India's Obama Issues

[Cheetah786]

How does India look at Barack Obama? The question - as well as any answer to it - is crucially related to major foreign policy issues that the Democratic candidate for the US presidency will have to face as he continues his campaign, and even more frontally if he wins the contest. The question acquires importance as the issues concern more than India and even South Asia.

Some six months ago, India was taking only a cursory glance at Obama. It was taking a closer look at, and listening for significant sound bites from, his more familiar and famous Democratic rival. In my article on "What the US Presidential Election Means to India" (January 08, 2008), I noted the "sensational statement" by Hillary Clinton about the then-much-discussed insecurity of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. She declared: "(If elected president), I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain." Well, she is not going to be elected to the White House, Pervez Musharraf is now a ceremonial president, and the subject has been practically shelved.

"The other Democratic hopeful," I reported, referring to Obama as many others did then, "has not triggered much excitement among India's mandarins and militarists, either, by talking of launching unilateral strikes or hot pursuit across the Afghan border to hit al-Qaeda." The anti-Pakistan warriors of India were quite happy then, that a large section of the Pakistani armed forces were pinned down on the Afghan border and thus far away from Kashmir.

The situation has now changed. The elected government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani is holding talks and concluding pacts with militants on the border with Afghanistan, while incursions and skirmishes are being reported from around the Line of Control in Kashmir.

Is Obama, therefore, striking a chord now with India's far right? Does his promised toughness with Pakistan revive hopes in the forces represented by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government, which pressed for a right of pre-emptive attack on its neighbor in the post-9/11 period? The answer is "no," and this is not because the far right has turned into a fervent partisan of the cause of regional peace.

It is the larger picture that is making this political camp lukewarm about the prospect of what Pakistan will perceive as a superpower assault on its sovereignty. To this section of India's public opinion, Obama's pledge to end the Iraq war and bring the boys home makes the promised action in Pakistan meaningless.

A far-right columnist, writing in a leading daily of India, speaks for this section thus: "What should be of concern to India is the possible dilution of the 'imperial' dimensions of US foreign policy. In concrete terms, this boils down to Obama's approach to the war on terror. Obama's core constituency, the one that secured him the Democratic nomination, has reacted to Bush's gung-ho crusade against Islamist 'evil' by swinging in the opposite direction. Obama wants to cut American losses in Iraq and bring the boys home.

"If he does that and leaves Iraq to God and anarchy," snorts the indignant columnist, "it will be interpreted as an unqualified victory by those who have crazy notions of Sharia rule and a global Caliphate. Far from diluting the anger against America, a shamefaced retreat from Iraq will galvanize the soldiers of God to redouble their efforts in Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The fear of America has bred anger but it has also kept ideologically driven terrorists on the back-foot."

He delivers the dire warning: "An America preoccupied with itself will create openings for terrorists in both West and South Asia.... America's retreat will give the forces of terror an additional opening in India and its neighborhood." The columnist, notorious for his closeness to far-right leader Lal Krishna Advani selling himself currently as the "shadow prime minister," signs off with: "... India has compelling reasons to hope that Obama doesn't win in November."

The "war on terror" is not the only worrisome stake in the US presidential election for India's militarists and their mandarins in the establishment. They are far more seriously concerned over the fate of the US-India nuclear deal, which has run into considerable opposition within the country. The nuclear hawks are agreed that an Obama victory in the election may not be good news for the deal, but they differ on whether its implementation will help India's cause as a nuclear-weapon state.

As noted in these columns before, what the election means, immediately and above all, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government is a desperately urgent need to hurry up with the nuclear deal. From Washington as well as New Delhi, we have been hearing almost every day about the deal facing a certain death without President Bush's strong push for it and amidst opposition from nonproliferation advocates and the Democrats in Congress. US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack warned on June 21 that "every single day's delay by New Delhi (in operationalizing the deal) makes it much more difficult," even as Left opposition to it threatened to shorten the life of the coalition regime in New Delhi.

The view of the section of hawks, depressed at the prospect of a Democratic victory, finds expression in an article titled "India's Obama Problem" by C. Raja Mohan, a member of the National Security Advisory Board during the Vajpayee years. The problem, says Mohan, "arises from the prospect that he (Obama) might reverse President George W. Bush's bold departures from the traditional US policy towards India."

The security expert, also a former strategic affairs editor of two major Indian dailies, says: "Many of the nonproliferation activists, who are likely to fill crucial arms-control jobs in the Obama administration, genuinely believe Bush gave away the store to India and that the deal needs to be renegotiated to make it more 'balanced.'"

Mohan adds: "Indo-US relations have surged in the past few years because Bush broke with the traditional American policy on nuclear weapons and Kashmir. This, in turn, was rooted in Bush's recognition of democratic India's exceptionalism and his perception of it as a rising great power. Obama, in contrast, might take the United States back to the old liberal-internationalist view of India as a problem for the global nuclear order ..."

