Implications of US polls

THIS week, I have been in Madrid and Barcelona, attending seminars organised by Casa Asia and the Real Instituto Elcano, two of Spain’s best known think tanks, which instituted a series of lectures on relations with Muslim countries as part of the Spanish prime minister’s proposal for ‘The Alliance between Civilisations’.

Though engaged in a most stimulating interaction with highly knowledgeable scholars and officials, the American mid-term elections appeared to hover over our deliberations, demonstrating the pervasive influence of the superpower.

Traditionally, US mid-term elections have held little interest for most capitals, since they do not involve change in the executive branch. And yet, Bush’s divisive policies at home and arrogant disregard for the views of friends and allies abroad, have generated such passions that there has been an ill-concealed and widespread desire to see this president have his wings clipped.

The mid-term elections involve all the 435 House of Representatives seats, along with one third of the Senate (33) seats and half (36) of the state governorships. But what is generally not known is that under the US constitution, based as it is on the sacred principle of separation of powers, the person occupying the White House can see his policies and priorities thwarted by the opposition party if it happens to win control of Congress and especially if the president is as partisan and combative as the current one.

The most unusual feature of this election was the extraordinary passion raised by a foreign policy issue, when usually domestic factors are the ones to motivate the voters. This was the issue of Iraq. Not even the most optimistic Democrat, in his wildest dreams, could have imagined only a year ago, that Iraq would become such an albatross around the president’s neck that it would destroy his party’s decade-long control over Congress.

Of course, the Republicans also found themselves labouring under the weight of morals and money scandals that affected at least 15 races and more importantly, discouraged many loyal Christian conservatives from going to the polls. Not surprisingly, the Democrats campaigned for change, while the Republicans tried to resurrect the “fear factor” that worked so well for them in the last elections, accusing the Democrats of being weak on national security issues, but to no avail this time.

What do the results mean for President Bush? Of course, he remains the president, with all the powers, perks and privileges of that office, including the power of veto. And yet, his presidency can never be the same. His rivals will now have a lock on the powerful chairmanships of the congressional committees, which mean control over the legislative agenda and, more importantly, control over the purse, that can hobble the executive branch. This is because it is the chairmen of the committees who determine and decide what the legislative agenda should be.

It also means that the committees will be able to engage in what is Congress’s primary responsibility — the authority of oversight, something that Bush has been able to escape for six years, with his party in control of Congress. This will also mean that the defence, foreign and appropriations committees can be expected to put senior administration officials through a public grilling on a host of issues, including Iraq, that could reveal major flaws and embarrassing details from that adventure.

Incidentally, Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, who is set to be the first female speaker of the House, has been a strong and consistent critic of Bush. She not only voted against the Iraq war, but has described the president as “dangerously incompetent” and “an emperor without clothes”. She is also a tough negotiator.

There is no doubt that the huge victory of the Democrats will be read in most capitals as not only a repudiation of Bush’s Iraq policy, but also as rejection of his penchant for pursuing policies that proved divisive at home and showed contempt for the views of friends and allies abroad. Bush had articulated even before his election that his administration would pursue unilateral policies in disregard of multilateral commitments and solemn agreements, if that suited the US. The UN was to be humiliated and its relevance confined to merely rubber-stamping US decisions. This was demonstrated not only on Iraq, but even on issues such as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol.

There is, therefore, understandable satisfaction in public circles in Europe at Bush’s discomfiture, but fundamental differences will continue to disturb Europe’s relations with the US. Of course, there will be less public acrimony between them, but they will remain divided on issues such as trade, farm subsidies and the Middle East.

On trade, the Democrats are more protectionist than the Republicans and therefore less likely to be forthcoming on the Doha Round. In fact, some of them, such as Sherrod Brown, have vowed to resist the Bush administration’s push for free trade, a position with obvious appeal to workers who blame imports and outsourcing for stagnant wages and layoffs.

On farm subsidies, the Democrats are going to be even less flexible than the Republicans. The likely new chairman of the House agriculture committee, Collin Peterson, comes from a constituency heavily populated by corn and sugar beet farmers and he is likely to oppose any reduction in their farm subsidies.

As regards the Middle East, the Democrat leadership and its rank and file is no less committed to Israel than this administration. In fact, on Israel there are no differences between the two parties.

China has established itself as an influential partner of the US on many global issues, most importantly, North Korea. In this context, it would be recalled that before his election, Bush had been a strong critic of Clinton’s policy of engagement with China. But this changed soon after he came to power, first under Colin Powell’s influence and then because China’s help on issues such as North Korea and Iran was deemed indispensable. A Democratic-controlled Congress will, however, be more critical of China on trade issues, as many of their prominent members come from states whose textile industry is being battered by Chinese exports. Democrats will also focus more sharply on issues such as religious discrimination and human rights violations in China.

Iran should benefit from Bush’s setback. Henceforth, there will no talk of “regime change’ in Iran. That and the threat of military action against it is definitely off the table, though the Democratic opposition to Iran’s nuclear programme will be no less sustained. But the Democrats are more likely to favour dialogue and greater involvement of the EU, Russia and China on this issue and less on pursuing a unilateral course.

