US polls and our concerns

THE Bush administration, which did so much to promote conservative policies at home and adopted a neoconservative approach to foreign policy, has lost credibility with the majority in this country, leaving many of its strong supporters angry and disillusioned.

According to the Pew Research Centre’s most recent report, far more Americans now identify themselves with the Democratic Party than with the Republicans, the statistics being roughly 50 per cent to 35 per cent.

Even more disappointing for the Republicans is the news that nearly half of the country (49 per cent) is no longer convinced that military strength is the best way to ensure peace.

It is also important to recall that while most Americans were profoundly touched by the 9/11 tragedy, which shaped their attitudes to foreign policy and national security issues, it is now the Iraq war that has become the barometer of unhappiness with this administration.

As the war in Iraq gets worse, the disenchantment with Bush’s aggressive posture is driving a growing number of people away from it. It will surprise many in Pakistan that recent polls show considerable unhappiness with US deployment not just in Iraq but also in Afghanistan. In fact, 42 per cent of Americans want US and Nato troops withdrawn from Afghanistan, as soon as possible.

All this has led me to concur with analysts here who believe that the Democrats stand a much better chance of victory in the coming presidential polls, even though the elections are still 15 months away and far greater swings in public opinion have taken place in much shorter periods of time.

The major candidates vying for nomination of the Democratic Party are Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards and former Governor Bill Richardson. The first two have received huge amounts as campaign contributions as well as the endorsement of major groups, all of which has catapulted them to the top of the heap.

In fact, Hillary Clinton has established an extremely focused and tightly run campaign machine that aims at winning the early primaries and sewing up the nomination process at an early stage. She has also attracted to her side most of the major figures of her husband’s presidency. She refers frequently to experience gained being her husband’s closest advisor and confidant and then to her active role in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

An extremely intelligent and savvy politician, Clinton has also tried to shed her well-known liberal views, especially by being hawkish on Iraq, the war on terror and supporting larger allocations for the defence department. As an analyst explained to me: “Clinton is anti-war, but pro-defence.”

The other major candidate is the first term Senator Barack Obama from Illinois, whose progression in national politics has been phenomenal. The son of a black father of Kenyan origin and a white mother, he is a moderate liberal who appeals to both whites and blacks. He eschews the politics of race and enjoys greater support among the educated than Clinton, who is more popular with blue collar workers.

The other two — John Edwards and Bill Richardson — are long shots, unless the frontrunners stumble badly. But the latter is considered a good prospect as a running mate, given that he is Hispanic and viewed favourably in the southern states.Having spent the last two weeks meeting some of those advising the major Democratic candidates, I am of the view that while there will be perceptible modifications in the packaging and presentation of US foreign policy interests, there will be no substantive change on major issues.

For example, on the Middle East, a Democratic president will be even more supportive of Israel than Bush, if there can be such a position, given that this administration has been totally in sync with the Jewish state’s wishes. There is, however, recognition that Bush simply failed to take any worthwhile initiative on this issue, thereby leaving the region’s moderate pro-US regimes in an untenable situation.

It is, however, recognised that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy would be closer to that of the current administration than of others from her party. She is a strong advocate of “a muscular foreign policy” and will not hesitate to use force, especially as she will try to refute the charge that she is soft on security and intelligence matters.

Senator Obama appears more aware of the damage done to the US by Bush’s contempt for the United Nations and disdain for views of friends and allies. He also recognises that while the US is the world’s sole superpower, the challenges confronting it cannot be resolved unilaterally and thus the need to involve the international community as well.

As regards South Asia, I do not foresee a major change, irrespective of which Democrat wins the presidency. True, the Bush administration has undertaken the unprecedented decision to offer nuclear technology to India, notwithstanding US laws prohibiting such cooperation. It must not be forgotten either that the US-India nuclear deal has enjoyed the support of major Democrats as well, and it was Clinton and not Bush who took the initiative of offering a “strategic partnership” to India. If anything, most Democrats are convinced that there is genuine affinity between the world’s two largest democracies.

At the same time, no president will want to ignore a Muslim country of 160 million people that also happens to be a nuclear power. But the US approach to Pakistan will certainly undergo a visible change, especially as most Democrats believe in what a US scholar told me: “Pakistan’s importance to the US arises more from fear than friendship.”

This explains the regularity with which I was asked as to whether a civilian government in Pakistan would remain committed to the war on terror and whether there was danger of the “militants” seizing nuclear weapons if Musharraf were to go, incidentally a notion given currency by the regime’s supporters.

There will, however, be a subtle though clear difference on the issue of democracy and human rights, with the Democrats far more sensitive to what Islamabad does on this issue. Moreover, a Democratic president will want to work with a (likely) Democratic-controlled Congress, to promote a return to genuinely elected civilian rule in Pakistan with greater vigour and credibility than its predecessor. There will also be an effort to tailor more of US assistance to programmes to benefit the people of Pakistan, rather than its defence forces.

