Obama's Regional Strategy and India

DM Sir, Sat Sri Akal!
This was a very small article by your standards.

Anyways, my only comment is that Obama's Foreign policy is determined by what American Public perceives and their interests.

India is not on any American's mind but Islam and Muslims are.

Any President of USA will issue travel advisory against India to protect it's own Citizens if 1) Parliament was attacked b) 5 Star hotel was turned into battle station galactica.

This is a very normal reaction from USA, it's intent is not to hurt India but protect US citizens.

As a consequence India is suffering and that bothers India.

Truth of the matter is that USA has no incentive to give special treatment to India. It is America's hegemony on their terms.

dost mittar,

Obama is american pragmatist in foreigh policy (right of center) and extremely articulate and smart. He is 1000% focused on US interest and completely disinterested in
other stuff...

India is fundamentally non-aligned in its orientation. This means it has its own long-term orientation, friendly to US but not a US ally. India will also seek relationship with Iran, Turkey, China, Russia, Japan and SE Asia and so on. This is the correct path for india, one of the many things J Nehru got right.

So why should US pay special attention to india?

Will it get Indian army to fight for it in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Will it get good vibes in middle-east from being seen as big friend of India?
Will it get lots of US companies directly participating in Indian economy?

Answer to all of these is NO - because of non-alignment. But for india to deliver against its policy of non-alignment, and not sucking up to US or China, it has to perform at a higher level, provide better security to its citizens and so on. Otherwise, it is like a 100 lb guy who is walking around and saying, I am very important body builder, pay attention to me, kinda interesting but no one pays serious attention to it.

A saying among common folks: It is not good to be friends with the policeman. It is bad to be in conflict with them.

I agree with the last part of your essay. India must continue to work on its many deficiencies with regards infrastructure, education, poverty etc if it seeks to sustain the marvellous growth that it has enjoyed in recent years. Relationship with the US is important but should by no means be central to India's future. Dependency on foreign powers can wreck havoc on a country in the long term and that is one thing that we can all pretty much agree on this forum.
India is managing to sustain moderate growth despite the recessionary environment in the west. This indicates that India's growth is not entirely dependent on trade and internal demand plays a very important role. Political stability as a result of the recent elections bodes well for the foreseeable future. With a team of able technocrats at its helm, and the marginalization of the communists and the religious right distraction, has given India the best environment for economic progress in decades.
In the end, economic development is by far the best known cure for poverty and I think that the current leadership in India understands this very well.
I hope that as part of the India-Pakistan peace process, trade between the two nations is liberalized. This can favorably impact the GDP of both countries and do so rather quickly. All that is keeping the two countries from getting to this low hanging fruit is, ahem, mutual distrust.

delhiwala:

The travel advisory is not an isolated incident. There are other indications of a steady distancing from the Bush policies. The latest indicator are the comments the visiting US undersecretary Burns in India about Kashmir. He said that India should resolve the Kashmir issue taking into consideration the wishes of its people. A very innocuous statement on the surface but this caveat was not used during the Bush administration.

pmishra2:

I agree with your comments. The point,however, is that the US interests have not changed because of the change in the administration but because this administration has a different worldview than the previous administration. It is this change in orientation which has resulted in the changed stance towards India.

nexus#4:

Yes, India is in real sweet spot for an accelerated, yet balanced, economic growth right now and one hopes that MMS should make the best of it. Obama's indifference cannot change that.
I also think that the policies of inclusive growth have paid off. The global recession has largely affected the "shining India" and those dependent upon it. Programs like NREGA which have delivered purchasing power to the rural areas have escaped from the ill winds from abroad and are largely responsible for India sustaining an almost 7% economic growth.

pmishra2 and DM,

India is used to this 'just friends' relationship with USA and overall it has worked out fine. No a$$kissing and no special favors. Just business. Remember, it was not US that built first steel plant or first IIT or first Heavy Electricals (if I remember correctly) in India. The West always followed USSR in this area.

