From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: What Does a Clinton Presidency Mean for India?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 22:32:46 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1dep79INNnp8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, venkat@unixg.ubc.ca (Ramesh Venkat) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 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.

Well, wasn't the first Eisenhower? I do know that Nixon visited India as
VP in the '50's, and thought very highly of both Nehru and Rajagopalachari,
particularly Rajaji. Nehru is mentioned in Nixon's book _Leaders_, in 
admiring terms, though Nixon faults him for being a socialist. On the 
other hand, Nehru thought that Nixon was a "cad." (prescient?)

|> 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.

|> 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.

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,
they never did have a sympathetic ear in the White House in the Bush Presidency,
at least none that was obvious. They always did their mischief on the House Floor,
and given that all of them were re-elected, they will continue to do their
work on the House Floor, with conditions on amendments on aid bills and the like.
Our strategy should be to do things the American way -- buy up a few Congress
people, cultivate old India hands like Sen. Moynihan, and get them on the India
bandwagon, filibustering bills with anti-India provisions and so on.


|> 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. 

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.
The people whom the Israelis do not want as the Secy. of State is Warren
Christopher, who is tainted by his association with Carter. Solarz is
mentioned as a possible Permanent UN Representative, which might be good
for us, if the Kashmiris succeed in making Kashmir a UN issue.

|> 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

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
been ruled guilty by a GATT panel of violating rules. The culprit in this game
is Jacques Delors, the EC President who is unwilling to get the French farm lobby
to give up its subsidies, because if he did, he can bid a fond farewell to his
hopes of succeeding Mitterrand in 1995. In fact, the EC's negotiator in the
talks Ray MacSharry, was prepared to make concessions but then resigned
because of pressure from Delors. John Major apparently called Delors in and
read the Riot Act to him on Thursday, since the rest of the EC doesn't want to
go along. My bet is that they will move towards resolution once they see that
Carla Hills means business (they should have talked to some Indian businessmen
who have dealt with her!!). Besides, if someone as smart as Daniel
Patrick Moynihan agrees with her, I guess the rest of us can go along.

|> 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.

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. After the 1930's debacle of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the
Republicans have always been wary of protectionism, while Gephardt and Co.,
whose support Clinton needs, have not yet got the message. Clinton should
have the courage to tell them to jump off a cliff when they come to him for 
a Super 301 renewal.

|> 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 seems to me that there have always been plenty. That's why we managed to get
all our IMF loans with no problems. I DO hope that they get someone who will keep
up the pressure on India to keep with the reforms.

|> 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.

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. 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??).

|> 
|> 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.

PVNR did. I saw some UPI report with the normal BS about the two largest
democracies working together.

|> 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

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.

|> 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.

Opportunities have always existed. What was lacking was the foresight and the
judgement to use them. We chose the wrong side in the Cold War, stiff-armed the
winners in the Gulf War, bungled by maintaining a "diplomatic reticence" when 
Yeltsin was risking his life for democracy in Russia, and then grumble about a 
lack of opportunity?

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

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------