Bhopinder Singh
Two things are clear, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aremost likely toface-off as the Democratic and Republican candidates for the position of POTUS (President of the USA), respectively – secondly, neither of them have inked formal positions on the Indo-Pak dimension (unlike US-China,which is one of Donald Trump’s 6 specific position notes on his campaign site), therefore campaign trail comments, history and contextual conjecture will aid decoding their subsequent stands on the limited issue of Indo-Pak angle, vis-a-vis the United States.Typically during the campaign trail, party candidates espouse fundamental principles and adopt the extreme postures of the respective party policies to appeal to the core constituents and sound assertively confident to the fence sitters – only to settle for a more nuanced and moderate stance when in chair, owing to complex angularities of actual administration. To an extent Donald Trump starts on a blank sheet with limited exposure of insignificant commercial interests in India, as his regional lodestar, if any – whereas, Hillary carries the umbilical cord of Bill Clinton’s legacy and more individually, her roleas the Secretary of State for 4 years with active regional footprint.
So, if one had to nail the five most relevant and expandable dimensions of the Indo-Pak equation – it would be the respective positions on terror management (where does it emanate from and how to handle ?), on trade (whether to expand, maintain or restrain), on geo-political relevance (decide the more important of the two hyphenated countries and stance on Afghanistan), on immigration (encourage, maintain or discourage) and in this specific relationship – the preferred position on Kashmir (to punt and weigh in favour of one of the two very differentnarratives propounded by the two countries). Stripped of the bite and tonality, the overall direction on all five Indo-Pak themes is seemingly aligned with both the candidates with no glaring contradictions emanating from either the words or the theatrics.
Not known for elegance with words or pulling any punches, Donald Trump had called Pakistan”probably the most dangerous” country in the world and added, “You have to get India involved….They have their own nukes and have a very powerful army….They seem to be the real check…I think we have to deal very closely with India to deal with them (Pakistan)” – his perceptions on Pakistan’s intent and reliability on future foreign policy matters like terror management and other geo-political clarified, the crux of his comfort level and preference of India is unmistakable. At Winsconsin town hall he reiterated, “Pakistan is a very, very vital problem” and “They have to get a grip of their situation”. Even on other matters like trade, immigration or importantly on Kashmir, for the Pakistanis it would be an awkward relationship with a man who had famously said. “They are not friends of ours” or “(There are) plenty of terrorists in Pakistan, we know that”. While his known xenophobic and protectionist positions affect a lot of Indians, however, he has been relatively restrained on India specifically. His pet peeve with India is restricted to the job creation issue with, “India is taking our jobs” (bracketing along with China, Japan and Vietnam!) – Though occasionally thawing with, “country needs smart people like them (Indians)”. However, it is his vocal positions and perceptions on global terror, geopolitics and specifically China with “bringing China to the negotiation table” and “strengthen our negotiation position” – illustrating his Sinophobia,that allude to the possible contours of the overall India-centricity, as also for the limited Indo-Pak perspective.
Hillary is an old hand who needs no introduction to the antecedents of the countries or of the dynamics that impact Indo-Pak equation. She is credited with moderating a lot of American perceptions on India’s necessities on matters like Afghanistan, Iran and most importantly,in toeing the Indian line on Pakistan’s complicity in terror management with its duplicitous past – importantly, weapon supplies to Pakistan were on hold through her stint (unlike her more Pak friendly successor, John Kerry who under his watch has cleared the supply of F-16’s for Pakistan’s ostensible “fight against terrorists”). Considered a relatively hawkish voice in the Obama administration over the use of military force – she is reported to have argued in favour of getting Obama Bin Laden from Pakistan as she felt the importance outweighed the risk of antagonizing relationship with Pakistan. Hillary’s leaked emails on Pakistan reflect her consistent prod to “do more” on counter terrorism measures. Recently she stated, “There are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us. How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?”. However, masked in diplomatic generalities and niceties is her strategic prescience on the positive role of India, “Much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia which, in turn, will be influenced by the partnership between the US and India and its relationship with neighbours,”. Clearly less polarizing than her competitor in her phraseology and tonality of expression – she remains ‘concerned’ about America’s interest on matters like immigration and trade. But, her experience and stated views on foreign policy augur well for positions on terror management, geopolitical issues and Kashmir – where, but for some pragmatism and situational constraints the die is cast in India’s favour.
Historically, Democrats have had a more romantic affiliation with India, while the Republicans (of recent years) have had a more substantial nuts and bolt relationship that is driven by the tectonic shifts in the global order and the need for America to choose new friends in a world with estranged friendships of yore and the brutal reality of today and tomorrow. Either ways, the clouds would remain a lot greyer over Islamabad, even though realistically the play of Indo-Pak dimension will get contextualized to the global narratives of either of the two potential POTUS-candidates.
(The author is former Governor, Andaman and Nicobar and Puducherry)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel