Obama and India

This analysis on Obama and India appeared first on the IPCS website.

Now that Barrack Hussein Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America, what does it mean for India? Three factors are likely to determine how relations between the US and India will be under Obama.



Generally, Democrats have tended to be more interventionist than the Republicans, as they believe that the US should play a role in regional conflicts to both resolve such conflicts and to protect human rights during these conflicts. During the Clinton Presidency, the US militarily intervened in a number of regional conflicts including in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Congo, Liberia, Albania, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. Obama appears to want to continue with that trend. Susan Rice, a key Obama advisor and Obama's nominee as UN Ambassador, stated in her confirmation hearing that the Obama Administration will continue to see the promotion of democracy and human rights around the world as an important goal.
The pro-interventionist stance of the Democrats has tended to be a problem in Indo-US relations. In the India context, this would involve the Obama Administration wanting to intervene and seek to solve the Kashmir problem. Obama's recent comments in interviews to Time magazine in October and December 2008 and the reported consideration of former President Bill Clinton as a special envoy on Kashmir are indicative of this pro-interventionist stance that India will witness increasingly in the coming years. Obama had said that the US "should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants." Some analysts have tended to believe that a Kashmir-specific pro-active policy need not necessarily be bad, given Obama's pro-India statements. It should be remembered that his pro-India stance in the recent past had more to do with seeking the support of the Indian-American community. The concern however is that Obama believes that finding a solution to the Kashmir issue is almost a pre-requisite for getting Pakistan's support for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), particularly in Afghanistan. New Delhi needs to be cautious of the US tendency of linking up Afghanistan's security with terrorism in Kashmir.
Obama's tough line against Pakistan might be heartening to Indian policy makers. The US has pledged huge military/financial aid to Pakistan, though this is conditional on Pakistan's cooperation on the war against terror. The Obama Administration, in its new foreign policy agenda document has made it clear that while the new administration "will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan," Pakistan will be held "accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan." Earlier, Joe Biden, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had introduced a legislation proposing to triple non-military aid to Pakistan in the next five years. The legislation authorised US$7.5 billion over next five years, mainly for building schools, roads and clinics. The bill, however, called for greater accountability and effective cooperation from Pakistan in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The second issue which could act as "spoiler" is nuclear non-proliferation. While the Democrats and Republicans have both adopted strong non-proliferation measures, the Democrats have tended to be much more rigid "non-proliferation ayatollahs." The policies during the Clinton Presidency are a pointer of this. India's Pokhran tests in 1998 proved to be a major issue for the Clinton Administration and it invoked a series of technological and economic sanctions on India. India not being a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) continues to be a major issue for the Democrats. Despite being a member of NPT, China has consistently violated the treaty and engaged in proliferation activities, especially with Pakistan, but the US appeared willing to overlook the issue because China is an NPT-member state.
The new foreign policy agenda document of the Obama Administration stated that it "will crackdown on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the NPT," while working simultaneously on nuclear disarmament. What is more important is how the US deals with states that are members of certain security architectures, yet engage in proliferation.
Thirdly, Indo-US relations will to a great extent depend upon how the US engages with China. Democrats have tended to have a more than favorable approach towards China, with Clinton's presidency being a case in point. A close Sino-US partnership, with South Asia being jointly 'managed' by the US and China, remains an unappealing thought, a US-China clash will have wider security consequences throughout Asia and will affect India also. We need neither. Lastly, how Russia is viewed by the Obama Administration will have serious consequences. Russia remains an important power in the emerging Asian strategic framework and it is important that both India and the US recognize this reality and adjust their policies accordingly.

Obama Presidency and India

This analysis on Obama Presidency and India first appeared on the ORF website.

With the results of the US Presidential elections out, Senator Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States, the first African-American to assume the highest office in the US. How does an Obama administration look to India and the region in general? There are three issues on which the Democrats can be thought to have a less pro-India policy as compared to the Republicans.



