Tags:
Journalism of Courage
President Bush is a plain-talking, somewhat arrogant Texan known to most for his willingness to promote American interests unilaterally. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, is a sophisticated New Englander, acclaimed for his nuances in speech and policy, who speaks about the need for America to rebuild its relationships with its European allies. Regardless of the word choice and tone of either candidate’s foreign policy to the rest of the world, both would pursue virtually the same policies with regard to India. Any significant change in bilateral relations would come from Delhi.
In IT, both candidates will follow the same path. Bush has decreased the number of H-1 visas to high-skilled workers but has declined to restrict businesses and even the federal government from outsourcing jobs to India. Kerry has hinted that he may penalise American companies that shift American jobs overseas. His running mate has suggested that they will support even more protectionist measures. The Democrats’ language is campaign rhetoric mainly used during the primaries to gain the confidence of more fringe elements of the party.
Kerry has been a free trader throughout his career, supporting a free trade agreement with China and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), both of which saw the migration of certain jobs outside of the US while creating others within the country. At worst, Kerry could prevent the outsourcing of federal government jobs, but even that would be a drop in the bucket of a massive and growing industry. On military matters, Bush would continue to deepen relations with India. The President has deepened the bilateral relationship by increasing ties through a combined special forces counter-insurgency exercise in northeast India, a combined Air Force exercise in Alaska, joint Naval exercises on India’s East Coast, senior-level discussions on missile defence, and the recent liberalisation of select dual-use technologies.
Kerry has barely mentioned Asia during his campaign and would tilt more towards American relationships with Europe in diplomatic and military matters. We may see a decrease in the number of combined exercises. And Kerry has been an opponent of the expensive missile defence system, whereas the Bushees have discussed future bilateral cooperation on this military system. Kerry’s shift away from India would only be slight because the American foreign policy establishment has come to accept Delhi as a source of stability in South and Southeast Asia, requiring greater attention from Washington.
With regards to Pakistan, Bush and Kerry will continue the tenuous relationship with Pakistan and Musharraf along the same track. Both candidates have the same interests for the United States: prevent the government from collapsing and use the help of Pakistan to defeat Al Qaeda operatives in Baluchistan. The Bush Administration placed pressure on the General to re-establish the peace process. And Washington recently awarded Islamabad status as a ‘‘major non-NATO ally’’, dramatically increasing defence support for the ailing Islamic Republic. This policy will continue if the Republicans win the election because Musharraf has managed to place himself as the important key to unlock access to the Al Qaeda.
President Kerry will on most accounts pursue a similar strategy. A fresh look at Washington’s relationship with Islamabad is in order, but neither party has indicated to be willing to make such a change. Kerry has stated that Iraq has been a distraction from the broader war on terror. So he may indeed put greater energy in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the Al Qaeda. And we can expect the Democrats to be equally supportive of the peace process over Kashmir.
The major changes in bilateral relations between the two countries would come from New Delhi. Will the Congress, with its new strength in Maharashtra, lower restrictions on select industries and take advantage of American cash and knowhow? Will India take a leadership role in stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction by participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative, a programme involving a group of states that voluntary cooperate to tighten the screws on rogue states and companies involved in the trade of WMDs? Will Delhi continue to lower customs duties on high-end products as it did with personal computers? Will India enforce its agreement under the WTO in 2005 to protect intellectual property rights on pesticides and pharmaceuticals?
As we say in America, the ball is in India’s court. Kerry would not change Bush’s policies towards India to any significant degree. Only India can determine how the relationship will develop.
The writer is a member of the Yale Grand Strategies Program and a fellow with the Smith Richardson Foundation. He is a Manager of Business Development at Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd and lives in Mumbai