Striking is the contrast offered by the response to Obama from another prominent security analyst of similar commitment to the nuclear cause, Brahma Chellaney. Chellaney, also a former member of the National Security Advisory Board, welcomes the prospect of a President Obama derailing the deal.

After recounting Obama's dogged opposition in the Senate to the Bush administration's bid to offer the deal as a "blank check" to India, in an article titled "Obama's India-nuke legacy," Chellaney rejoices at the prospect of the country escaping a pact that may cramp the size and style of its strategic nuclear program. He proclaims: " An Obama triumph ... will help add momentum to the US-India relationship by freeing it of the albatross that the deal now represents."

Far from a familiar figure just months ago, the Democratic candidate for the US presidency is now sharply identified with a definite set of foreign policy stances in this part of the planet. Will we see a new US or a new Obama after November? Like the rest of the world, India will wait and watch.

by: J. Sri Raman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective.
t r u t h o u t | India's Obama Issues

 

[muse]

Thank you Cheetah for a most interesting article, indeed. I have not followed this particular debate in India and reading the article, I should think it a fascinating debate.

I found the following particularly interesting:

"What should be of concern to India is the possible dilution of the 'imperial' dimensions of US foreign policy. In concrete terms, this boils down to Obama's approach to the war on terror. Obama's core constituency, the one that secured him the Democratic nomination, has reacted to Bush's gung-ho crusade against Islamist 'evil' by swinging in the opposite direction. Obama wants to cut American losses in Iraq and bring the boys home."

That there in India those who recognize the "Imperial dimensions" with regard to the war on terror and find in it cause to celebrate, even as they position themselves as yet another claimant to the seemingly inexhaustible notion of "exceptionalism" is worrisome development.

However; one finds that beyond the utility of the GWOT for a section of the public, little in the article points to Obama's views on India.

That Indo-U.S relations may suffer with a possible Obama presidency, is not a likely scenario, perhaps the debate in India may see relations beyond the GWOT, after all, India must have more important priorities.

 

[Niazi9]

No difference really. They might be more idealistic NPT/CTBT proliferation purists but Obama has shown that he's a pragmatist. Not to mention the fact that the next congress will be be packed with Chairman's in major committee that just happen to be Indian caucus. Their biggest fear is on trade/immigration as Obama will be no more as forthcoming as Bush. Thats why they were behing Hillary to the bitter end.

 

[Marshal]

Obama already said to an interview that he support the N-Deal and reluctunt to seek any changes in that........http://http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080721&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1

http://http://newsx.com/story/18358

Here is the Interview:
'I Am Reluctant To Seek Changes In The N-Deal'
In an exclusive interview, the US presidential hopeful speaks on a range of subjects: the nuclear deal, Mahatma Gandhi, his ability to reconcile Islam with modernity, and how he wouldn't have put all eggs in the Musharraf basket


Ashish Kumar Sen interviews Barack Obama





What Obama said:

On the nuclear deal

"I continue to hope this process can be concluded before the end of the year.... I am reluctant to seek changes."

His remarks suggest he is opposed to renegotiating the deal, as the BJP has demanded. Should the deal not be sealed this year, Obama as president isn’t likely to impose new conditions, a fear the UPA has constantly stoked to compel its critics to fall in line.
On his India connection

Mahatma Gandhi is his inspiration. As an anthropologist, his mother did work in rural India. Considers himself fortunate to have close Indian-American friends. His mother exposed him to different cultures, including India’s.
On Outsourcing

Believes workers in the US have to compete with those in Bangalore or Beijing, an irreversible feature of the world intricately interconnected because of IT. But to make globalisation work for American employees, he plans to offer tax incentives to those who create jobs in the US.
On Terrorism
Considers both India and the US as victims of terrorism; thinks the counter-terrorism partnership is based on a shared interest in defeating extremist forces. Wants to strengthen military cooperation between the two countries.
On how he would like US-India relations to grow
Across the board, he says. More specifically, on securing a cleaner and sustainable energy future, and placing a higher priority on agriculture, science, public health and IT. He thinks India has enormous potential to contribute to a shared, sustained global economic growth.
On Visiting India
Plans to continue with the tradition laid down by Clinton and Bush to visit India during their tenure.
On Pakistan
Was opposed to America putting all its eggs in the Musharraf basket. Wants to emphasise on democracy and socio-economic development—and not just counter-terrorism. Believes America must destroy Al Qaeda’s sanctuary along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
On Muslims
Says it is possible to reconcile Islam with modernity and respect for human rights and rejection of violence.
***

In what ways would President Barack Obama be different from President John McCain on issues of foreign policy?
I will end a war in Iraq that I opposed from the beginning. I will talk to all nations—friend and foe—because the Bush administration policy of not talking to leaders we don't like has not worked. I will finish the fight in Afghanistan, and refocus our approach on Pakistan. I am the only candidate who expressed early and regular concern about putting all of our eggs in the Musharraf basket and who has made it clear that we must do more to destroy Al Qaeda's sanctuary along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

I will pursue a foreign policy in which America leads by example and principle, one in which we reject torture without equivocation and respect basic human rights and civil liberties. More fundamentally, the world will see a new face of America the day that I am elected, and I will bring a new kind of experience to the Oval Office.

