace, defense, and biotechnology. The U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement is thus a smallâ€"albeit cr ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, U.S.-India relationship has been mired in the cold-war politics. However, in recent years relations between the two countries have improved significantly, facilitated partly by India's agreement to work jointly on counter-terrorism operations after 9/11. Building on this, U.S. and India signed a landmark civilian nuclear agreement in July 2005. The civilian nuclear agreement gave India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and technology despite India's refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This agreement nearly brought down the coalition government in India and evoked strong reactions in some U.S. government officials who believed this agreement undermined the sanctity of the NPT. Most of the literature on relations between domestic policy and International relations suggest they are linked. However, Putnam (1988) argues that it is more important to determine "how" and "when" domestic polices influence international relations. In this context, this study will examine how government policy makers and presidential support for U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement influence U.S.-India relations through framing analysis. Government officials and other key political actors advance their position on important policy issues through media. Researchers will use textual analysis to examine the frames advanced by Indian and U.S. government officials in two national Indian newspapers, The Times of India and Nava Bharat Times, and two U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and Washington Post from January 2008 - July 2008, when the issue gained momentum in news media. Findings from this study will advance our understanding on how domestic policies influence international relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A dramatic transformation has occurred in India-US relations in the last decade. The interactions between the two democracies have expanded enormously and their impact is beginning to be felt beyond the bilateral realm. This evolving partnership holds the potential to shape not only the regional politics of South Asia but the international relations of the wider Asia-Pacific region. Some analysts project an even grander vision, claiming that this relationship may play a decisive role in determining the future global order. Taking these projections as a point of departure, and recognizing the impressive strides that have been made in Indo-US ties, this research focuses on the strategies, outputs and consequences of this foreign policy engagement. Its impact on Asian stability in the context of a rising China is also analysed. The research also studies the dynamics between the three major Asian powers, India, China and Japan, whose bilateral equations with the US are divergent and therefore of concern to the smaller powers of the region. How these major powers relate to one another and whether their mutual interactions can be autonomous are some of the questions that this research explores while charting the course of Indo-US relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sino-Indo-U.S. triangular relationships in the post-Cold War era since India's 1998 nuclear tests, with specific focus on Indian perceptions of its relations with the U.S. and China as well as its role in the strategic triangle. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]