Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2010 > Success of the Obama Visit

Mainstream, Vol XLVIII, No 47, November 13, 2010

Success of the Obama Visit

Editorial

Tuesday 16 November 2010, by SC

#socialtags

From all accounts the first trip to India of the first African American President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, has been successful. Not only was Obama’s spellbinding oratory, in full display at the Parliament’s Central Hall (where he addressed the joint session of the two Houses—the high point of the visit), full of substance alongside predictable rhetoric, he positively responded to almost all the concerns articulated by the Indian side vis-à-vis Pakistan and 26/11 (that is, cross-border terrorism), Afghanistan (where he commended India’s role in extending “major development assistance” that has “improved the lives of the Afghan people”) as also Indo-Pak dialogue (wherein in deference to Indian sensitivities he steered clear of trying to inter-nationalise Kashmir or even mentioning it by name). At the same time he went out of his way to declare:

…the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today—in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

Thereafter he did speak of “increased responsi-bility” coming in the wake of “increased power” and referred to Iran and Burma. But what he actually said on both counts was unexceptionable, at least going by his pronouncements. On Iran he stated: “…even as every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, every nation must also meet its international obligations—and that includes the Islamic Republic of Iran.” On Burma he prefaced his opinions with two sentences: “Every country will follow its own path. No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another.” And thereafter he opined: “But when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed—as in Burma—then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent.” He specifically pointed to the Burmese ruling military junta once again “stealing an election.. for all the world to see” and asserted that the US and India in particular among other members of the world community should “condemn” such activities, while candidly regretting that India had often shied away from such issues in global fora and painstakingly explaining that “speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries” or “violating the rights of sovereign nations” but “staying true to our democratic principles”, “giving meaning to human rights that we say are universal” and thus sustaining the “progress that in Asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security” globally.

One is aware that multiple interpretations could be drawn from those words. But since the focus was on Burma where the citizens are subjected to inhuman atrocities perpetrated by the world’s most ruthless military rulers, those words should not be misunderstood regardless of whatever argument serving or retired members of the Indian diplomatic or administrative service may furnish to justify their bonhomie with the military Generals at the cost of the Burmese people’s freedom and democratic aspirations.

In any case Obama’s address was vastly different from what Bush had said in New Delhi in March 2006—the latter had then clubbed developments in Burma with those in North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe and Cuba to declare: “Our nations must not pretend that people of those nations prefer enslavement.” There was no effort to address the concerns of those who objected to interference in the affairs of these states and violation of the rights of these sovereign nations.

Bill Clinton’s persuasive tone that the former US President had struck in the Indian Parliament in March 2000 was there in abundance in Obama’s speech at the same Central Hall but it was much more than that since it provided a measure of the depth of his understanding of the Indian culture and ethos—what he called the “story of India”—while affirming its similarity with the “story of America”.

The visit has doubtless yielded substantive results in the US removing Indian entities from the US Department of Commerce’s “Entity List” and allowing India to be realigned in the US’ export control regulations (that would facilitate the transfer of high tech, dual-use equipment), supporting India’s full membership in multilateral export control regimes like the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime, deciding to collaborate in clean energy, agricultural technology, counter-terrorism and space exploration and organise a summit on higher education.

Of course, one should not lose sight of Obama’s overriding interest in creating additional jobs in the US where the unemployment rate continues to be high. His desperation to advertise the 54,000 more jobs to be generated by the $ 10 billion worth of deals struck with Indian private companies was testimony to the urgency he attached to tackling the economic problems back home. Herein lies the significance of the Indian ‘helping-hand’.

It was, however, regrettable that the Government of India did not, reportedly under US pressure, even make a mention of the terrible plight of the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy after 26 long years and demand adequate compensation from the US companies that ran/run the concerned plant. It should have sought a categoric answer if, in Obama’s view, “Indian lives are cheaper than US lives”. Among the Left parties the CPI did bring this out in bold relief in its assessment of the visit while calling for the arrest and conviction of Warren Anderson, the chief of Union Carbide running the plant in 1984 when the disaster struck. The Bhopal issue also figured during the talks the BJP’s Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha had with Obama.

The real success of Obama’s purposeful visit would, in the final analysis, depend on how far the agreements concluded and declarations made are implemented in the near or distant future. One should also not refrain from urging extreme caution in dealings with the US, whether or not it is headed by Obama, precisely because of our past experience in this regard. Yet this note of caution should not detract one from projecting the essentially productive nature of Obama’s pronouncements as well as decisions arrived at in the course of the latest Indo-US summit, something that was noted more than 10 years age during the Clinton visit as well. (And there is no gainsaying that despite all impediments and irritants Indo-US cooperation has registered substantive advance in these 10 years.)

November 11 S.C.

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.