Mishra sahib - in answer to your three questions, I think US corporations (#3) probably will love to directly participate if Indians open the economy enough. So definitely, American business interests are there and hopefully they wont like to miss out on that.

But overall, DM sahib is right. US has simply too much vested in Pakistan not to mention the fact that Pakistani elites/generals are much easier to deal with for USA policy makers in areas of strategic manipulation/control of that area than Indians will ever be.

Pakistan will always be loved (although they have recently upped their price) and Indians will be just liked and hopefully respected :)

DM,

The other day I came across a recent policy speech by Shyam Saran, Indian PM's special envoy.

Here's the link:

http://meaindia.nic.in/cgi-bin/db2www/meaxpsite/coverpage.d2w/coverpg?s ec=ss&filename=speech/2009/02/28ss02.htm

There are clear indications that India wants to move to a more non-aligned position again.

DM-ji,

George W. was the aberration, he changed US policy in many areas, including india. Obama returns US policy to its traditional focus. Hence the downgrading of india, hedging on Kashmir and so on. I think this is fine, india wasnt formed due to the kindness of america, but I do want to understand where the money for pakistan is going etc.

Are you aware of any groups that are systematically tracking US funds for pakistan? If not, maybe we need to form one.

Re: # 10

"Are you aware of any groups that are systematically tracking US funds for pakistan?"

You have touched upon an important and topical subject.

US aid to Pakistan has been the source of much discussion recently in the US. Both sides (US and Pakistan) acknowledge that there was little accountability of the billions Pakistan received during the Bush/Musharraf era. Musharraf, in a recent TV interview, said that most (I think he said 80%) of the aid he received was reimbursement to Pakistan for use of its military against US interests (Al Qaeda and Taliban). Aid without accountability is no different than bribe and paying bribes is unlawful in the United States.

The lawmakers in the US are extremely concerned about where and how this aid is being used. Influential members of the senate including Jim Webb (Dem-Virginia, Obama's own party) have taken up this issue (see http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9014023). Zardari's reputation is well known in the US. I believe that Congress will keep a very close eye on how future funds are deployed so humanitarian aid gets to the needy and military aid is not mis-directed.

Aid to Pakistan is not popular in the United States and any news about its misuse will very quickly tilt the scales against it.

US travel advisories do not have much impact ordinarily, such advisory have been and are in effect for Israel and other nations. It's the threat perception of the US companies and what they do in response that matters.

In 2002, it was the response by major US corporations such as GE and IBM, not the travel advisory itself, that forced India to back off, after the Bush admin failed to persuade India by other means. The scene of thousands of foreigners heading for the exits at major Indian airports sent the message to Vajpayee loud and clear.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

It seems that India's ploy backfired after it issued terror warnings to draw world attention to the release of Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan.

According to a Times of India report, India was left with little to protest about after the United States informed it that the much maligned "travel advisory" was a result of the Indian government's own warnings of possible terror attacks.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 2
In the long run, the US does want to co-opt India in its bid to slow the ascent of China as a world power. So there is something in common between the two nations: their common fear of China's emerging super-power status.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

india is confident of partnering and dealing with the US in most areas like trade-commerce (WTO), and even afganistan-pakistan, general level of paki-jihadi terrorism. the only ungal that US can do, the big push button, is kashmir vis-a-vis pakistan. this is one issue where india is likely to be emotional, and intransigent and US is likely to try leverage...

offcourse this one too has limited shelf life but this is one issue where US can play the hindoo like a kathputli. hindoo will have to be really mature to play this one.

Re: # 15
Actually, the Doha round of World Trade talks have been in a deadlock since 2001 mainly because the developing world, led by India and Brazil among others, has refused to concede the demands made by the EU and the United States. This is despite the immense pressure from the erstwhile Bush administration brought upon India. So there is really no partnering between India and US in that regard as you suggested.

Kashmir remains a "no go" area for the Obama administration. They can support and facilitate a dialog between the two countries, they may even act as a messenger between the two, but that is just as far as they will go and no farther. The US knows that there is a strong streak of nationalism on the Indian side and instigating that will be counterproductive.