Senator Obama has already generated considerable controversy by his speech at the Wilson Centre on August 1, in which he had stated: “if we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

This was seized upon by Clinton as evidence of Obama’s inexperience in foreign affairs, in contrast to her understanding of this subject. I was, however, advised by one of Obama’s advisers not to read his remarks out of context, for it was no different from what administration officials, including Frances Townsend, the White House adviser on homeland security, have stated. In any case, on more than one occasion, US forces have reportedly undertaken unilateral action within Pakistan.

Obama also declared that he would make continued military aid to Pakistan conditional on a more aggressive offensive against Al Qaeda followers who live there. He stated: “I would make our conditions clear. Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.”

Of special interest would be Obama’s reference to the need for a resolution of the Kashmir problem, contained in a policy paper in the August 2007 issue of the quarterly journal Foreign Affairs, wherein he called for refocusing US “efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan — the central front in our war against Al Qaeda — so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest.”

He also wrote: “At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work towards resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pakhtun border region. If Pakistan can look towards the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.” One of Obama’s advisers told me that this reference to Kashmir may be the first by a presidential candidate.

Hillary Clinton avoids any reference to her vote in favour of the Iraq war by focusing on the future in that country, especially as Obama was among the few who opposed the invasion of Iraq. He called it an ill-conceived venture which would “require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

In January 2007, he introduced a bill in the Senate to bring all combat troops home by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectations of the Iraq Study Group. In a speech on April 21, 2007, Obama said that even though the global image of the US has been sullied by the war in Iraq and a “foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, America must repair its standing in the world and resist the temptation to turn inwards. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission — we must lead the world, by deed and example.”

Hillary Clinton is the current frontrunner but Obama is close enough to capitalise on any mistake made by her. In fact, she along with Obama and Edwards are in a dead heat in Ohio, (which is likely to host the first primary), each with support from a quarter of likely Democratic caucus goers. Recent Gallup polls of August 12, 2007, appeared to confirm Democratic fears that Hillary Clinton, as a highly polarising politician, could hurt the party.

Most political analysts are convinced that this is one presidential election which the Republicans can win only if the Democrats were to commit ‘hara-kiri’. But the Democrats have done so in the past, which has given currency to the belief that they are quite capable of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” There is no doubt that both Clinton and Obama are extremely attractive candidates and could make excellent presidents. But the first is a highly polarising female politician, while the other is the first serious black presidential aspirant.

Are the Americans prepared to shed their prejudices and confound the Republican political pundits who have pinned their hopes on the voters streaming back to them if either Clinton or Obama were to be the nominee? While this will be known only in November 2008, Islamabad needs to prepare itself for a US administration that will view Pakistan more as a “problem and less as a solution.”

There will be less tolerance for actions viewed here as promoting extremism whether in the contest of Afghanistan or India. In fact, Washington will want to further its goal of “co-opting” India in its strategic plans for the region, while seeking to “manage” what it fears will be increasingly difficult relations with Pakistan. These are certainly major concerns for us, but Washington needs to recognise that only an elected, civilian political dispensation in Pakistan can be its genuinely credible and effective partner.

Left angry over nuclear deal

I WISH the Left had made national development, not the Indo-US nuclear deal, an issue for parting ways with the ruling Congress. Probably, the Left felt that it would not be convincing if it were to do so after having dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s for more or less all the decisions that the Manmohan Singh government had taken in the past three and a half years.

Until now, the Left, particularly the Communist Party of India (Marxist), had been taking vicarious satisfaction in governing, sorting out names for India’s president and appointing the vice-president.

Even today, the Left could have created a rumpus over the increase in the number of poor in the country. It could have taken the government to task on the data revealed by its appointed commission on the unorganised sector. The report says that 836 million people, 87 per cent of India’s population, live on Rs20 (half a US dollar) or less per person per day.

For reasons best known to the Left, it chose the nuclear deal. Politically, it misfired. One, the Left found itself on the side of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Two, a few hours before the Left rejected the deal, China had threatened that “either the Indo-US nuclear deal or the Manmohan Singh government will fall”. Was there any telepathy?

If any country had made the observation that China did, the Left and its camp followers would have been up in arms. The remark would have been considered interference in India’s domestic affairs. Yet, there was not even a whimper in the Left quarters, much less criticism. They felt important by giving repeated statements about how India’s sovereignty would be circumscribed if the deal went through.

Little do they realise that sovereignty rests with the people of a country. It comes from within, not without. How could America or, for that matter, any other country take away, whatever the wording of the deal, our sovereignty? India became sovereign after untold sacrifices. The nation knows how to defend itself against different challenges.