My understanding of global challenges has not just been shaped in the corridors of power; it has been shaped by the wider world.

My father crossed an ocean to seek the dream of America. As a boy, I lived for several years in Indonesia. As a young man, I worked as a community organiser in the forgotten corners of America. So whether I am at an international summit or travelling the world, I will speak not just as someone who mastered my brief, but also as someone who has a grandmother who lives in a village in Africa without running water and indoor plumbing. I will be a president who works to strengthen our relations not just with world leaders, but with the world's people.


A young Obama with mum Stanley Ann: Obama used this picture in a healthcare ad
That is reflected both in my approach to leadership, and in my policies, which include doubling American foreign assistance to $50 billion, making the UN's goal—which is America's as well—of halving extreme poverty by 2015.




"As an anthropologist, my mother did development work in rural India"


My foreign policy will seek to enhance freedom not by top-down ideological mandate, but by expanding the rule of law, transparent democratic institutions, bottom-up economic growth, education, and access to public health and technology.

You


talk of change. What is the sort of change that you hope to bring about in Washington?
The change I will bring to Washington is an extraordinary ground-up involvement by the American people. My campaign has energised Americans who have never before been involved in the political process. Their energy and the mandate for change that they embody will help us break out of the stalemate that has gripped our public policy.

For far too long, Washington has been trapped in the same conventional thinking and the same partisan battles among the same actors. It is time to move past our divisions, and rally all Americans—Democrats, Independents and Republicans—around a common purpose.

It is this energy of the American people that will help us to push back against the special interests that have blocked progress, and reduce the influence of Washington lobbyists.

It is the American people who will help us move beyond


I speak as someone who has a grandmom living in an African village which has no indoor plumbing.




a view of national security that values tough talk over sound judgement, a mindset that led us into a war in Iraq that I opposed from the beginning. With the American people's engagement and commitment to change, we can finally make progress on the challenges that we face year after year after year—healthcare we can't afford; an energy policy that we cannot sustain; and an America that is less safe and less respected in the world. We can turn the page to a new era of American leadership and prosperity.

In terms of foreign policy, the change I will bring to Washington is experience of a different, critical sort. If I go to a poor country and speak about both the US obligation to work with poor countries to relieve suffering, and also the responsibility of poor countries to clear up corruption and increase transparency and rule of law and build their civil service, I do so with the credibility of someone with a grandmother who lives in an impoverished village in Africa.

In the same way, if I call a summit of Muslim world leaders, I think that I can speak credibly to them about the fact that I respect their culture, that I understand their religion, that I have lived in a Muslim country, and as a consequence I know it is possible to reconcile Islam with modernity and respect for human rights and a rejection of violence. As I have said before, that doesn't mean that Muslim leaders will automatically act on the American agenda if it's contrary to what they perceive to be their self-interests.


The US and Indian governments are struggling to push through a civilian nuclear agreement.


You had some concerns about this deal when it was debated in Congress. If the deal is not sealed by the end of the Bush administration, will an Obama administration in 2009 be willing to reopen it or do you think it should be scrapped?

I


We live in a more competitive world. We cannot and should not put walls around our economy.




voted for the US-India nuclear agreement because India is a strong democracy and a natural strategic partner for the US in the 21st century. As you point out, I had some concerns about the non-proliferation aspects of the original agreement when it was debated in Congress. But I also concluded that this agreement would enhance our partnership and deepen our cooperation. Once fully implemented, the nuclear deal would also aid in the important effort to combat global warming by allowing India to meet its growing electricity demands with nuclear energy rather than burning coal.


"Revolutions in communication have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection"
A final judgement on the deal negotiated by the Indian and US governments in July 2007 must await the iaea's approval of a safeguards agreement with India and changes to be agreed (upon) by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. At that point, the US Congress will decide whether to approve the agreement. I continue to hope this process can be concluded before the end of the year. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will continue to make sure that our respective strategic, non-proliferation, and energy and environment interests are all advanced by the ultimate deal.

If you have concerns about the nuclear deal, what changes would you like to see? 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.

am therefore reluctant to seek changes.

Many in the Indian-American community are firm Clinton supporters because they see President Bill Clinton as the man who engaged India with his historic visit. In what ways will you be a better president for US-India relations?

