The other side

Barack Obamas victory has been widely welcomed, but some nations are wary of what it might hold for them.

BARACK OBAMAS victory in the United States presidential election has elicited a mixed response from various capitals. International public opinion has been overwhelmingly in favour of the African-American candidate, but some governments are wary about an Obama presidency. Many governments, especially the ones in India, Israel and Colombia, were extremely happy with the Bush presidency for a variety of reasons. India was favoured with a nuclear deal. Israel was allowed to keep on expanding and put the peace process on the back burner. Colombia was the beneficiary of huge amounts of U.S. assistance to crush left-wing guerillas and organisations.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had told Bush, the lame-duck President, on his last visit to Washington that the Indian people deeply loved him. This was at a time when Bushs domestic approval rating was at a historical low. The Prime Ministers remarks reflected the Indian political establishments mindset. The Republican candidate, John McCain, promised on the campaign trail to strengthen further the special relationship between the two largest democracies of the world, the U.S. and India. Obama, too, said he would strengthen bilateral relations and, in a letter to the Indian Prime Minister, expressed his strong commitment to take forward the Indo-U.S. strategic partnership.

But the President-elects views on the Kashmir issue riled the government in New Delhi. In an interview to Time in October, just before the U.S. went to the polls, Obama said that he wanted to devote serious diplomatic resources to get a special envoy in there, to figure out a plausible approach to find a solution to the Kashmir dispute. He said that he had sounded out former President Bill Clinton to be the special envoy. On previous occasions, he had said that a positive direction to the Kashmir dispute would encourage Pakistan to cooperate wholeheartedly with the U.S. in Afghanistan. Like many others in the U.S. political establishment, Obama is of the view that there is a linkage between Afghanistan and Kashmir.

His major foreign policy focus, if his talk on the campaign trail is to be taken seriously, will be on Afghanistan. He has said on umpteen occasions that U.S. troops will withdraw from Iraq and then concentrate on the good war in Afghanistan. He has described the war in Afghanistan as the central front in the war on terror. General David Petraeus, who heads the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), which covers Central and West Asia, said in September that the challenges of the region could only be solved by involving all the major players, including Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Many foreign policy analysts have been calling for a change in U.S. policies towards Pakistan. Barnett Rubin and Ahmad Rashid, writing in the influential Foreign Policy journal, have suggested that Washington should pursue a high-level diplomatic initiative designed to build genuine consensus on the goal of achieving Afghan stability by addressing the legitimate sources of Pakistans insecurity, especially vis-a-vis India. According to reports, Rashid consulted Petraeus in connection with the article.

Obamas talk about sending U.S. troops on cross-border raids into Pakistan to root out terror havens was, however, appreciated in New Delhi. India has been an open supporter of President Bushs doctrine of pre-emption. The latest illustration was the support expressed for the U.S. military strike against Syria in late October. Pakistan has been subjected to more than 19 aerial strikes in the past couple of years. Since 2004, the Bush administration has secretly authorised military raids against 20 countries without a declaration of war. Obama has on several occasions expressed support for bolstering the U.S. militarys Special Operations Forces, which engage in cross-border raids.

During the eight years of the Bush administration, the U.S. de-linked relations with India from those with Pakistan. Washington carefully kept a hands-off policy on Kashmir, a fact much appreciated by the Indian foreign policy establishment. Things could now change. Human rights formed a central plank in Obamas campaign. He spoke extensively on pet American liberal agendas such as Darfur and Zimbabwe, besides criticising the rampant human rights abuses committed under the Bush administration as it conducted its war on terror. Most observers expect the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison, where suspects have been incarcerated and tortured, to be closed down under the Obama presidency.

Obama also said after his victory that he would seek a world with no nuclear weapons. Fears are already being expressed in New Delhi that with Congress and the Senate under Democratic control, the new administration will bring back the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and other long-pending treaties opposed by Bush, on top of the agenda. Indian policymakers are reassuring themselves that President Obama will be more preoccupied with the global economic crisis and domestic issues for at least the next two years. New Delhi can also draw solace from the fact that Obama has never stood consistently by any of his commitments.

