Bharat Rakshak

RajeshA wrote:RamaY ji,
I agree with you.Mitt Romney sounded like a guy who would still have to go through Pakistan Disillusionment Education. Obama already has that behind him.

devesh wrote:why the sudden love/hate for Obama/Romney?! folks, neither of them will do much on the Pak front. I don't see why we need to notch up our BP on this issue.

SBajwa wrote:Tonight is the final presidential debate. 13 more days for election!!! Everybody is calling it a statistical dead heat between Obama and Romney!!

Gus wrote: Romney, OTOH, assuming he loses OH, needs to sweep the table on swing states. Much harder thing to do, even with their usual shenanigans of voter suppression etc.
I am calling a Ombaba win.

I really don't think Mitt Romney really has his fingers in the Paki muck. It's all about advisers. It all depends which advisers he brings in. If it is Condoleeza Rice, then she wouldn't have to go through the Disillusionment from Pakis process again. That is all India can ask for. What I don't want is for India and Indians spending valuable time trying to tell Americans how Pakis are snakes.

g.sarkar wrote: The race is tightening. Cash is flowing in, to early to declare victory.
Gautam

devesh wrote:so if Romney brings in Bush advisers, why is that a problem? those guys were the first ones in decades of US policy establishment who actually tried to systematically change the perception of their wonks about India.

Amber G. wrote:Just saw a poll, Obama vs Romney , O winning everywhere, and by a huge margin in the poll taken in other nations. (70+% vs single digit in France, for example). There was only one exception ... TSP! (where people hated Obama more than Romney).Every Country But Pakistan Wants Obama for Four More Years :

Amber G. wrote:Every Country But Pakistan Wants Obama for Four More Years

Many who condemn U.S. hegemony also seem to demand it. There is a shift under way that they have not yet noticed -- except for an absence that they regard as an American failure. My attempt to explain it as the new normal did not always work.

Given that there is a U.S. presidential election under way, this doctrine, which has quietly emerged under Obama, appears to conflict with the views of Mitt Romney, a point I made in a previous article. My core argument on foreign policy is that reality, not presidents or policy papers, makes foreign policy. The United States has entered a period in which it must move from military domination to more subtle manipulation, and more important, allow events to take their course. This is a maturation of U.S. foreign policy, not a degradation. Most important, it is happening out of impersonal forces that will shape whoever wins the U.S. presidential election and whatever he might want. Whether he wishes to increase U.S. assertiveness out of national interest, or to protect human rights, the United States is changing the model by which it operates. Overextended, it is redesigning its operating system to focus on the essentials and accept that much of the world, unessential to the United States, will be free to evolve as it will.

Amber G. wrote:Just saw a poll, Obama vs Romney , O winning everywhere, and by a huge margin in the poll taken in other nations. (70+% vs single digit in France, for example). There was only one exception ... TSP! (where people hated Obama more than Romney).

Every Country But Pakistan Wants Obama for Four More Years :

***

On Afghanistan and other foreign policy concerns, Powell said he did not believe Romney ‘‘has thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have.’’

ramana wrote:The US India Monitor has a few good articles in light of the Stratfor guru's observation.
Am unable to post.

Obama vs. Romney on India
Oct 23
Posted by usindiamonitor

http://usindiamonitor.com/2012/10/23/obama- vs-romney-on-india/

Mahanth S. Joishy is Editor of usindiamonitor. com.

There is a question that has taken on
more and more meaning as India increases in importance on the world
stage, while Indian-Americans are involved in American politics as never before. Â Which candidate, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would be a better president on issues that are important to India and Indians?

Predictably, both candidates have kissed
up to Indian-American donors and speak highly of India when given the
opportunity. Â Both claim that India is an important ally and friend to
the United States. Â Strikingly, neither candidate discussed India in the foreign policy debate this week. Â In truth, it is difficult to
accurately forecast the answer to this question based on past records
and statements.  It’s also unclear how much influence a president can
bring to bear on these issues.  But it’s worth speculating on.

The primary challenge in this endeavor
would be to identify the core issues that Indians consider to be
important. Â India is a vast and chaotic cauldron of democracy, with
wildly varying views on religious, political, and social issues. Â These
variances have spilled over onto American soil as immigrants of Indian
origin may be found supporting or participating in either political
party.  For example, Aneesh Chopra and Kal Penn have worked in the Obama administration while Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley are staunch Southern Republican governors, and Dinesh D’Souza has savaged Obama’s psyche from the right.  That being said, as a
longtime observer of the diaspora as well as US-India relations, I
believe the issues that matter most are: trade policy, immigration
policy, national security postures, hate crimes legislation, nuclear
issues, and personal diplomacy. Â Below is a breakdown of each.

Trade (Score: Romney)Â Â As I wrote in an editorial on this site, Obama has bashed Romney mercilessly on outsourcing
throughout the campaign, and specifically mentions Indian call centers
in ads or on the stump in a negative light.  The Indian media has picked up on this and although it is more politics than policy, it’s ugly and
clearly the wrong message to send from India’s point of view. But China
gets it worse. Â On any other trade metrics, the amount of trade between
India and the United States has continued to boom under Obama’s
administration. Â When Obama made his first state visit to India, he
took along hundreds of business leaders with him. Â Meanwhile, Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have pushed the envelope on nuclear
supplier trade, as detailed below.

