The US Congressional elections reminded me of a climb that our Ambassador taxi used to make up winding hills in the backwaters of Uttar Pradesh. At every turn, words painted on a rock said “Kalyug is coming to an end, Satyug is going to start.” The present was “Kalyug,” implying sinful and bad times. “Satyug” was the anticipated good times full of truth, the right path and virtues. The saying created an eternal hope for the unknown.
The rallying cry after the elections of November 7th has been “the time of ideologues is coming to an end, realism in foreign policy is taking over.”
Since the elections, one keeps reading that word over and over again—realism. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress widely considered “ideologues” took a hit as voters across the country gave the Democrats control of the house and the senate. The Bush administration is being blamed for an “ideologically driven foreign-policy,” and there is belief that “realism” in US foreign policy is coming back.
The victorious democrats are not the only ones against the so-called ideologues. Even the Bush administration is caving to the pressure and bringing in bastions of the old Republican guard back. Jim Baker, the secretary of state during Bush 41 is leading a study group on Iraq policy that is expected to shape the administration’s moves in the remaining two years of their term. Robert Gates, the nominee to take Rumsfield’s position is another old Bush hand. Both Baker and Gates are considered practitioners from the “realist” school of US foreign policy.
When people talk about the current Bush administration’s ideological stand, they are really implying the dominance of “neoconservatives” who started shaping the President’s foreign policy immediately after the controversial elections of 2000. Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others inducted in to senior influential positions in the administration came in with strong beliefs. Francis Fukuyama author of America at the Crossroads summarizes neoconservatism as:
• A belief that internal character of regimes matters and that foreign policy must reflect the deepest values of liberal democratic societies.
• A belief that American power could be used for moral purposes.
• A distrust of social engineering projects.
• And finally, skepticism of international law and institutions [such as the UN, the IAEA] to achieve either security or justice.
In the last 6 years, these four beliefs have influenced America’s forging of relationships across the globe, have led President Bush to declare certain countries as “axis of evil,” and resulted in the “liberation” of Iraq in 2003. The neo-conservatives believed that an American ambition for liberal democracies across the world is not only good moral value, it is ultimately good for America. The tragedy of September 11, 2001 provided a convenience to implement these policies. Whether this turned out to be the right strategic move is a topic for another forum, and books such as the one written by Fukuyama are beginning to present their analysis.
Whether this ideological foreign policy shaped by neoconservative thought, that ideologically supports liberal democratic values, was good for India is a discussion that we need to have. I postulate that neoconservative policy makers helped forge a stronger US-India bond to a degree that is worth applauding.
The current Bush administration took on major initiatives with India beyond the “engaging India” efforts started by the Clinton administration. The impending nuclear agreement is but one example of this policy towards building a strategic relationship with India.
In a conversation I had with Paul Wolfowitz in the fall of 2004, which later got a mention in the NY Times, the ex-deputy secretary of defense showed a clear preference towards India over Pakistan. He premised that the reason for India’s liberal policies and progressive nature is a direct outcome of its democratic institutions and vice versa. Two nations that are largely similar are different due to their regime—one a democracy, the other living under frequent eruptions of military rule, according to him.
We see this thought transform in to US policy towards South Asia. For long, India had longed to de-link itself from the conjoined India-Pakistan status it received from foreign governments. In times past, the US owed the same privileges to Pakistan that it gave to India and vice versa, conscious not to start a diplomatic bickering.
However, the Bush administration showed courage when it started to separate its policies with India from those with Pakistan—in retrospect, a major accomplishment. This February, en route to Ireland on Air Force One, Secretary Rice when asked if Pakistan deserved the same treatment as India vis-à-vis nuclear energy responded, “Pakistan is not in the same place as India. I think everybody understands that. One of the important achievements I think of the administration is that we’ve been able to take Pakistan on its own terms and India on its own terms” Secretary Rice’s comments were preceded by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley who pointed out, while paraphrasing President Bush, “that India was a country with whom we not only had common interests, but common values -- committed democracy….”
India’s emphasis on liberal democratic values was a trait worth more to the neocons than to administrations past. In discriminating their policies towards India, the neocons furthered the US-India alliance.
Now, to the realists. Fukuyama calls realists as those “who respect power and tend to downplay the internal nature of other regimes and human rights concerns.” Henry Kissinger is widely considered the most well known of all realists. Rewind the clock 30 years and you find Kissinger infamously bringing the “tilt” in US foreign policy towards Pakistan. Another example of realism was demonstrated by Kissinger when he laid the groundwork for Nixon to go to China and visit a state that was not only illiberal but was unapologetic of its widespread human rights violations committed during the Cultural Revolution. The realists did little to build a US-Indian alliance, albeit other geopolitical factors contributed to the estrangement.
Realists, as the word depicts, supposedly deal with the world as- is and come up with pragmatic policies that forward a nation’s [America’s] interests. The return of a democratically controlled Congress and of the Bush 41 crew such as Baker and Gates is said to be bringing back realism to America’s foreign policy.
With neocons, who helped India’s cause, in retreat and the anticipated rise of realism, should India be worried? Are we going to see backtracking on the nuclear agreement or perhaps a more intense “oversight” by the Congress? Are we going to go back to the days when India had to live with a hyphenated relationship with Pakistan?
These questions are worth raising. But, current times are different than the 1970s when realism played against India. For one, there is no Soviet Union. India is also not thumbing its nose to the US as it did during the cold war. India today is a self-confident nation comfortable in its increasingly important role in geopolitics and surging ahead with its fast growing economy. Today, the relationship between the US and India is multi-faceted and built around institutions that have the strength to outlast individuals, one hopes.
That said, this is no time to be complacent.
One can only hope that the nuclear agreement and other bilateral efforts forged by the US will not be delayed by the testosterone of the democrats. And I say this after having supported a Democrat in toppling an incumbent Republican Senator.
For long, Indians complained about the lack of respect and attention India received in Washington D.C. The Indian elite as well as internationalists such as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith envisioned a closer relationship between the US and India, and touted the two countries as natural allies. The neocons delivered to that vision. They put substance between the oldest democracy and the largest democracy.
The momentum created by the [retreating] neocons of the Bush administration should not be slowed down by the advent of the realists as they start flexing their muscle around the Capitol.
To that end, the Indian bureaucrats of the Ministry of External Affairs would be well advised to show expediency in their pursuit of pushing forward the nation’s agenda in Washington D.C. Indian Americans should continue their political activism in their constituencies, participate more actively in Political Action Committees and ensure that the pro-India agenda stays on track within both party platforms. At a time when it seems that the 2008 Presidential campaign has officially begun, Indian Americans should continue wielding the most potent of all political weapons—their checkbooks.
The writing on the rocks of the Vindhyachal ranges of Uttar Pradesh once again comes to mind. Just like the Kalyug era, all is not bad of the neocon period. As far as the promise of Satyug or realism goes, be wary of the unknown.
(This column first appeared in an issue of India Abroad.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment