 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Paper no. 2920
12-Nov-2008
AMERICA’S GREAT LEAP OF FAITH
By Bhaskar Roy
What President Abraham Lincoln started, Rev. Martin Luther King saw in his “dream”, was finally delivered by the people of America by electing Barack Hussein Obama as the country’s 44th President on November 4, 2008.
Till about a month before the election day, there were doubts. It was beyond comprehension that an African - American could become the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most powerful armed forces, the world’s most powerful democracy, and the world’s unchallenged leader. After all, his skin was black. Nearer to the election day there was talk of the “Bradley effect” – whites change their mind inside the polling booth when voting for a black candidate. This did not happen. Obama won a landslide victory.
Mr. Obama’s election marks a huge social revolution in the country which may, hopefully, influence other regions of the world.
The United States of America was built by immigrants. But it was the whites that mattered, who really ruled. Today, apparently, the white population has concluded that what matters is not the colour of the skin. What matters is a leader who can give people, ordinary people, jobs, home, health care and security. It is not only the “Wall Street” but the huge number of “other streets, lanes and tiny tenements” which matter because they are the ones who keep America’s wheels running.
Has the United States become the world’s first Global country? To a great extent, yes. This was, perhaps, the first time that the black, brown, yellow and white – all turned out to vote and exercise their opinion. There are miles to go, however. The journey has just begun.
One must wait for the euphoria to die down, as it will. Then, President Barack Obama, from January 21, 2009 for the next four years, will have to look with sobriety at what he has inherited from President George W. Bush both in domestic and foreign policy. A great leader is made by the team he chooses. As the ancient Indian philosopher, strategist and economist Chanakya had said to be successful, a King must choose only those advisors who have no personal agenda but the King’s good and that of the Kingdom.
President Bush may have had all the good intentions in the world. But he was just not initiated into the world of politics and diplomacy. He had a personal agenda – to avenge the attempt by now executed Iraqi President Saddam Hussain on his father’s life, the Senior Bush, also President of the United States.
President George Bush perhaps, chose some of the worst high level advisors in his first term. His personal weaknesses and “9/11” gave a rare opportunity to his top cabinet members to pursue their personal agenda. Vice-President Dick Cheney and his Haliburton company had their interest in oil; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield was a rabid neo-conservative out to establish American military domination across the world. Even the regular Republicans were embarrassed by the policies of these two officials sometimes.
President elect Barack Obama’s immediate concern would be the “Lehman” effect, as the American economic melt down is now popularly known as. The malaise is, however, much deeper. The concept of capitalism or free market economy, was allowed to transform to a free-wheeling market without bounds where today’s money was the only objective and most of America lived on an unending credit card debt cycle. Perhaps, the President elect would have to try and induce accountability in the market. The American economy influences the global economy at large, and a recession in the global economy will hurt the American economy as well.
Mr. Obama has raised hopes among Americans like nothing before. This is the biggest challenge at home. Earning this huge support from the people is a great source of strength. But it is a bigger responsibility. The entrenched bureaucracy including the intelligence community, sections in the Congress including both the Democrats and the Republicans, and influential think tanks have their own ideas. It is not easy to change cold war mind sets over night.
Most of the world has welcomed Mr. Obama’s election as the next President of the USA. But most of them have questions and riders. Although President George Bush brought in some sober people into his Cabinet late in the second term, this was too little, too late. A policy trend has been set by this Bush administration, and people and statesman around the world are waiting to see how the new President works these tracts.
Statements made by US Presidential candidates especially on foreign policy issues should not be taken as final blue prints for their Presidency. Bill Clinton had called the Chinese leaders “Butchers of Tienanmen”, but did great business with them after he was elected president. Some statements are made because of their popularity with the people during campaigns. Once in the White House with responsibility for the country on their shoulders, presidents begin to see things from the inside. Also, global issues are not static, and policy adjustments have to be made to stay the course with them.
Mr.Obama will have to contend with a huge demon, almost ageless, called the system. It is all pervasive. Presidents and their Advisors come and go, but the system remains. And the American system has still to get out fully from the cold war mental arrest. Many in the system still think of Russia and India from the cold war angle, Pakistan an ally to be strengthened militarily to balance India, and China as an useful partner in the cold war paradigm.
President George W. Bush forced some changes in constructing the India-US strategic partnership, enhanced military relations, and pushed through the India-US nuclear deal. But there was considerable opposition as is known.
One book that should be a primer for the entire Obama team is former CIA Director George Tenet’s “In the Center of the Storm”. It is a chilling story of how intelligence was concocted, manufactured and deliberately misinterpreted to create the logic for invasion of Iraq. It demonstrated the power of the system.
Promoting democracy across the world with military power, and regime change to suit certain interests should be a lesson for the President-elect. Of course, Saddam Hossain was a tyrant at home. But under international pressure and inspections he had given up on nuclear and biological weapons and longer range missiles. But he had a very strange point. He practiced secularism with an iron hand, and did not allow in Al Qaeda to establish itself in any manner in Iraq.
Whatever efforts may be made to retrieve Iraq from the present situation and gradually withdraw US troops from the country, Iraq, today, is something like Humpty-Dumpty. The US has lost the hearts and minds of the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds. The Al Qaeda has come in. Those Iraqi children whose fathers and brothers were dragged out in front of their eyes in the middle of the night, sometimes to be shot and sometimes to be whisked away never to be seen again, are unlikely to forgive and forget.
It is providential for USA’s next president elect that the Bush administration finally did not launch an attack on Iran. Tehran would not have been a walk over like Sadam’s Iraq-Easing out of Defence Secretary Donal Rumsfeld also helped. The CENTCOM also opposed such an adventure.