Romney is a bit of a cipher on this
matter.  He talks tough on China’s trade policy, especially as relates
to its currency valuation, but does not seem to  bring India into this
discussion. Â Ostensibly his business background and his Rolodex of
industrialist/ banker friends are all for free trade with India
continuing unabated. Â The company he used to run, Bain, has and
continues to invest in Indian companies, including ones that do
outsourcing, effectively bringing American money and jobs to India. Â
Unlike Obama, Romney does not bash outsourcing to India.

Immigration (Score: Obama)Â In general, the Democratic party is more likely to promote policy
favorable to immigration in general, and from India in particular.
 Obama has spoken about loosening immigration rules which prevent
foreign graduates from staying on in America, thousands of whom come
from India to study. Â He has actively sought an amnesty which would be
favorable to illegal immigrants including those from India, but this
legislation languishes in Congress.
Romney and his Republican party are more
hostile to immigrants. Â Any sort of amnesty would be less likely in a
Romney administration. Â For that matter, so would any new policy
favorable to Indian immigrants, such as granting more H1B visas.

National Security (Score: Tie)Â The two candidates have nearly identical positions on issues that are
important to India’s national security.  Both have displayed concern for monitoring Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and we all know that India is
where most if not all of those are pointing. Â Romney claims he would go
after terrorist groups in Pakistan just as hard as Obama has, including
with unmanned drone strikes. Â Neither as president would come close to
breaking relations with Pakistan- and rightly so as Pakistan remains an
important US partner. Â Both campaigns are for cooperation on defense
with India, such as joint military exercises and weapons sales. Â Obama
and his national security team have prioritized India as a security
partner, and we can expect that to continue under Romney.  Romney’s own
advisers on foreign policy and national security are, while largely
partisans, made up of professionals (including Indian-born ones)
familiar with South Asian issues. Â Both parties are trying to get India
to buy more weapons, especially fighter jets, from American defense
contractors but neither candidate has an edge on this truly bipartisan
wishlist. Â India is just as happy to buy jets from the French or
Russians.

Hate Crimes Legislation (Score: Obama)Â Indian-Americans have been the victims of hate crimes across the
country in recent times, and in this case there is a clear-cut winner.
 Obama has been a champion of this legislation, and has expanded it to
include the LGBT community. Â Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan have
both been against legislation that further protects minority victims of
hate crimes, in their home states as well as while campaigning on the
national stage.

Nuclear Issues  (Score: Obama)   A high-level State Department official told me last year that US
policy toward India’s nuclear weapons program has not changed from Bush
to Obama, and Bush was universally (and unexpectedly) seen as a very
good friend to India on nuclear partnership. Â Obama and Secretary
Clinton have in fact tried hard to push India to use American companies
as suppliers for its nuclear program in deals that would benefit both
sides, while India’s internal politics have slowed the prospects.
 Meanwhile, India and the United States have experienced a great deal of friction related to Iranian oil coming to India, with plenty of back
and forth about sanctioning India for continuing imports at a high
level, and this helped stall the nuclear negotiations too. Â This has
been the biggest bugbear in US-India relations in the last decade. Â In
summer 2012 the two nations finally came to an uneasy truce on this
issue, with India taking steps to reduce oil imports under pressure from the Obama administration.

Romney suggests he would be even tougher
on nations importing oil from Iran than Obama has been. Â That would
include India and would probably result in a harsher line against India.  Meanwhile, Romney’s advisers have said that he would continue to push
cooperation with India on its nuclear ambitions rather than going
against them, just as Obama has done. Â This is not surprising
considering that it was a Republican president, Bush who initiated this
framework.

Diplomacy & Personal Affinity (Score: Obama)Â It was unclear in 2008 how good a friend Obama would be towards India.
 However, he did visit India while a candidate, and even carried a
Hanuman trinket in his pocket which caused millions of Hindus to view
him in a favorable light. Â Meanwhile, he has dispatched delegations from State and Defense repeatedly to India, with Secretaries Clinton and
Gates notably making repeated stops there. Â Bilateral strategy sessions
are now annual. Â Relations have been good aside from the battles over
Iranian oil. Â Manmohan Singh was the recipient of the Obama White
House’s first state dinner- marred as it was by the sari-clad
party crasher. Â Â The Obamas also had a productive three-day trip to
India that brought trade deals, and promises to endorse India for the
UN’s Security Council and Nuclear Suppliers Group.  These are as
concrete as any steps a US president can take to support India in the
diplomatic world. Â Obama is also a noted admirer of Mahatma Gandhi.

Candidate Romney has traveled to places
like England and Israel but did not include India on his itinerary. Â He
speaks highly of India and Indian-Americans in very general terms, but
there is no notable mention of it in his foreign policy speeches or his
platform. Â The Republican party did have a Sikh invocation during the
Republican National Convention this year, with respect shown to the
slaughter in Wisconsin.  However, one aspect of Romney’s foreign policy should give Indians pause: he uses hegemonic language and American
exceptionalism as the basis of his worldview, which is in conflict with
India’s recognition of today’s world as a multi-polar concert.

In the final analysis, Obama has more of a record in this area to stand on, and one issue where he has significant daylight with his opponent, on hate crimes. Â However, India can expect a Romney administration to be largely as cooperative and friendly as
Obama’s has been toward Indian interests. Â

But there is a metric which
seems to capture the spirit of the times better than any other: Indian-Americans in polls indicate they will vote for Obama by a 3-1
margin.