In any case, the past few months have demonstrated that if there has been one beneficiary from Bush’s ill-advised policies in the Middle East, it is Iran. How ironic that one of the proposals under consideration by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group is likely to be the recommendation that Iran and Syria be brought into any discussion on the future of Iraq. This is the price the administration is now willing to pay for its follies.

India need have no worries. New Delhi has friends in both parties, with many prominent Democrats among its most vocal supporters. Lest we forget, this administration’s pursuit of a “strategic relationship” with India was built on Clinton’s strong desire to craft special relations with New Delhi. The July 2005 Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement on the sale of nuclear reactors may face some scrutiny as a few of the Democrats are zealously opposed to proliferation. But since it enjoys support of the leadership of both parties, it could get approved at an early date.

What about Pakistan? Bush has said repeatedly that he is “tight” with Musharraf, describing him as a close friend and ally. Pakistan’s role and contribution to the US-led global war on terror has been invaluable to the US and widely acknowledged by this administration. This has enabled the Pakistani leader to escape congressional scrutiny of many of his policies. It has also enabled him to dismiss the growing clamour in the country, including from former associates, that he leave the army and stand for election as a genuine civilian political leader rather than insist on remaining army chief.

The senate foreign affairs committee is now likely to be headed by Delaware Senator Joe Biden, a liberal Democrat, who has been harsh with Pakistan, even in the best of times. He can be expected to focus on the absence of genuine democracy in Pakistan, as well as on issues such as the treatment of minorities and women. And, of course, since we have ourselves been so generous in detailing our alleged indiscretions as regards the control and command of our nuclear programme, Biden is sure to ask the administration what it has done about this concern. Congress may also ask the administration to take measures to ensure that the forthcoming elections in Pakistan are genuinely free and fair.

The next presidential elections are still two years away but this election certainly represents the end of an era. In the meanwhile, Bush can still salvage some of his effectiveness, if he truly understands that the polls are a strong reflection of popular desire for an end to the divisive policies that he has, under the influence of the neo-cons, espoused so far. But the Democrats, too, will be under scrutiny. They will have to demonstrate that they can promote genuine bipartisanship and work with the White House on domestic issues such as social security, healthcare, immigration, minimum wages etc. If they are perceived as pursuing a witch-hunt, they will soon lose their razor-thin majority among the public.

Rumsfeld’s swift removal was a welcome first step by the president. So was Nancy Pelosi’s assurance that she was willing to work with the White House in a spirit of give-and-take. It is not only the American voters that will be closely watching how the two sides develop their working relationship. Such is America’s influence that its well-wishers hope that the country demonstrates wisdom and maturity. It can win more friends and influence more people by the strength of its economic power, by the vigour of its democratic institutions and by the vibrancy of its cultural diversity than by brandishing weapons and engineering regime changes. Hubris must give way to restraint and mutual respect.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Sri Lanka: what peace demands

SOME countries learn from their mistakes, some don’t. Sri Lanka belongs to the latter category. The sufferings of the Tamils, a minority, and the privations of the Sinhalese, the majority, should have made the country realise that both communities have to live together and that violence will not solve any problem.

Still, the Sri Lankan government has bombed some areas in the northern parts where the Tamils live, causing civilian casualties.

True, President Mahinda Rajapakse won elections one year ago on the plank of toughness. But he also promised equal participation to all communities. When he rushed to India soon after assuming power to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it was evident that Rajapakse had chosen the path of making up with the Tamils. The process leading to the Geneva talks confirmed that.

However, Colombo’s stand at Geneva falsified the assumption because it refused to open the blocked road connecting south with north. Even when it would have meant a step towards normalisation and facilitated the movement of food convoys to the Tamils in Jaffna, the Rajapakse government did not relent. The military and the monks, the two powerful entities influencing Rajapakse, had their way. But the government lost an opportunity to pin down the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and commit them to employing peaceful methods.

Even after the failure of the talks, Rajapakse could have picked up the pieces from Geneva and reassembled them at Colombo. He had already spanned the distance with opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and lessened dependence on the JVP, Sri Lanka’s RSS. Instead, the president went for the military option. This will only push the Tamils further into the lap of the LTTE which has become their shield, much to the disappointment of the liberals among them. “Where do we go?” asked an aged Tamil MP at Colombo.

The Sinhalese, who constitute more than 70 per cent of the country’s population of 19 million, blame the Tamils for strengthening the LTTE which has killed even moderate Tamil leaders in order to be the only representative of the community. But the Sinhalese do not seem to realise that the LTTE is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is mistrust and the decades-old neglect of the Tamils. They have no jobs, no sense of security and no status in society which is dominated and dictated by the Sinhalese. Had the latter tried to give them back their pride which they lost at the hands of chauvinist elements in the Sinhalese community, the Tamils would have revolted against the ruthless LTTE and its fascist leader Velupillai Prabhakaran.

