Fickle American Relationships

Bruce Reidel just posted an update on why India abstained from the UNSC resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya. According to Reidel, Indians are "puzzled" by America's inconsistency. He quotes one Indian observer, "the U.S. is both promiscuous and flighty" with its relationships.

Certainly our intervention in Libya is arbitrary. Plenty of other dictators have taken a far larger toll on their populations while incurring little more than an expression of American dismay. Moreover, while Qaddafi was never anything close to our ally, we certainly had a working relationship with him only two months ago.

Yet the fact India feels troubled by our about-face in Libya reflects a significant communication failure. This is especially troubling considering both the Bush and Obama administration has worked hard to forge stronger ties with New Dehli. Nuclear deals, state dinners, and support for permanent status at the UNSC apparently have not adequately proven our commitment to our friendship with India.

We must make it clear to the world that we have two kinds of allies abroad: transactional and substantial. We work with transactional allies because it serves our immediate interests. Mubarak got his fiefdom, and we got counter-terrorism and peace with Israel. While abandoning these relationships can be painful, we will do so once our interests are no longer served.

India is not a transactional ally. Our friendship is far more substantial. Of course, we gain significant benefits from our relationship with India. But that relationship runs deeper than simple trade-offs because we share values of democracy, freedom and pluralism. Just as with our European allies, we will not abandon India for near-term gain. Rather, we have every intention to deepen and broaden our ties.

Moreover, as those ties strengthen, pro-Indian constituencies will coalesce in the U.S. just as pro-American constituencies will coalesce in India. Unlike diaspora groups of authoritarian regimes who lobby for their home goverment's overthrow (e.g. Egyptians and Iranians), diasporas from democratic regimes push for stronger economic, political, and cultural ties. It is these groups that will ensure a strong U.S.-Indian friendship in the future.

If we make the distinction between transactional and substantive allies clear abroad, it will naturally apply pressure to leaders to make essential political reforms. Foreign leaders will come to understand that the only way to secure their permenant friendship with the United States is to uphold the universal rights of their populations. If they can only offer us temporary stability, as Mubarak did, then they will always have to fear their transactional relationship may fall victim one day to American fickleness.

If our close friend India has not heard that message, then it is unlikely any other leader, democratic or authoritarian, has heard it either. And that is a problem.

Bear Mauls Militants

The war on terror has found a much needed ally: hungry bears. The BBC reports (h/t Jonah Goldberg) that a bear killed two militants and wounded a third in the embattled region of Indian-administered Kashmir. According to the article, "the militants had assault rifles but were taken by surprise - police found the remains of pudding they had made to eat when the bear attacked."

Really? Pudding?

Interestingly, this is not the first time Muslim militants have been killed by animals. Shortly after the Taliban conquered Kabul, a lion killed and ate a Taliban fighter. The militant had jumped into the cage to prove Allah would protect him, but had not considered the fact that the lion had not been fed in weeks because of the civil war. Apparently, God helps those who help themselves - in this case, the starving lion.

The militant's brother sought retribution the next day by throwing a grenade at the lion, leaving the animal blind and lame. The lion, named Marjan, survived several more turbulent years and died shortly after the American invasion. According to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the Afghan zookeepers showed the utmost dedication in trying to care for the lion, despite receiving intermittent pay and often lacking food themselves.

Perhaps the Taliban fighter should have read his Qur'an a little closer:

According to Surah 4:173: "whereupon unto those who attained to faith and did good deeds He will grant their just rewards, and give them yet more out of His bounty; whereas those who felt too proud and gloried in their arrogance He will chastise with grievous suffering: and they shall find none to protect them from God, and none to bring them succour."

And Surah 16:49: "For, before God prostrates itself all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth - every beast that moves, and the angels: [even] these do not bear themselves with false pride"

In other words, God has created everything in the universe, whether it be man, animal or angel. All of God's creations are equal in that sense that all prostrate in submission before God. Therefore, none have cause for pride or arrogance. By jumping into that lion cage, the Taliban fighter showed immense arrogance in believing he deserved God's protection against his own stupidity, and thus God granted him the "grievous suffering" he deserved.

At least, that's my non-expert non-Muslim interpretation.