My campaign has enjoyed strong and deep support from the very beginning from the Indian-American community, including support from many leading Indian-Americans who served in the Clinton administration. That community support is deepening at every stage of our effort.
Both President Clinton and President Bush did many important things to strengthen the US-India relationship.




As president, I’ll strengthen relations not just with world leaders but with the world’s people.


I will work energetically to build on the work of the last two US administrations and move forward to forge an even closer strategic partnership between our two countries.

In what areas would you like to see US-India relations grow?

Across-the-board


would be the short answer. But let me elaborate with a few examples. I believe that the US and India must work together to combat the common threats of the 21st century.



With wife Michelle at a Minnesota rally

We are both victims of terrorist attacks on our soil, and our counter-terrorism partnership is based on a shared interest in defeating the forces of extremism. Our common strategic interests call for strengthening US-India military cooperation. We share an interest in democracy and the rule of law, and can work to promote democracy and strengthen legal institutions in South Asia and beyond.


We share an interest in combating global climate change, and the US and India can both do more to lead the world in securing a cleaner and more sustainable energy future. I intend to increase energy cooperation with India so we can together address the climate crisis


The US must seek to strengthen its ties with India on its own merit, (not as a counter to China).




that threatens our planet. We share an interest in combating the spread of disease, including HIV/AIDS. And we share an interest in combating global poverty, which is why I will seek the UN's goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015. We cannot allow the world's neediest to be left behind.
India has enormous potential to contribute to a shared, sustained global economic growth. Our agenda should also include strengthening our economic relationship on a mutually beneficial basis. I would also like to see agriculture given a higher priority in our relations, as India pursues its goal of a 'Second Green Revolution'. I would like to see a ramp-up in higher education collaboration in fields like science, public health and information technology.

Do you see closer US-India ties as a means to counterbalance the rise of China?
The United States should seek to strengthen its bilateral relationship with India on its own merits, because of our many shared interests and our shared democratic values. The deeper relationship that I will seek is not about working against China or any other country—it is about addressing our common interests and common challenges for the 21st century.

President Clinton was criticised for visiting India very late in his presidency—when he was a lame duck president. Do you intend to visit India if you are elected president and how soon would you like to make this trip?
President Clinton's visit to India was the first by a US president in 22 years. President Bush rightly followed suit and travelled to India. New Delhi is now a part of an American president's overseas travel while in office, just as it is to other capitals of our key allies and friends around the world.

As president, I will continue this newly established tradition.

What is your stand on the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir? Do you want the US to play a more active role in resolving this situation?

I believe the US should encourage the existing and ongoing dialogue between India and Pakistan aimed at resolving the dispute over Kashmir. The US should be a strong supporter of this process, one that will, if ultimately successful, have enormous benefits for both India and Pakistan, and the region as a whole.

India has been a major beneficiary of outsourcing of jobs by US firms. You have talked about providing incentives to firms that keep jobs in the US.



New Delhi is part of a US president’s overseas travel while in office. I’ll continue the tradition.


Do you believe the practice of outsourcing should be stopped altogether?
Revolutions in communications and technology have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection, and have forced workers in Chicago and Boston to compete for those


jobs with workers in Bangalore and Beijing. We live in a more competitive world, and that is a fact that cannot be reversed. We know that we cannot and should not put up walls around our economy.


Gandhi has been an inspiration; his portrait hangs in Obama's Senate office
But we must find a way to make globalisation and trade work for American workers. The American worker needs to be supported and given the tools needed to compete in the global economy. So I would pursue common-sense measures such as offering tax incentives to companies that create jobs in the US, undertaking policies such as supporting growth sectors like renewable energy and building up our infrastructure that will lead to creation of well-paying jobs and, most importantly, investing in education and job retraining programmes.


The US has faced fundamental economic challenges before and it has met them by expanding opportunity outward, growing its middle class, and investing in the education and well-being of our workers.

Do you have any Indian influences in your life?
My


We must align ourselves not just with one individual but with Pakistan and its people.




mother instilled in me from a very young age an interest in other cultures and exposure to their traditions, including Indian culture and traditions. As an anthropologist, she later did rural development work in India. In my own life, I am fortunate to have close Indian-American friends and I am proud to have the long-standing support of so many Indian-Americans in all aspects of my campaign. Throughout my life, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary people come together to do extraordinary things. That is why his portrait hangs in my Senate office: to remind me that real results will come not just from Washington—they will come from the people.

Recently your campaign revealed that as a 19-year-old you travelled to Karachi and Hyderabad in Pakistan. Could you share some of these experiences with us?
I travelled to Pakistan for about three weeks to visit a friend from college. What my experience taught me is that among the most important aspects of our foreign policy is not simply our relations with the rulers of countries, but also our appreciation and understanding of the challenges, the hardships, the struggles and the aspirations of ordinary people.