From: venkat@unixg.ubc.ca (Ramesh Venkat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: What Does a Clinton Presidency Mean for India?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 17:29:35 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In response to my earlier post, in article <1dk4ieINN78d@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>|> 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 
>
>George Bush's foreign policy was to coddle the status quo, whether it came
>to Gorby, Iraq or China. Human rights always came second to stability. And
>they did a pretty good job of keeping their noses out of what did not concern
>them, Bosnia, China and Haiti being examples (in all cases, the response was
>passive, like sanctions or nothing). The one case (Kuwait) when something was done
>was when their commercial interests were threatened. This sounds like your
>description of a Clinton Presidency; only it isn't. It also sounds like an 
>administration that will mind its own business in re the India-Kashmir-Pakistan 
>imbroglio, unless its interests are threatened. I am more worried about what
>an idealistic Clinton administration would do.

   Given the election promise to focus on domestic issues, I doubt if Clinton 
   will do anything to undo the foreign policy gains made by the Bush admin.
   Also, its seems "keep-our-noses-out-if-our-interests-are-not-threatened"
   philosophy adopted by the Bush administration will continue to be practiced.
   The positions that Clinton took during the campaign suggests that 
   pragmatism, rather than some overwhelming idealism to change the world,
   will be the guiding principle.  I think Clinton took great pains in
   distancing himself from the liberal Democrats of yesteryears.  Based
   on the election campaign, comparisons with Carter seem unwarranted.

>They should stop sighing with relief and start doing something about "human
>rights" violations in Kashmir & Punjab. A Clinton administration, like ther Carter
>administration is more likely to use such idealistic principles as the
>cornerstones of their foreign policy than realpolitik. As for the Khalistanis,

    I have my doubts on this one (see above). "Putting America First" and
    cutting back US military commitments abroad seem like realism to me.
    I think the new administration will carefully consider the domestic 
    implications of every foreign policy move.
    That having been said, I do think that there will be continued, if not
    increased, pressure on India on the "human rights" issue.  I think 
    patience is wearing thin even among many Democrats who have supported
    India in the past.  It will be in India's own interest to put an end
    excesses by police and military and stop taking positions like "the
    western concept of human rights don't apply in the developing world."

 >|> 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

>Your memory ill-serves you. Solarz was the PRIME MOVER in the House, in
>getting Democrats to support the authorization of hostilities in the Gulf.

    Thanks for the correction.  Yes, I do now recall his speeches in the
    House.

>|> 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.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You don't read the fine print, it seems. The trade war IS the result of a lack
>of fairness on the part of the EC, and especially France, which has twice

   I was not being critical of Bush here.  All I said was that Bush, had in 
   the past, ignored the principle of "fairness", but has finally come around
   by adopting what seems like Clinton's plank.  I did not anywhere suggest
   that EC was being punished unfairly.  I didn't want to get into the 
   history of GATT talks, it didn't seem germane to my discussion.

[other comments on GATT by Sunder deleted for brevity])


>|> 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.
>
>Depends on who becomes his trade negotiator. If he gets a Carla Hills clone like
>Paula Stern, she will be as relentless with India as Hills has been. 
>One of the few convictions that Bush has is on free trade, which is why he has
>been reluctant to jump on the "fair" trade bandwagon, which is more often than
>not Gephardt-ism for protectionism. It also explains why he & Hills were so
>patient with the EC (for over 5 years). Clinton on the other hand, has been
>endorsed by the AFL-CIO, UAW etc. and might have to make protectionist noises
>to appease them. 
[other comments deleted]

    Even without Gephardt & Co., Clinton's view of "America first" betrays
    protectionist tendencies, to some extent.  At the same time, unlike
    the protectionist crowd, he is also committed to free-trade if it 
    is fair.  Many of America's trading partners got a free-ride during 
    the Reagan-Bush years.  I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in 
     demanding "fairness" (in terms of market access etc.).  If "fairness"
    is the guiding principle  on international trade, it does not matter 
    who the US Trade Rep/Negotiator is.  Closed markets and markets with
    tariff barriers are in for some form of retaliation.

>For all his rhetoric on human rights, etc. Clinton will probably be intelligent
>enough to see that allowing China to have MFN IS the best way to also otherwise
>exert influence on China. If he stiff-arms the Chinese, he throws the
>entire Pacific Rim into turmoil, since an isolated China is a big threat to them,
>while MFN helps them by making a prosperous China a solid export and investment
>market for them. By denying China MFN, he also stands a good chance of miffing
>what is arguably the minor superpower now, AND ruffling the feathers of US allies
>in Asia (not counting India). Getting friendly with India is not worth that price
>for the US. 

  An excellent observation.  I agree.  The recent induction of young blood 
  (pro-reform) into the top positions in the Chinese government has met with 
  positive response in the West.  Capitalism is taking roots in China. 
  Democracy cannot be far behind.  I too feel that the campaign rhetoric on
  Bush's China policy will just be that, a rhetoric.

We'd be better served by lobbying hard to buy ourselves some House
>members (like the Khalistanis) and trying to get ourselves the MFN as well. In 
>fact, the Human Rights Commission estd. by PVNR might serve as a useful prop to
>shield us against any charges of Human Rights abuses whenever we make an
  >attempt to get MFN, if ever we do (good lateral thinking??).

  One of the "idealistic" things that Clinton may do is to diminish the
  power of foreign lobbyists.  Such internal reforms are part of his 
  election promise.  But Washington's wheels of power are oiled by PAC
  money.  His own Democratic friends on the Hill, who are the beneficiaries 
  of lobbying, don't seem to be very reform-minded.  

>|> 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
>
>The flip side of that is that when the personalities involved go out the door,
>as they inevitably do in democracies (the last Southern Governor who entered 
>the White House left in 4 years), the relationship has to be re-built from start.
>
     Yes.  But when two leaders have a personal rapport much can be 
     accomplished.

     
I tend to agree with Satya Prabhakar that the perception of India in the 
US is likely to change.  If the market reforms continue India will be seen 
as an opportunity.  This is why I think some "personal selling" at the
top level will not hurt.

Thanks for a very intersting and well-informed response.

>Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
>If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian