B.RAMAN
To be fair to President Barack Obama, one cannot
deny that he inherited a bad economy from his predecessor Mr.George Bush. It
became worse partly due to lack of
energetic handling by his economic team
and partly due to the global economic melt-down during his first term.
2. The cumulative effect was a seemingly bad
economic record which was sought to be exploited skilfully by his challenger
Mr.Mitt Romney. During the first Presidential debate, Mr.Romney managed to keep
the spotlight focussed on Mr.Obama for
the declining state of the economy.
3. After the first debate, the economy started
showing glacial signs of improvement. The unemployment rate stopped increasing.
More jobs were being created. More people started getting jobs. The deficit
position remained as bad as ever, but the job market was not as gloomy as it
was before the first Presidential debate.
4. Not many analysts noticed these glacial changes
for the better in the job market. The BBC’s economic analyst was one of the
very few to have done so.
5. When the American voters went to the polls on
November 6, they had before their eyes a job market which had stopped
deteriorating. Should they give credit for this to Mr.Obama’s economic policies
and give time to those policies to reduce the negativity in the economy by
giving Mr.Obama a second term, or should they turn to Mr.Romney and his
proposed policy package without any guarantee of its success should Mr.Romney
become the President? They chose the first option and decided to let Mr.Obama
continue for a second term in view of what seemed a turn-around in the job
market.
6. That is how I would explain the remarkable
success of Mr.Obama despite his lack-lustre handling of the economy during the
first term. Other factors contributed to his success too such as his
demonstrated leadership in handling the hurricane disaster which stood in sharp
contrast to the lack of leadership of Mr.Bush in dealing with natural
disasters. But these factors alone would not have led to the win of Mr.Obama if the clouds of economic
gloom had not started showing signs of dissipation in respect of the job market
before voting day.
7. Mr.Obama is going to face three major
mine-fields during his second term. The first will relate to the economy.
Despite incipient signs of an improvement in the job market, an economic
upswing is not round the corner. Whether there is an economic upswing would
depend on how he and his advisers handle the deficit. Controlling the deficit
will take time.
8. During the campaign, Mr.Romney managed to plant
in the minds of sections of US voters seeds of suspicion that
China was partly responsible for the USA’s economic woes. He said during the
third debate devoted to foreign policy that if he became the President he would
declare China a foreign exchange
manipulator.
9.The references to China by both the candidates
during the Presidential debates in the context of the economic situation would
augment the attention given to China during Mr.Obama’s second term. There will
be more attention to China from the point of view of the economy as well as the
tensions in the Asia Pacific region.
10. The lack of references to India during the
debates showed how inconsequential India is from the point of view of the
economy as well as the Asia-Pacific tensions. India would not be a beneficiary
of the increased attention to the China-centric concerns during Mr.Obama’s
second term. We should not nurse any illusions of a greater importance to India
in view of the China factor.
11. The second minefield will be with regard to
Afghanistan. Mr.Obama has taken an irreversible decision to thin down the US
troop presence in Afghanistan. There is going to be continuing instability in
Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai is going to complete his second term. He
will not be eligible for a third term. A new Afghan President will add to
ground uncertainties at a time when the US and other NATO troops thin out.
12. Pakistani co-operation for ensuring stability
on the ground in Afghanistan during the second term of Mr.Obama will become
more important than it was during his first term. He may not be able to adopt
the same tough line towards Pakistan as he did during his first term. He may
find himself increasingly compelled to pay more attention to Pakistani
sensitivities. That would mean less attention to Indian interests. The
convergence of Indian and US interests and policies in Afghanistan would not be
sharp.
13. The third minefield would be relating to Syria
and Iran. Mr.Obama is pledged to bring about a regime change in Syria, if need
be, by strengthening the capabilities of the anti-Assad forces in Syria. He is
also pledged to increase pressure on Iran on the nuclear issue. The Jewish
voters are believed to have largely voted for Mr.Romney due to their belief
that he would take a tougher line towards the Assad regime in Syria and Iran
than Mr.Obama.
14. Mr.Obama has to placate the Jewish
sensitivities. He cannot afford to be indifferent to them. Dealing with Syria
will not be as easy as dealing with Libya was because of Iran’s close interests
in Syria and the Lebanese factor. Any
fresh instability in the Lebanon as a result of the US policies in Syria will
complicate the ground situation increasing the possibility of fresh Israeli
intervention in the Lebanon. Dealing with the new complexities in the region
without opening a fresh Pandora’s Box is going to be a tricky matter.
15. Mr.Obama’s preoccupation is going to be with
these three minefields. The options available for India for further
strengthening our strategic partnership with the US will remain limited. We
must focus on reviving and strengthening our economy and stabilising and
increasing our regional influence without
exaggerated hopes of a surge in our links with the US. ( 8-11-12)
(The writer
is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi,
and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate
of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter @SORBONNE75)