The reactions from Muslim leaders from West Asia to Pakistan and Afghanistan to the US Presidential elections is not only interesting, but may even hold out a chance for peace. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to Mr. Obama is the high point. Mr. Obama has asserted a nuclear weapons armed Iran is not acceptable. The world, including India agrees. But Tehran has a right to civilian nuclear energy, and is not willing to back out.
Iran will be a major diplomatic challenge to the new US President. The problem is how authentic are the US claims that Iran is on the nuclear weapons path. Let this not be another Iraq – like case. On Iran’s part, it will have to be more much more transparent on its nuclear programme. From Iran’s point of view, sovereign rights and national pride are involved – they cannot be seen succumbing to US pressures otherwise the revolutionary government will be threatened from inside. Perhaps, Mr. Obama can reexamine Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s “Iran road map” which she could not really execute.
The new Presidency’s Gulf and Middle-East policy is certain to impact South Asia. Will it allow there the countries of the regions to grow naturally? That would also depend on the Iran policy and, in turn, Iran’s involvement including assistance to the anti-Israeli forces and the sagacity to live with a de facto nuclear Israel.
Mr. Obama’s articulation in terms of South Asia including Afghanistan sounds partly determined, partly evangelical. His letter of September 23 to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised further strengthening of bilateral relations, sharing of responsibilities in the global forum, and nuclear Gandhism. Separately, he is preparing to appoint a Special Emissary on the Kashmir issue, a dangerous move.
As is evident, there will be clashes with India as also with China on “Climate change”. Obama has also accused both countries having walked out of the Kyoto protocol while spewing pollution adversely affecting global climate. Problems are also expected in the World Trade Organization (WTO) on protectionism and outsourcing and some other economic and trade areas. It must be remembered Obama came largely on the platform of economy, and this is going to be his primary focus as is evident from his first expert group meeting and press conference as President elect.
But as he gets into his job, the new President of the United State may find a sudden change in external economic and trade may not be easy. For keeping soft jobs inside the country he would need to find and create people to work at them. The companies will also look at profit margins in an already battered economy. The US economy is too closely inter-twined with the global economy. Therefore, concerns in India in this area may be a little too premature.
Mr. Obama’s letter to Dr. Manmohan Singh articulates his views on the nuclear issue and proliferation. A nuclear weapons free world is a laudable vision. India tried this experiment for years till it was forced to go actively nuclear in 1998 especially because countries like the USA allowed China and Pakistan to proliferate with impunity.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) are key global acts to stop proliferation. But neither will work for India if the five recognized nuclear powers – the USA, Russia, UK, France and China – are allowed special privileges. If the five have the right to test in the interest of national security, India must have the same. The US-China nuclear agreement allowed China actions in national interest which India is not allowed under the India-US nuclear deal. Should this not be corrected?
If the FMCT is to be pursued seriously, each country must reveal its existing stockpile of fissile material, and be open to IAEA inspection. India would be at a disadvantage, but would have to deal with the situation.
If Mr. Obama is serious about pursuing non-proliferation, then he will have to reopen the old files including looking into China-Pakistan-North Korea routes, how Chinese nuclear weapons documents surfaced in Libya and question Pakistan’s Dr.A.Q.Khan. The last is most urgent because A.Q.Khan and some of his colleagues were in touch with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Recent intelligence reports in UK suggest the Al Qaeda is trying to recruit nuclear and chemical scientists.
Mr. Obama must also seriously rethink his proposal to appoint a special envoy for Kashmir. Some South Asia experts in the USA explain this as a goodwill effort to bring to peace two quarrelling friends. One could only hope that this 60 year old problem over which wars have been fought could be resolved so easily.
India and Pakistan have come a long way in the last three years to address the Kashmir issue positively. Bus and trade routes have recently been opened between the two sides of Kashmir. Other confidence building measures have been established or are on the table. Any outside interference in this bilateral issue could dismantle all the work done by India and Pakistan on this vexed issue.
If the Kashmir initiative is linked in anyway to encourage the Pakistani Military to act more firmly against the Islamic militants in the tribal borders of the country with Afghanistan, it will vitiate most of the gains in this region. It will be serious political immaturity for the Obama team to accept any reasons from the Pak army and the ISI that they cannot give their full attention to fight the terrorists because of thinning of troops on the Indian borders. This, certainly, is not a legitimate concern. Even under the gravest provocation after the Pakistani terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in 2002, Indian troops did not cross the LoC or the International Border (IB).
The Pak army wants to keep the Kashmir Valley boiling. So do the separatists.
On the other hand, the Pakistani government, the civil society, the media and the business community have shown strong inclinations to keep the Kashmir dispute aside and move forward towards better relations with India. For the army, this is not acceptable either ideologically or in self interest. Tensions with India has made the armed forces of Pakistan the first citizens of the country with wide powers and enormous privileges.
The terrorism issue centered in Pakistan extends to Afghanistan where India also has been a victim of ISI terrorism earlier this year. Mr. Obama will see the CIA files. It should also be kept in mind that sections of the Taliban have enjoyed support from Pakistan. The Obama team should first verify, before moving on trust.
Mr. Barack Obama has many other foreign policy challenges. For this region, however, going back on issues like Kashmir will only be regressive. Let resolution of the Kashmir issue become the goal for anybody to chase the Nobel prize for Peace. It can be a very tempting proposal.
The author is a very senior expert on international affairs.
Home | Papers | Notes | Forum | Search | Feedback | Links
Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group
All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.