In general, Indo-US relations have not prospered much under Democratic presidents. More specifically, the pro-interventionist stance of the democrats could result in an Obama administration wanting to involve itself in trying to solve the Kashmir problem. Obama’s recent comments on the Kashmir issue and the reported consideration of Bill Clinton as special envoy on Kashmir are pointers to this pro-active stand that India has to be prepared for. He 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 not on India, but on the situation with those militants.”
The democrats have been more interventionists than republicans. Democrats have traditionally believed that the US should intervene in regional conflicts to protect human rights. During President Bill Clinton’s term, the US militarily intervened in a number of conflicts including Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Congo, Liberia, Albania, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. More specifically, the Democrats have generally taken a more interventionist attitude towards Kashmir, and Obama seems set to continue that trend. The Bush administration has taken a less active approach to Kashmir, and McCain could have been expected to continue that policy. Obama has paid greater attention to India policy recently, if only to seek the support of the Indian-American community. Some believe that a Kashmir-specific pro-active policy need not be necessarily bad, given Obama’s pro-India statements. But because Obama believes that solving the Kashmir problem is a pre-requisite for getting Pakistan’s support for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), New Delhi needs to be cautious.
Obama’s tough talk on Pakistan might be soothing to the ears of Indian policy makers. While Obama pledges huge military/financial aid to Pakistan in the war on terror, it is conditional. Pakistan has to prove that it is making considerable progress in eliminating training camps, evicting foreign militants/terrorists that are based on Pakistani soil, as well as preventing the Taliban/al Qaeda from using Pakistan as a base for attacks in Afghanistan. He was also categorical that if his administration has credible intelligence on the whereabouts of Taliban/al Qaeda in Pakistan, the US forces will be sent into Pakistan to hunt them down. It is too early to say whether Obama will carry forward his tough stand on Pakistan once he assumes office.
Second, for the Democrats, the issue of non-proliferation has been so important that it sets limits to Indo-US friendship. The policies during the Clinton administration were a pointer to this. India’s nuclear tests of 1998 proved to be a setback, as it invoked series of economic and technological sanctions on India by the US and its allies, including Japan and Australia. India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) continues to be an important factor for the democrats. It does not seem to bother them that much that China violated the NPT, despite being an NPT member-state, especially with Pakistan. Though the US-India nuclear agreement received bipartisan support, most of the opponents were Democrats. Though he finally, reluctantly, supported the US-India nuclear deal, Obama had tried to introduce killer amendments to it. India should be prepared to see the Obama Administration and a Democratic-majority Senate reviving the CTBT issue, which has been comatose for a while, as well as the FMCT with vigour.
Third, the democrats have generally tended to have a stronger partnership with China as compared to India. This may not be palatable to India. In fact, President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin agreement in 1998 to “jointly manage South Asia” had angered India. It was President George Bush who managed to break that trend and establish a strategic partnership with India.
How the next administration would shape its policy towards Beijing will also influence the extent of India’s role in Asia. Obama has raised issues with regard to China, although his concerns are with regard to economic rather than military issues. Obama has said that while the US should have cooperative relationship with China, it should not hesitate from being “clear and consistent” if the US disagrees on issues such as manipulation of its currency, human rights violation, its economic and diplomatic policies with Sudan or Iran. However, trade troubles with China appear to be the focus and have emerged as a serious political issue in the campaign. Analysts believe that a bill aimed at levying punitive duties on Chinese goods supported by Obama indicates that the US would pursue a hardline approach towards Beijing on trade issues. Though close US-China relations, with South Asia being jointly ‘managed’ by the US and China, is an unappealing thought, a serious dispute or a US-China clash will have wider security consequences throughout Asia and will affect India also. We need neither.
On another important foreign policy issue, both candidates were critical of Russia, and this could put India in a tight spot. India does not want Russia to be written off; in fact, to the contrary, India believes that Russia will be one of the poles of power in the new Asian security framework.
Overall, though a Republican administration would have been better for India; New Delhi, however, needs to get ready to play with an Obama administration.