Political parties should not drag sovereignty into their shoddy wrangling. It is something sacred. All American laws (including the Hyde Act) put together cannot enslave us. Nor can Washington’s warnings deter us from doing what we want to do. The Left should judge the government on the basis of the steps it takes to implement the prime minister’s statement in parliament in July 2005.

We stand by no-first use, the undertaking given by the then BJP Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee who announced a moratorium on nuclear tests. The BJP’s turnabout like that of the Left is political. It has nothing to do with our sovereignty. The Left’s animus against America is understandable but what is the BJP’s problem? The latter initiated the whole thing following the unending talks between then BJP foreign minister Jaswant Singh and America’s Talbot, a top functionary in the Clinton government.

The point of concern is not the deal but the manner in which New Delhi is watering down its independent foreign policy that came to be known as non-aligned. We, as a nation, lessen ourselves when the US ambassador in New Delhi warns us not to vote against America on the issue of Iran and we obediently do so. We too do not want Iran to have the bomb and we should support all steps to stop it from developing one.

But what is disconcerting is the general perception that America is dictating us. In the renewal of the Cold War atmosphere, New Delhi has to play a role, an independent one that we played when the world was divided into two hostile blocs. How to win back confidence of the small and weak countries is what New Delhi should be doing, instead of demolishing the consensus on foreign policy that we have.

I am personally against the entire nuclear programme, starting with the bomb. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were against making the bomb. I am not sure whether we should have nuclear energy. Nuclear power houses will be a big hazard. Any leakage, as happened in the Soviet Union, can kill thousands of people. I do not know whether nuclear energy will turn out to be cheaper than thermal or hydro power.

Billions of dollars need to be invested in nuclear energy. And all this will be in the public sector. We should have concentrated on harnessing the waters, including the Brahmaputra, with the help of Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. It would have benefited us all economically.

However, the Manmohan Singh government’s mind is made up on nuclear energy. In a country like India where the marginal group consuming less than Rs15 per person has increased from 290 million to 392 million (nearly 40 per cent of the population), the priority should have been livelihood, not energy, however important it is for development.

The same question arises again: development for whom? The political fallout of the nuclear deal is what seems to worry the Congress-led government. Some sort of mechanism has been established to allay the Left’s fear. But the confidence between the two has been shaken. The Left also feels that its support to the Congress and its policies has eroded its base. This is true. Yet, it appears as if the present crisis over the Indo-US nuclear deal will blow over. The Left is beginning to realise that it would lose heavily if polls were to take place immediately. Still, it may only be a matter of time when the distance between the two becomes unbridgeable.

A mid-term poll may become unavoidable because even if the government is not pulled down, its credibility would lessen if it is reduced to a minority in the Lok Sabha. The Congress, without a majority in the House, can rule as Narasimha Rao did for full five years. The president, who is a Congress nominee, will come in handy. But that does not solve the problem. The minority does not become a majority.

Already, moves are afoot to cobble together an alternative. The BJP-headed National Democratic Alliance is willing to extend support to any group that can show how it can reach the magic figure of 273 in the 545-member Lok Sabha. The third combination, (United National Progressive Alliance) is all for ousting the Congress-led coalition at the centre. Again, its problem is that it cannot gain a majority.

However uncertain the future scenario, the bottom line is that no political party wants mid-term polls. The Left has said that it will oppose the government without being a party to the toppling move. There is more heat than substance. When the chips are down, the political crisis may turn out to be storm in a teacup.

The writer is a senior columnist based in New Delhi

Justice, at last

THE conviction of Jose Padilla by a jury of his peers demonstrates that accused terrorists can be tried in civilian courts offering a panoply of protections for the defendant. But if Tuesday’s verdict is a vindication of the rule of law -- and a rebuke to those who would circumvent it -- the legal shell game to which Padilla was subjected continues to shame the administration.

In finding the Brooklyn-born convert to Islam and two co-defendants guilty of providing support to terrorist groups abroad, a Miami jury gave the lie to the notion that accused terrorists can be brought to justice only by tribunals -- such as the military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay -- that lack traditional legal protections.

Indeed, this isn’t the first jury to do justice in a terrorism case. Almost a decade ago, a jury in New York convicted the architect of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Last year, a jury in Virginia imposed a life sentence on Zacarias Moussaoui, a confessed conspirator in the even more devastating attack of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Bush administration was unhappy that Moussaoui wasn’t sentenced to death, although it thanked the Padilla jury for “upholding a core American principle of impartial justice for all.” In fact, both juries did their duty.

In the case of Padilla, however, the administration only filed criminal charges with great reluctance and only because it feared the wrath of the US Supreme Court. That indictment came after Padilla, an American citizen arrested on American soil, was held for 3 1/2 years without trial as an enemy combatant on the theory, later discarded, that he planned to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in this country.

––Los Angeles Times