Obama Disses India

OBAMA DISSES INDIA — AGAIN


Obama’s appointment of Indiana Representative Timothy Roemer as ambassador to India is another troubling sign of this administration’s attitude towards its important and critical ally.

Ambassadorships are often key signaling devices. Two weeks ago, for example, President Obama gave China Jon Huntsman as ambassador. In addition to being a rising Republican star, Huntsman is a proficient Mandarin speaker. He has lived and worked in East Asia and has an adopted Chinese daughter. Additionally, he served as Ambassador to Singapore in the early 1990s. Huntsman’s nomination is a clear sign to the Chinese that the United States is committed to strengthening ties. At the press conference announcing his nomination, President Obama noted that: “This ambassadorship is as important as any in the world.”

What then to make of the appointment of Tim Roemer? While China receives a potential future president in Huntsman, India receives in Tim Roemer a six-term Indiana representative who has little connection with the region.

With the opening of the Indian economy in the early 1990s, and increasing military ties, India has emerged as one of the United States’ most important strategic partners in the 21st century. The United States is now India’s largest trading partner and also the largest source of direct foreign investment. Both nations’ navies have conducted joint exercises, and in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks there has been a renewed effort at intelligence sharing and coordination. The Indian military has turned to American suppliers after many years of relying on Soviet and Russian military technology. The passage of the civilian nuclear agreement in Congress allows for India to purchase nuclear technology from the United States. The appointment of a former Congressman with little involvement in the region does nothing to highlight the importance of this growing relationship.

Roemer does have an interest in national security and foreign affairs: he has worked on non-proliferation issues and serves on the bipartisan committee on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet such work suggests he might have been better employed with an appointment to Pakistan, a nation with questions about the security of their nuclear arsenal.

The appointment of Roemer is just the latest in a series of steps which suggest that the Obama administration does not fully appreciate America’s relationship with India. At the G-20 summit in April, Obama raised eyebrows in India with his remark that the tax code should be rewritten to limit outsourcing: “It’s a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.” And during her first overseas trip as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled to Asia, but did not include a stop in India.

Most troubling though are the attempts by the Obama administration to link the dispute over Kashmir to the growing turmoil in Pakistan. During the campaign, Obama suggested that the US might play a more active role in brokering a resolution to the conflict. The Obama administration believes that resolving the Kashmir dispute will both help the Pakistani government earn the support of their people and allow the Pakistani military to redirect their armed forces against the ever-growing Islamic insurgency in their country. New Delhi immediately dismissed the idea, but it will be interesting to see if Roemer once again pushes for an American-mediated settlement. While promoting stability in Pakistan is important, if Obama and Roemer deal with India by asking: “What’s best for Pakistan?” they may alienate an even more important long-term strategic ally.

Re: Obama Disses India

Hopefully the sizeable Indian American population who supported Obama financially and otherwise will think twice about supporting Obama/Democrats in 2012 :hoonh:

Yeah but the even bigger Jewish, Muslim and other who support Obama will make the Indian vote irrelevant. :smiley:

:konfused: Jewish support Obama ?? Since when ??

Jewish vote was divided, and so was the Indian vote. Who cares about Muslim vote. It doesn't change a thing in the big picture. At least not yet.

Prez Obama is operating on two levels when it comes to India.

Level-1. American protectionism especially for the white collar middle class jobs.

But a much bigger driver for Obama's thought process can easily be found when you talk to American middle class Blacks.

Level-2. American blacks detest in absolute sense, the concept of "immigrants and foreigners" coming in and taking over good jobs that would have gone to the blacks. The situation becomes even more fiery when the same "foreigners" are perceived to be taking jobs OUT of America.

So no need to gloat over anti-Indian (or anti-outsourcing) trends. They will impact Pakistani service industry too.

The other point about Indian-American "strategic relationship" is very valid. However the original poster forgot something very important, just like his "intellectual cousin" Hamid Gul from the other side of the border.

Hamid Gul says Americans use their friends like condoms. Well Poor Hamid and this Indian analyst fail to grasp something very basic.

---- American "strategic relationship" change every 4 years (or at most every 8 years). Indians should learn it from Pakistanis. That American-Pakistani "strategic relationship" has swayed back and forth like an ugly pendulum in the last 60 years.

Indians had a good run for 10 years, and now the pendulum is swinging (at least perceivably) on the other side.

Americans constantly check their "strategic relationship" and they do not hesitate a bit to change if it becomes necessary for "American interests".

So dear Indian analysts welcome to the world of Pakistan. You will soon learn that Americans are not the "permanent providers". They change.

Re: Obama Disses India

Where is the link?
Or

Is this an original writing by a crying baby?

Re: Obama Disses India

Muslim vote for Obama is irrelevant.Or if somebody says about U.S Muslim votes,it can be taken but not significant.

Wrong on both counts. Jewish mostly **voted Republican and Indian Americans **mostly voted Democrat.

I agree with the first point. White collar middle class is concerned about immigrant influx.

However, immigrants (or others) do not play in the same field as blacks. Immigrants are highly educated and work in specialized fields. Blacks are mostly blue collared.

Ummm…anyone who knows absolutely anything about American political trends knows that Jewish Americans have historically voted for the Democrats for decades. 2008 was no different…according to exit polls, Obama took 78% of the Jewish vote.

Jewish Vote In Presidential Elections

I stand corrected on the peripheral issue of Jewish voting pattern :slight_smile:

However, I still stand by the American Indian voting trends.

Re: Obama Disses India

Indian Americans, as every other American did not have any 'ideal' choice. McCain came with Palin - a big problem.

Obama, though has done much damage within a short period, has still done better than his predecessor - which is not saying much at all.

Compared to the field of choices in the American election, the Indian candidatures, in spite of some 25% with some sort of criminal cases on them, seemed more developed!

I'm not so sure about that.

American Muslims have historically demonstrated fairly uniform voting patterns (staunchly Republican through the 2000 elections; then almost exclusively Democrat starting in 2004)...and are relatively well represented in some critical swing states. Some have argued that the Muslim voting block essentially determined the outcome of the 2000 elections; according to exit polls, over 91% of Florida's 60,000 Muslim voters chose Bush. Bush officially won Florida (and consequently the presidency itself) by just 537 votes.

Re: Obama Disses India

Obama has split personality.