The Hindu Business Line : US Presidential sweepstakes 2004: India can relax either way

THERE is no gainsaying the fact that, with the advantage of his being both the head of state and the head of government, the US President can, if he so wished, make or mar relations with any country by exercising his leverage for or against it. For instance, during the Kargil conflict provoked by Pakistan, it was Mr Bill Clinton's severe arm-twisting of the Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, that saved the day for India.

It must also be remembered that in regard to assessment of climate for investment, advisability and feasibility of business collaborations, the stand to be taken on political and economic issues and resolutions of disputes, most nations, especially the industrial ones, as also financial institutions and corporate enterprises abroad, take the cue from the US. For instance, the industrial nations and even the UN are simply following the US example in keeping off the Kashmir problem and leaving it to India and Pakistan to arrive at a settlement by dialogue. Were the US to decide to come out into the open and lean heavily on India (Pakistan not being averse to US intervention), all other nations too will fall on it like a tonne of bricks.

India has a vital stake in the ongoing race for the US presidency for a number of other reasons as well. A proactively pro-India President can be of invaluable help in several areas affecting the country's national and economic security. Leading all the rest of such concerns is the imperative to guard against Pakistan's nuclear button falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. All will be well for India if the new President is sensitive to this issue, for, then, it will be possible to engage in an urgent consultation soon after the election on the contingency plans, if any, of the US, in case Gen Pervez Musharraf is no longer on the scene to ensure that the control over the nuclear arsenal does not pass into the hands of fanatical Islamic radicals.

Pakistan's duplicity

Even the US, despite keeping a keen watch over Gen Musharraf and his cohorts, and their activities, could not stop the sale of nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea by Pakistani scientist, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. It raised no question when Gen Musharraf rewarded this treacherous act, pregnant with catastrophic consequences, with an instantaneous pardon. India, indeed the world community, has a right to know what safeguards have been envisaged and are in place against some fundamentalist seizing power and letting off nuclear fireworks in all directions on flimsy pretexts.

The next is Pakistan's duplicity and complicity in avowedly extending moral, material, financial and political support and sanctuary to terrorism against India, while paying lip service to the objectives of the global war on terrorism formulated and approved by the Security Council at the instance of the US and declared to be binding on all nations. There are alarming reports of cross-border terrorism taking an upswing after a seeming fall in incidents. It is to India's interest to have a President who would give up the double standards followed by the US, which, on one side, was quick to unleash its full military might against Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation for just one day's terror and 3000 casualties on American soil, and on the other, pulls its punches with regard to the toll totalling more than 60,000 in India over a long period of 15 years from daily deadly terrorist massacres of innocents aided and abetted by Pakistan.

Then, there is a lot that can be achieved by constructive cooperation by both countries to derive mutual benefit from current and possible future opportunities arising from access to human skills, goods, products, commodities, technologies and services on both sides under the WTO protocol. An enlightened President can also provide a persuasive lead to public opinion by exposing with facts the literally and metaphorically unprofitable nature of the acrimony over outsourcing.

Apart from the customary platitudes on, and plaudits for, the shared democratic values and the importance of strategic partnership between both countries, is there anything to choose in the election platforms of the two contending parties and candidates? "India is emerging as one of the great democracies of the 21st century," says the Republican manifesto, adding: "Soon it will be the world's most populous state. India is now redefining its identity and future strategy.The US should engage India, respecting its great multicultural achievements and encouraging Indian choices for a more open world."

Elaborating on it in an interview to India Abroad, Mr Bush declares himself to be "absolutely committed to enhancing our civil nuclear, space and high technology cooperation as India's export control and non-proliferation regimes are strengthened and to building an enhanced, comprehensive relationship" with India, "an outstanding partner in the global war on terror," playing "an important role in consolidating democracy and peace in South Asia and the rest of the world."

The effusive eulogies are, however, in stark contrast to the fact that India does not figure anywhere even in passing in the list of names of quite a few countries enumerated in the manifesto as allies and friends of America.

The Democratic Party plank contains almost nothing on its vision for South Asia, leave alone India, except to pledge to work with its `friends' India and Pakistan "in their efforts to resolve long-standing differences". Even the bland hope for a "new era" of friendship and cooperation expressed in the party declaration at the time of election held in 2000 is missing. Added to that, Mr John Kerry is coming through as an uncompromising opponent of outsourcing, although, of late, he has moderated his position under pressure from American businesses themselves. He has also indicated that if elected he would want both India and Pakistan to send troops to Iraq.

Wrinkles and hang-ups

Watching the election scene in the US dispassionately, it is obvious that the nuances and niceties of foreign relations are farthest from the minds of both the candidates.

Their most immediate and pressing concerns are the largest fiscal and current account deficits in history, the prospect of having to make astronomical outlays to meet the commitments in the aftermath of the Iraq war, keeping at bay the spectre of unemployment and the worrying state of the economy. Overhanging all this is the Damocles' sword of terrorism and the need unrelentingly to press ahead with measures to secure their country against future attacks.

In this background, it is conceivable that India is not even a blip on the radar screen of either party or its candidate. Nevertheless, there is a fair measure of reassurance is that, considering the stature it has acquired as a potential economic giant in this part of the world, the impressive success it has achieved in nation-building within a democratic framework, the weight it carries by virtue of its scientific and technological manpower, and the pivotal position it has in South Asia in strategic, geo-political terms, it is bound to be deemed a heavyweight in the eyes of whichever party is in power in the US.

In this perspective, there is no danger of either party taking it for granted or brushing aside its views. The only possible wrinkles in the relations may arise from the nature of the Congress-led and Left-supported United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the likelihood of the hang-ups of its constituents carried over from Nehruvian days inhibiting the Government from dealing with the US in a warm, open and friendly fashion.

After all is said and done, the question remains as to which of the two US parties is better placed to smoothen the wrinkles and assuage the hang-ups. The Republicans have the advantage of being able to provide continuity of policies on the strength of familiarity with the issues and personalities.

They have no need to switch gears. The Democrats have traditionally, from the days of Franklin Roosevelt, been emotionally close to India, as was demonstrated by Mr.Bill Clinton during his memorable visit in 2000. By temperament, they are easier to do business with.

The scales on both sides are even and it is truly a toss-up. The advice in such a situation can only be "Hold"!

(Concluded)

More Stories on : Politics | Foreign Relations

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Timely integration

Economic reform and inflation

China bracing for energy demand

India's health-care paradox

US Presidential sweepstakes 2004: India can relax either way

Middle-lane gene

Administrative reforms

Foreign hand