In this article, I argue that after having experienced a distinctly cool relationship throughout most of the post-war period and for the 10 years following the end of the Cold War, India and North Atlantic Organization (NATO) are now gradually moving towards each other. Indeed, during the past decade, NATO's ‘out-of-area’ operations have taken it eastwards from the Mediterranean, while India's ‘extended neighbourhood’ framework has brought it westwards from the Indian subcontinent. This has created a geopolitical overlap between these two actors, most notably in Afghanistan but also elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. Common advocacy of liberal democracy and overt concerns over jihadist destabilization have brought these two actors together. In NATO's post-Cold War search for relevance and India's post-Soviet search for partners, they have found each other. Unstated potential concerns over China are also a feature in this strategic convergence. However, while NATO has adopted a flexible range of ‘Partnership’ frameworks, India's sensitivity on retaining ‘strategic autonomy’ will limit their cooperation to informal ad hoc arrangements.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fip.2011.35.pdf

NATO and India: The politics of strategic convergence

Canada and the United States share a close alliance, a long border, and democratic values, but the two countries do not always have the same views on regional and global security challenges. A group of Canadian and American scholars and practitioners met at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire on 23-24 September 2011 to compare views on four key issues: Is the global institutional order equipped to meet today's threats? Are regional security institutions improving North American security? How different are Canadian and American grand strategies? And by which mechanisms should security threats be assessed and addressed?The organizers of the conference were the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth; the McGiIl- Universite de Montreal Centre for International Peace and Security Studies; and the Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University with support from the chair in American politicai and economie studies at the Universite de Montreal; the Social Science and Humanities Council of Canada; Fonds quebecois de recherche sur la societe et la culture; and the embassy of Canada in the United States.The papers presented led to a lively and spirited exchange of views on alliance burden- sharing, economic and security integration, cooperation in protecting human rights, security cooperation and peacemaking, China and the challenge of rising powers, and issues of status in international relations. Participants agreed that the international system is being tested by the world economic and financial downturn, continuing challenges in the Middle East and Iran, the rise of China, and major human rights violations by state actors. While questions about the continued leadership role of the US in the international system were raised, most felt that its role will continue and that the international system will evolve to meet the new challenges. The US, however, will seek more burden- sharing and be very judicious about new commitments abroad. Although the US and Canada may disagree on some issues such as the role of the UN and international human rights treaties, common interests bind us, as exemplified by the current focus on perimeter security.This symposium presents a sample of brief pieces that give a sense of the research agendas pursued by conference participants. Like other allies, Canada has a vested interest in the United States' capacity to find the proper balance between global leadership and efficient and legitimate international institutions. In the first article, William Wohlforth, of Dartmouth College, explains why the US must make strong international security institutions an integral part of its own grand strategy. He sees more positive movement in the direction of strengthened security institutions than many critics contend, and gives a few indications as to how the US can play a constructive role in that process. If security institutions are to function adequately, however, all participants have to bear their share of the burden. …

Kenneth Yalowitz

Papers

Global Security Challenges Proceedings from the First Canada-United States Roundtable on International Security