US, Obama And India
By Shah Faisal
23 January,
2009
Countercurrents.org
On 20th January the Democrat Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of United States in Washington. This convention of swearing in US Presidents on 20th January dates back to 1937 when Franklin D Roosevelt began his second term on that day although inauguration ceremonies used to be held on March 4th before that. However,that is not the only reason why reference to FDR become so indispensable with the thought of Barack Obama.
There are many tragic similarities as both had to assume office amidst unpromising national and international politico-economic situation. Nonetheless,the optimism both in America and outside is acute and overwhelming. The charismatic personality of Obama,his rise despite adverse racial background, some unexplained expectations and yes a strong anti-Bush sentiment have been the main factors that made the world watch with unprecedented awe this time. But the question is how long does the picture stay rose pink? As the tide of emotions recedes,is the world going to regret that in reality there was nothing so entertaining about this sad story of a hardworking poor sailor who had become the captain of a sinking ship and was obliged to steer it ashore. Will compulsions of President Obama might outweigh promises of Senator Obama? Whatever,the hope is rife that new President has the dexterity to contain the storm although his skill at creating storms remains to be explored and commented on.
GREAT EXPECTATION
The popular opinion in Muslim world particularly the Indian sub-continent and Middle East is exceptionally and perhaps abnormally slanted towards President Obama. The "HUSSAIN" factor which Obama has hardly attached any importance to, is being specifically over-emphasized. President Obama signifies change,true. But then expecting from him an immediate reversal on the Middle East policy of George Bush,suspension of hostilities against Iran,a quick end to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, upliftment of African countries,breakthrough on Kashmir - all because of an elusive Muslim connection - is nothing but naivety.
Lets understand,this gentle-man is not going to hand over America to Iran as a tribute for his middle name. And notwithstanding the poignant precedents left by former US Presidents,it is ironic that such Utopian discourse has preoccupied our intellectual dialogue. However,as is becoming evident with every passing minute,our failure to read the pulse has perhaps gone even further. A few points merit a brief mention here. One, that during Oath taking ceremony Barack Obama read out a passage from Lincolins Bible sending a bold message that what Muslim world makes out of him,he actually is not. Secondly,his meaningful silence during the latest Israeli offensive in Gaza made it aptly clear that Mr. Obama is not used to speaking out of turn on issues of American interest, even though his admirers in Muslim world expected and would have liked him to.
Also,while everyone thought he will at once close down Guatnamo Bay detention centre,he just went about order for larger windows and wider doors! His declaration that funding to Pakistan will be conditional to proven action against militancy on Pak-Afghanistan border gives a clear indication that there wont be any change in Pakistan's role as a US-agency.
BAGGAGE FROM THE PAST
Democrats and republicans alike,US Presidents have always been nothing more than watch-dogs of US interest and advocates of an America-centric world order. Responsible action outside US is simply unknown and incompatible with Presidential outlook and Barack Obama will find the temptation to make sudden turnarounds too risky. Known outcome is that for America the slogan shall continue as "WE CAN DO IT",but for us "THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE BEST KNOWN FOR".
In Asian continent the misadventures of United States are not at all a George Bush(both junior and senior) phenomenon. The stand of US administration has always been damaging and dangerously unpredictable. Take an example. During 1971 India-Pakistan war Richard Nixon supported Pakistan. But it was only to limit growing Soviet influence in the region and had in substance nothing to do with India or Pakistan per se. The suspense broke when same Nixon administration became the lifeline of Israel in the Yom Kippur war of 1973 against Egypt and Syria. It had nothing to do with just and unjust but only thing that mattered was to maintain the influence of US in West Asia.
Soon afterwards,Carter made his doctrine known to all that US would not allow any other outside force to gain control of the Persian gulf. Till today,US policy continues to draw its premise from this doctrine although Cold War has ended decades back. Likewise,President Clinton clamped sanctions on India after 1998 nuclear tests but in 2008, American policy sought to counter-balance the power equation in South Asia against a soaring and roaring China. Result was a Bush-Manmohan nuclear deal.
Again,we have to accept,that benefit to India in this nuclear agreement
is purely coincidental as the larger ambition of US is obviously something
else. Who knows,tomorrow its Obama selling nuclear arsenal to Nepal,
if somehow India becomes a threat to reckon with. Thus not much can
be expected from American presidents, particularly when it comes to
delivering goods in a sensitive region like Asia.
Expectedly, president Obama will have to adjust himself to this already set and complicated frame even if that means a seething back-ache for him. The excitement in valley is more related to possibility of a Kashmir-specific envoy in Obama-administration than the President's over- all promise of change. So far so good. But the bigger question is that even if that envoy arrives soon, is there really any room for American interventionism in the complex Indo-Pak equation regarding Kashmir issue.
Can President Obama impose a Kashmir-centric solution even if the two defiant neighbours disagree in part or whole? Not perhaps. It is not going to be that easy at all and Obama will have to face three significant obstacles. One,that America is in midst of an economic disaster and upsetting a strong trade-partner like India will amount to polluting the wound further. Further,the lucre of Indo-US nuclear business will make the decision to displease India even more difficult. Secondly,Non-resident Indians have come to occupy significant policy positions in Obama secretariat,and that puts India in an even safer position. In the inaugural address Obama threw a surprise by saying that "America belonged to Christians,Muslims,Hindus and alike", hinting that there is a special place for India. And also,India's escape from nuclear apartheid has put it in even stronger position to bargain. So Delhi might not listen to outsiders with that much humility now the way it used to in past. That leaves Kashmir nowhere or hardly anywhere,again. But yes,that need not burn out the optimism in Kashmir. We must also remember that China has expressed to work in close cooperation with the new President.
Besides,Russia has off-late pricked many needles into the American balloon by resisting NATO interference in Caucusus and flaunting its petroleum power. That means some how if US and China gather forces against Russian influence,what seems near to impossible,whole power equation in South Asia will be altered. It is only in that case,Mr. Obama might find it a bit easier to take liberties with India and Pakistan raising the probability of Kashmir conflict resolution. But what actually is in Obama's mind will be in front of us soon and till then there is no harm in expecting the best as long as we remain ready for the worst.
