Barack Obama’s phenomenal and seminal victory in US presidential elections created ripples all over the world. A man of color and a person far less tried than many of his elders in his party but far more gifted politically had triumphed on the night of November 4, 2008. He is a political whiz-kid who radiates a gracious charm and is capable of inspiring rhetoric. Obama’s minority identity and his approach to transcend identity politics leave deep impression among Indian communities.Left-Liberals back in India had a celebration marked by unrestrained revelry unwary of the potential impediments for India. Obama’s message of ‘change’ is a cabinet full of ex-Clinton administration hawks. Old liberals from the old school are back and desperate to solve all world problems. The new administration has already set its imperial aims to win Afghanistan and to do so it needs Pakistan’s Army to co-operate. In one of the interviews Obama said “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused on not on India, but on the situation with those militants”. Obama administration’s strategy seems to fiddle with Kashmir issue and let Pakistan have an asymmetric international advantage over this issue. Bill Clinton’s name is making rounds in Washington as the new envoy for Kashmir region. General Ashfaque Kiyani of Pakistan had recently mentioned that he cannot whole-heartedly concentrate on two borders (North West Frontier Province - NWFP & Kashmir) at once. Democrats will try to shove “Kashmir solution” as a carrot for Pakistan to get tough with militants on rugged terrains in NWFP. Obama administration will commit a blunder if it cedes to this logic of Pakistan’s hierarchy of using foreign policy influence in return for restraining terrorism. Pakistan’s belligerent and dogmatic Army which was never under a civilian government is the primary cause of spurt in terrorism both in Afghanistan and Kashmir. There is no transparency and accountability in the usage of funds by Pakistan. 80 % of $ 11.8 Billion taxpayer funds channeled to Pakistan was siphoned off by the army without any justification. The US continues to make strategic and tactical foreign policy errors by either trying to mollycoddle Pakistan’s dictators or asking India to make strategic compromises. Kashmir is a festering sore for India and any attempts to reignite national neuralgia will jeopardize all the recent advances made by US in Indo-US relationships. This unilateral approach of Obama Administration will be a major foreign policy defeat in South Asia.
Obama’s strategic vision of India seems to be unclear as of now. His presidential campaign had issued a scathing and disparaging memo (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf) against Hillary Clinton and Indians in general during the primaries for Democratic presidential nomination. Later Obama blamed lower rung of his campaign officials for this gaffe. Obama’s campaign speeches were full of unrealistic promises which are never going to materialize. One of them is to make the electorate believe that miseries of Americans be can resolved by arresting the flow of jobs to India by ending tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs. Obama had voted to reduce H1B visas. Such protectionist policies against outsourcing will hinder progress and growth in a capitalistic America.
Non-proliferation policies of the new Obama administration will continue to coerce India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Non proliferation hawks like Strobe Talbott and Robert Einhorn from Clinton era who are opposed to nuclear developments in India are likely to gain importance in US nuclear establishment.
Indian media has failed to acknowledge that Obama had actually authored the ‘killer’ amendment of the Hyde Act which denies lifetime supply of nuclear fuel to Indian reactors. It took a lot of wrangling between Bush government and Indian counter parts to reverse it. Obama eventually hailed the nuclear deal and said “The existing agreement effectively balanced a range of important issues, from our strategic relationship with India to our non-proliferation concerns to India's energy needs".
Democrats have always had a welcoming view of China. Obama administration will keenly emphasize on nurturing US-China relationship. India will be kept on tenterhooks in so many issues by the US. The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai are less unlikely to make US induce strategic changes in the policies in South Asia. India needs to demonstrate leadership qualities and stop expecting others to fight our own war.
Obama has changed his positions on Iraq, Iran, taxes, etc after being voted to power and moved to the center. Obama will mostly cede to pressure from far left liberals to assume soft policies on interrogation of terror suspects, closure of Guantanamo Bay detention camp and modification in wire tap policies, etc. However, appointment of Hillary as the Secretary of State is an extraordinary gesture of goodwill by Obama. Clinton pick definitely wins accolades from Indian community.
India will have to tread cautiously and be wary of Obama’s protectionist policies. Strategic relationship with US should be of prime significance to India but not at the cost of Indian interests.
