From: venkat@unixg.ubc.ca (Ramesh Venkat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: What Does a Clinton Presidency Mean for India?
Date: 6 Nov 1992 21:48:25 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca



The Novaks, the Gergens and the Wills have had a field day playing the
political pundit (or the talking-head, if you prefer) in a bizzare election 
year.  All too often they have been wrong.  Given that I've been a keen 
student of international politics for many years, I think I can hold my own 
against any of the pros when it comes to the skillful game of political 
punditry (remember, modesty is not a virtue if you are an aspiring pundit).
Having signalled my intentions, now on to some serious discourse.

What does a Clinton Presidency mean for India?  In an election dominated by
domestic issues, the stump speeches or the various interviews do not provide
an answer.  Hence the need for a skillful pundit who can make some intelligent
(or intelligent sounding) guesses.

If history is any guide to future, the concept of "fairness" (this is the 
Democrats' equivalent of "family values") will drive the new administration's
foreign policies too.  The Democrats have a reputation for being benevolent
towards the nations of the South.  The last US President to visit India was 
a democrat, who had a village named after him - Carterpuri.  This has some
significance (not the naming of a village, but the fact that it was a 
Democratic President who last visited India).  While the overall attitude 
of the Democrats may be different, it would be naive to expect any wholesale
changes in US policy toward India.

The bashing that Bush received from the VP-elect, among others, on "coddling 
dictators" and Irangate, indicates that the US will no longer be involved in 
subversive activities around the world and will keep its nose out of regional 
conflicts, unless its interests are directly threatened.  The ultra-rightwing 
in the Congress which was pursuing a pro-Khalistan agenda will no longer have 
a sympathetic ear in the White House.  One can hear a collective sigh of 
relief in New Delhi.  Overall, a Clinton adminstration may be more sensitive 
to India's security concerns.

If one has been paying any attention to the rumor mills, Steve Solarz, 
India's longtime ally, may get an important position in the new 
administration.  I don't think it will be the Secy of State, partly because
of the check-bouncing scandal and more importantly because Israel views him
with suspicion (he opposed the Gulf War, if memory serves me right).  But
given his vast foreign policy experience, he's still good for a diplomatic
assignment - US ambassador to India or perhaps even the UN.  If this 
materializes it's good news for India. 

On the trade front, it is likely to be a mixed bag.  It is remarkable that 
a President who dished out free-trade as the panacea did an about-face soon
after the election and has escalated the trade war with EC.  It was Clinton who
said time and again that he would support free-trade if it was fair trade.  It
seems Bush has done a Clinton, after all.  This recent event has implications
for India.  Given Clinton's views on trade and the mood of the public, the 
friendly relations in security and other matters may not translate to any 
trade concessions.  In fact the Super 301 will continue to dangle like the 
Democles Sword over nations like India.

An optimistic spin-doctor may see things differently.  If pro-India people
are appointed to key policy positions, then we may have a US government that 
is sensitive to India's struggles in marketizing what is still a top-down
economy.  The overall climate for trade may improve, if there are people in 
Washington who are willing to listen to India's concerns.

It would also be interesting to watch the Clinton policy towards China.  
Given his lack of foreign policy experience he may not want to rock the 
boat, and may allow the MFN status to continue its course.  If on the other
hand he repeals the MFN, such action is bound to get favorable press in India
as well as silent rejoicing in New Delhi.  India has been miffed by the fact 
that it, world's largest democracy, was not the recipient of MFN status, while
its communist neighbor was.

Finally, several world leaders called Clinton to congratulate him on the 
victory.  I hope someone in the PMO had the presence of mind to do the same.
These were the same guys who sided with the hardliners when Gorbachev was 
overthrown, thus putting India in the dubious company of Libya and Cuba.
So even in matters of simple protocol, one can never be too sure with New
Delhi.  The end of the Cold War and the Gulf War coalition point to one 
simple fact.  A lot can be accomplished in international politics by 
cultivating personal relationships.  This does not mean that India has to suck
up to Uncle Sam.  Pragmatically speaking, more than hollow ideology
it is these personal relationships with other world leaders that can protect
a nation's vital interests.  With some friendly faces in Washington, for 
India opportunity may soon knock on the door.


(P.S.  I read sci very rarely these days.  It's possible that some other 
self-proclaimed pundit has shared his/her wisdom on the same subject.  We 
pundits live in a fiercely competitive world) 

           
     "The secret to successful punditry is to make a large number 
      of predictions.  At least some of them will come true."
     
                                            - Robert Novak on CNN 
 


Ramesh Venkat
-------------------------------- 
e-mail: venkat@unixg.ubc.ca
        rvenkat@shark.stmarys.ca
 



Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:36289 soc.culture.indian.telugu:901