The shoddy treatment meted out to the Tamils is the grist to LTTE’s propaganda mill. It has only to point out how the Tamils have been edged out from practically every field. Even the language, Tamil, supposed to be at par with Sinhala, is hardly used in the bureaucracy, the police or any official organ. For example, the police in Jaffna, a Tamil town, records complaints only in Sinhala. They have no Sinhalese in the force.

This situation prevails almost all over in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese and the Tamils live in their own worlds with very little contact with each other. The Muslims, making up nearly eight per cent of the population, could become a bridge between the two communities. But although they are Tamil-speaking, of Indian origin, they tend to side with the Sinhalese.

One, because the latter are the rulers and, two, because the LTTE has forcibly ousted the Muslims from their lands in the Eastern Province which the LTTE claim. (The Supreme Court has annulled the merger of the Eastern and Northern Provinces and has asked the government to implement its verdict).

Although the hardliners among the Sinhalese are having their way, there is a general desire is to harness the support of the Tamils who constitute nearly 20 per cent of the population. They are diligent, hardworking and ready to cooperate. But the price which they demand is participation in the country’s affairs. Rajapakse knows this.

He has appointed a committee of experts to prepare a blueprint for the devolution of power. Wickremesinghe said that after its approval by an all-party conference, it would be implemented even if the LTTE rejected it. The blueprint, it seems, is the document which Rajapakse may bring to Delhi when he visits in the last week of November.

There is no firm information about the blueprint. But different leaders say that it is based on the “Indian model.” Still, nobody is willing to commit himself to a federal structure. Some ministers talk about the pup which India’s minister for panchayati raj, Mani Shankar Aiyar, has sold them in the shape of the panchayat system to decentralise power.

But this indicates that the Sinhalese do not want to part with real power. The much vaunted provincial councils, brought about by amending the constitution, have been a failure. They cannot have any legislation passed. It is for parliament to do so. Even trivial things like a culvert or an electricity pole are decided by the minister in charge. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE did not find any common ground in Geneva. The LTTE delegation had, indeed, expected some resilience from the government. The delegation is said to have planned even a short trip to Europe to relax. But it had to return immediately to explain to their people what went wrong. I was in Colombo at that time.

That was the night when there was a knock at my door at a hotel in Colombo. Some 12 policemen were there to search the room. They examined my passport and looked into the cupboard. And then they went away, without offering an apology. “We were checking,” one policeman said. My hotel was in a Tamil area and hence the search to see if some LTTE men were hiding there.

Currently, the Tamils are the target of extortions. Practically everyday there is an incident when a Tamil businessman is kidnapped for a ransom of millions of rupees. The president has been given the details of many cases, with no result. The abducted have bargained on their own and paid the ransom. The suspicion is that an armed group, in connivance with the authorities, has come up with an understanding with the Karuna faction, a breakaway group of the LTTE.

It may be a dismal scene. But some of us have spent five days in Colombo to bring the Sinhalese and the Tamils nearer to one another. It is an effort to foster people-to-people contact. If it could work for the Indians and Pakistanis, why not for the Tamils and Sinhalese?

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

First, ethics reform

ONE of the loudest messages from Tuesday’s elections was disgust with the way Washington does business. In exit polls, 42 per cent of voters said corruption and scandals in government were extremely important in their decisions — a greater share than for the war in Iraq, terrorism or the economy.

House Democrats have vowed to quickly adopt new ethics rules; their package is good but could be improved. Senate Democrats, who, after yesterday’s gracious concession by Sen. George Allen, will control the chamber, say they too have heard the voters’ demand for change.

The House Democrats’ package, which incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to enact during the Democrats’ first day in control, would prohibit lawmakers and their staff from accepting meals, gifts and trips paid for by lobbyists or organizations that employ lobbyists. To end a Jack Abramoff practice — the use of nonprofit groups to disguise trips paid for by lobbyists or other interested parties — the Democrats’ measure would require advance approval for other travel. Lawmakers would be barred from riding corporate jets for official travel but could still do so on campaign and political trips, a loophole that ought to be plugged. Lawmakers and staffers would have to wait two years, not one as currently, to lobby their former colleagues.

The weakest link in the House package concerns enforcement. A new Office of Public Integrity would review lobbyists’ filings, but lawmakers would remain under the jurisdiction of the House ethics committee, whose sorry performance this year argues for a system less susceptible to partisan stalemate. Reps. Christopher Shays and Martin T. Meehan have proposed an independent investigator who would provide greater scrutiny and accountability while leaving ultimate authority to elected officials. The new House leaders should incorporate that plan into their package.

Changing Senate rules is more complicated because doing so requires a two-thirds vote, but the office of the incoming majority leader, Sen. Harry M. Reid, said on Thursday that he is also committed to swift action. Only the House Democrats promised before the election to make ethics a priority, but if the election results helped refocus Senate Democrats on ethics issues, that’s all to the good.

—The Washington Post Service