Comments
It was fun reading your blog, and I think this was the first time I read an article devoted completely to Indian interests under Obama....Well to be honest with you, I hailed his victory and I still do, he seems to a very educated, intelligent guy, who has lived in different parts of the world and whose own dad was a Kenyan, so I assumed he would understand world problems better than a lot of white people would ....coming to your point on Indian interest under him, from whatever I can infer from his limited speeches on this subject, he has realized that Pak has been handled very casually under Bush, and a very good example was the money given to them with no accountability whatsoever. He has stressed on solution to Kashmir problem, but I am sure it would be any of his priority, and all these things were said before 26/11. Things have certainly changed, and world perception has changed about Pakistan post 26/11. But that does not mean India should rely on others for solution to their own problem; at the same there is no harm in time keeping the world on your side. About Obama's position on outsourcing I agree he mentioned giving tax breaks to those creating jobs back home, but the mess US is in, you can't blame him for saying that. He is coming at very extra-ordinary times, with a new kind of financial mess and no one knows what to do, so they are just doing hit and trial in hope that something will work. Being President of US, I will not blame him for trying to do what he think is best of US....it may work or not only time will tell....although few thing suggested by him do not really represent capitalist model but my qn is why does it have to be totally capitalist....About his take on China, I really have not heard so thats new information for me.....Thanks for posting and keep posting....and hope for the best for India and the world in general.
Now, lets talk America's foreign policy. They are the most incoherent and underhanded, inconsistent people when it comes to international terrorism, regional conflicts and so on. If you are an American, you would be extremely proud that your government goes to such lengths to protect you, as in even colluding with known terrorists groups ( PLA, Columbian rebels, Pakistan's ISI) and reaching under-the-table agreements with them to secure the safety of its interests and citizens. Has it always paid off, no. Have they, in essence, nurture and enable some of the deadliest terrorist groups in the world, YES. Are they repentant that some of these groups have come back to bite them in the ass, NO. Collateral damage, they call it. I think it would have been a whole lot different if the CIA and the American establishment took a different approach to terrorism and condemn all forms of it. It would have given no safe haven to these groups and no financial support and most of these groups would have withered away. But, American's myopic view hasn't changed in a century and don't think it would change anytime soon.
Now, Obama is the most reckless guy to take that highest office in his country. He claims he is open to unconditional dialouge with rouge nations like Iran and Venezeuala and such. It sends a message to the world that all it takes to get Americans to talk is to be belligerent and promote instability in regions. That would automatically make the players important and improve their stature . Obama's first reaction to the Mumbai attacks was encouraging, it made me think may be this guy is infact different. But the very next moment he brought the completely irrelevant Kashmir issue into play and asks India and Pakistan to resolve it. There is his stupid foreign policy at work for you.
As far as restricting outsourcing goes, Mr.Obama sounds more like the leader of a socialist South American country than that of the free world. Unfortunately, the US economy has been in shambles today, and it needs the government support to revive it. And with government support comes government intervention and it is not a good thing in the long run. I am pretty sure that new outsourcing efforts would be seriously resisted by the Obama administration, and yes, it is going to effect India's economy that is too much reliant on the US for its services economy.
One good thing is Hillary, a staunch supporter of India is incharge of the state department these days, but if the head of the country steers the policy and just uses Hillary to implement it, India has a lot to worry about.
Obama would be a serious threat to India, and infact most democratic administrations are. The republicans, though very cunning and calculating, realise the importance of strong ties and strategic partnerships with India. The liberals on the other hand believe that India is the bully in the region and need to support countries like Pakistan to keep us in check. It goes against intution but that's what they believe and you can study the nuclear cooperation bill to understand what I mean. The crux of the opposition to that bill came from the democrats.
Speaking of Obama I seriously doubt he has the required knowledge about South Asia. Joe Biden is quite experienced so most of the foreign policy decisions will be most likely be influenced him. My article is based on comments by Obama and his aides. I merely wanted to point out that the strategy that they intend to deploy to win Afghanistan is unethical and is a tactical error. I also wrote that Mumbai attacks will most likely not make Afghanistan a lower priority to US. You are also right, being a US president, the prime importance is US! So I would imagine that president has a moral duty to protect his own countrymen. But I wanted people to know that few unfortunate things can happen to India under this administration.
I will not disagree with you that American foreign policies are very self-centered whether it comes to Africa, South Asia, Middle-East or Latin America. I wrote this to you in an email on November 6. I would still support US because it is the only bold force on this earth that can defeat communism and Islamic fundamentalism. But this issue is not related to Indo-US relations.
I just hope that Hillary will continue to be pro-Indian and will be able to counter Joe Biden’s influence.