Who
Will Be Good For India?
It's a cliff-hanger but India will be happier with a kinder, gentler Bush than a tough Gore.
By Raj Chengappa with Harinder Baweja in Washington DC
To borrow a word from presidential candidate George W. Bush's limited vocabulary, it has turned out to be the fuzziest elections ever. After 100 million American voters stamped their ballot papers on November 7, the margin of votes separating the Texas governor and Vice-President Al Gore for the topmost job in the world was barely 300 in the key state of Florida after a recount. Who the next President of America would be now depends on the 3,000-odd votes posted by US armed forces personnel on missions in places like Kosovo. Their votes are expected to come in latest by November 17.
 |
| The media only added to the confusion |
Even then, America seems headed for its worst constitutional crisis that could see results postponed till early January. As outgoing President Bill Clinton wryly observed, "The American people have spoken. But we may have to wait awhile to determine what they said." Much of the chaos is because of the existing electoral system. Although a presidential candidate seeks popular votes, it is an electoral college with representatives from each of the 50 states that technically elects him. A state's number of electors equals the number it sends to the Senate and the House of Representatives. Florida, for instance, contributes 25 electors. The candidate who wins the popular vote within a state receives all the state's electoral vote even if the margin of victory is less than a couple of hundred, as could happen in the sunshine state. To be voted President, a candidate needs to win more than 270 of the total 538 electors in the college.
So Far So Good: But in a tight race, the complications begin. In more than half the states it is only convention and not law that binds an elector to vote for the candidate that got him there in the first place. Which means that when the electoral college meets on December 18, even if Bush wins Florida and reaches the magical figure of 271, he will not be voted as President if one elector defects. The battle then goes to the House of Representatives which will meet on January 6, 2001, and vote for a new President from among the top three candidates in the race.
By the end of the bizarre week, even the world seemed to be on hold. Senior Indian policymakers flew into Washington DC during election week to touch base mainly with Bush's Republican team on a range of issues. But they had to wait till the outcome of the results. If the Democrats come back, India can expect Gore to continue Clinton's policy of building a long-term relationship. As Clinton told Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on his visit to Washington in September: "I want to leave this relationship in the best possible shape for my successor so that he can pick up the ball and run with it."
The prime minister did establish a good rapport with Gore who even hosted a lunch for him, taking time off from his busy campaign schedule. India is rattled though about Gore making the ratification of the CTBT and non-proliferation a priority issue. Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says, "Gore can be expected to be tougher on proliferation, and perhaps continue the punitive sanctions policy towards India and Pakistan." But he may be stymied in his efforts to get the US Congress to ratify the CTBT with Republicans gaining a slender majority in both the Houses. Also, Gore's policy of so-called "forward engagement"-which is addressing major issues early and with the force of American power behind it-does make Indian policy planners wary of him. And his secretary of state and Madeleine Albright's successor is likely to be Richard Holbrooke, the UN ambassador and Bosnia peacebroker, considered a tough negotiator.
India may be happier if the initial count is proved right and Bush emerges the winner. The 54-year-old Texas governor has made some of his worst gaffes in foreign policy including calling the Greeks "Grecians". But since then he has made amends. He is likely to appoint the Gulf War hero Colin Powell as his secretary of state and his foreign policy tutor Condoleeza Rice as national security adviser. He has made it clear that he is not interested in getting the CTBT ratified which he says "is not verifiable or enforceable".
The Republicans are also likely to play up relations with Japan and get away from the Democrats' obsession with China. The distancing from China may be good for India. Ambassador Richard Armitage, Bush's senior foreign policy and defence adviser, while describing the key elements of the Republican foreign policy, said: "It involves the management of the rise of the two great powers-China and India." India is hoping that Bush will lift the economic sanctions imposed by the US after the 1998 tests. But he would want an improvement in Indo-Pakistan relations as a pre-condition.
Yet, the
recent reality that has emerged in Indo-US relations may make it impervious
to the vagaries of a change of presidency. Apart from summit meetings,
high-level working groups such as those on terrorism and non-proliferation
have institutionalised the dialogue process. Richard Celeste, US ambassador
to India, told India Today: "We are on the threshold of a mature,
long-term relationship. The impact of the elections will be minimal."
Like the rest of the world, India waits in exasperation to find out who
to do business with after Clinton.