His selection of Rahm Israel Emanuel as his Chief of Staff could be a pointer of things to come. Emanuel, who holds joint U.S.-Israeli citizenship, fought in the Israel Defence Forces in the early 1990s. His father was a leading member of the terrorist Irgun gang, which was responsible for the killing of hundreds of Palestinians in the run-up to Israels independence. The appointment of Sonal Shah in the core group of the Obama-Biden transition team is being viewed positively in New Delhi. Shah, who worked in the Clinton administration, has denied reports alleging that she was once a member of the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad in India.

Obamas grandiose plans for bringing about peace in West Asia and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could take a long time to unfold. The new administration hopes to involve regional powers and major global players to find solutions. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) report in 2007 recommended a new diplomatic offensive to achieve political stability in Iraq. It emphasised the importance of engaging Syria and Iran in a regional framework that would also include the United Nations and the European Union. The Obama presidency could well choose to proceed on the lines recommended by the ISG. The ISGs New Diplomatic Offensive was also for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement to safeguard U.S. interests in the region.

There is an acknowledgement in Washington of the reality that in the eight years of the Bush presidency, Irans power and influence expanded considerably. Thanks mainly to the Bush administrations blunders, Teheran now has considerable leverage in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of West Asia. Iran has been consistently signalling that it is willing for a grand agreement with the U.S. provided its security interests are addressed. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad broke with tradition to send the President-elect a prompt congratulatory letter, in which he praised the American people and expressed his hope for significant changes in U.S. foreign policy.

During his campaign, Obama said he was open to a dialogue with Iran but also pledged to toughen sanctions on the country to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Many of Obamas top advisers want him to prioritise the Iran issue. Dennis Ross, his senior foreign policy adviser, is a signatory to a recent report Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy toward Iranian Nuclear Development by the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank with close connections with the powerful Jewish lobby in the U.S. The report has been described as a virtual road map for a war with Iran.

Ross has also been held responsible for Obamas pandering to the Zionist lobby in the last months of the campaign. Obama went to the extent of saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. This is a position that even President Bush did not dare to take. If Obama spurns the olive branch offered by Iran and opts to continue with the tough line of the current President on the Iranian nuclear issue and Palestine, he will send the wrong signals to the Arab street and to the Muslim world in general.

Iran has already reacted strongly to Obamas comments in his first post-election press conference. Obama said that it was unacceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international attempt to prevent it. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has insisted that it is interested in harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only. Tiny Israel has the largest nuclear arsenal in the region, surpassing that of India. The Iranian media compared Obamas comments to those of President Bush.

In his letter to Obama, Ahmadinejad said that the world expected changes from the new administration. According to Ahmadinejad, the previous administrations policies were based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation. Many of Washingtons close allies in Europe and West Asia want the U.S.-Iran dialogue to resume.

Africans were the happiest with Obamas victory. Kenya, his fathers homeland, declared a national holiday to celebrate it. Barack in Arabic and Swahili means blessed.

President Bush had lavished a lot of aid on a few African countries that were close military allies of the U.S. It will be a hard act for Obama to follow as he will inherit a battered economy. Because of the deep financial crunch in the U.S., the Obama presidency may have to scale down its developmental activities in the African continent. The Bush administrations initiatives on the African continent include the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and the Presidents $15-billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

Obama will, however, have to deal with the mess the Bush presidency is leaving behind. He will have to decide whether to continue bankrolling the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia. The Ethiopian invasion, carried out under U.S. supervision, has complicated the situation in the Horn of Africa. The humanitarian situation has worsened mainly because of unnecessary American meddling. The crisis in the Congo, which threatens to trigger a regional war once again, will need Obamas urgent attention. The war in the Congo is a proxy one, with the big powers scrambling for its bountiful natural resources.

The African Union (A.U.), and African civil society in general, has taken a stand against the U.S. military command for Africa (United States Africa Command, or AFRICOM), which wants to set up military bases on the continent. So far, only Liberia has been willing to give basing facilities to the U.S. military. Both Obama and McCain endorsed President Bushs plans for AFRICOM. Most African states view it as part of President Bushs neocon agenda for the world. AFRICOM was former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfelds final plan before stepping down. Its aims include combating the growing Chinese influence in the region and securing energy supplies from the continent.

On his campaign trail, Obama talked about starting a new aid programme Add Value to Initiative Program aimed at boosting African agricultural output. But critics have pointed out that the initiative will be meaningless if it is not accompanied by a fair trade system and climate-change legislation.

Obamas views on the situation in Darfur are well known. He, along with Vice-President-elect Joseph Biden, have been votaries of a proactive policy against Sudan. Both of them have supported the call for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Darfur, unilaterally if necessary. They have used the term genocide for the casualties that have occurred there in the past six years of fighting.

Meanwhile, Southern Sudan seems to be gearing up for an armed showdown with the central government in Khartoum. A referendum on independence for Southern Sudan is to be held in 2011. Pro-U.S. governments in the region are helping the southern Sudanese with arms and training with the tacit approval of Washington. The recent revelations of tanks and anti-aircraft guns from Ukraine being routed via Kenyan ports have exposed the game plan for balkanising Sudan.

Obama seems to be aware of the depth of Russias alienation from the U.S. following the Bush administrations decision to set up missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The colour revolutions in East Europe and Central Asia, manipulated from Western capitals, coupled with the aggressive enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the E.U., have not helped matters. Washingtons attempts to isolate Moscow on the Southern Ossetia issue have failed. Even Bush started soft-pedalling on his support for Georgia after the details of its military adventurism were exposed.

Obama has been ambiguous on the missile-defence system that the Bush administration wants to install in Central Europe at Russias doorstep. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced on the day of the Obama victory that short-range missiles would be installed in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave in Central Europe situated between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. His predecessor, Vladimir Putin, had warned in February 2007 that Russia would be forced to target U.S. missile systems if they were installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. In the second week of November, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that Obama had refused to commit himself to the missile-defence project. One of Obamas foreign policy advisers told the newspaper that the President-elect remained committed to the missile-defence shield but would deploy it only when the technology is proved workable. Several test firings of the system have ended in failure.

Latin America distanced itself from Washington in the years of the Bush presidency. Most of the important Latin American countries are under leftist administrations. A recent poll conducted in 18 Latin American countries rated Bush among the least popular leaders of the world. Barack Obamas advisers on Latin America have said that there will be a shift in style. The White House under the new dispensation will appoint a special envoy for the Americas. The emphasis will be on constructive partnership. The U.S. will find it difficult to counter Venezuelas growing influence in the region. A bankrupt U.S. is in no position to dole out financial aid to needy Latin American countries.

President Hugo Chavez, whose opinion about the present incumbent of the White House is well known, said that Obamas victory was a sign that the era of change which has taken root in South America could be reaching the doorstep of the United States. He said he was willing to talk to the new President on equal footing and with respect. Venezuela had expelled the U.S. ambassador in September. For a black man to become President of the U.S. is not a small thing. The entire world is watching, Chavez said. Though Obama called Chavez an authoritarian figure, he has not gone back on his offer to talk to the Venezuelan leader without preconditions.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro, in an article that appeared a day before the U.S. presidential election, said that Obama was the better candidate in comparison with the warmongering McCain. Obama had promised to ease some of the harshest aspects of the U.S. blockade on Cuba. He had pledged to lift travel restrictions, so that Cuban Americans could visit their families in Cuba, and to allow remittances to be sent to Cuba.

Obama has even offered to open a dialogue with Cuba. If this happens, it will be the first time in 50 years that a U.S. President sits down for talks with the Cuban government. But Cuban diplomats are sceptical about Obamas capability to override the powerful, right-wing Cuban-American lobby in the U.S.. They point out that it was another young and charismatic Democratic President, by the name of John F. Kennedy, who ordered the invasion of Cuba. It was during the Clinton administration that many of the draconian laws reinforcing the blockade against Cuba, such as the Helms-Burton law, were passed.

Hispanics, who constitute a big segment of the U.S. population now, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Obama. The Bush administrations decision to construct a permanent fence across the U.S.-Mexico border has angered the whole of Latin America. Obama, too, had supported the construction of the 4,500-km wall, but he also said that he was in favour of a comprehensive package of reforms to help illegal immigrants achieve legal citizenship rights. Migration, anyway, is no longer a hot-button issue because of the economic recession in the U.S. Many Latin American migrants are already returning to their home countries.