Which of the U.S. presidential candidates – Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump – would be better to boost ties between the United States and India?
To some people, it is a no-brainer. Clinton justifiably claims a hefty diplomatic portfolio, including a substantial record of engaging with India on a number of important mutual interests. Slipping into an effective working relationship with India would be easy for a Clinton administration. To others, though, it is essential to acknowledge Trump’s global business dealings, which are evident in India from Mumbai to Pune. A Trump administration would offer the prospect of building on economic connections, among other areas.
Unfortunately, detailed discussions about the possibilities for U.S.-India relations are not receiving the priority they deserve. Many analysts and news media following the candidates have diverted their attention to alleged inappropriate behavior on the part of Trump and Clinton’s mishandling of high-level, sensitive government email. The candidates, themselves, have spent a disproportionate amount of time on these matters.
Make no mistake. Wrongdoing cannot be overlooked or condoned when deciding on a presidential candidate. Consider the reaction of Vivek Wadhwa, a distinguished academic, researcher, writer and entrepreneur. In a recent email message to his global network, he shares his thoughts on how the rise of Trump affects him. Wadhwa then references his upcoming book, Driver in the Driverless Car, in which he contemplates the choices he says we must make that will either point us toward “a utopian Star Trek world or the dystopia of Mad Max.” With Trump, Wadhwa suggests, Mad Max could come sooner rather than later. His concern is that Trump has made racism, bigotry, xenophobia and sexism acceptable, and opened the door to demagoguery that will never stop. Evidently, Trump is not Wadhwa’s choice – in general or in terms of U.S.-India relations.
What do others think about the two candidates? Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Asian Studies Center of The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., emphasizes that India has become a critical element in the U.S.-Asia rebalancing strategy. She adds that “Washington and New Delhi are enhancing their cooperation in ways that will help balance China’s rise, and contribute to a secure and peaceful democratic Asia with free and open seaways.” Curtis applauds, for example, the recent U.S. designation of India as a “Major Defense Partner,” which basically places it among America’s closest allies in the area of technology transfer. Also, she welcomes the signing in August of an “Indo-U.S. logistics-sharing agreement that allows the United States and India to access each other’s military bases for resupply and refueling.” It is a testament to the importance the two countries attach to the partnership.
Curtis notes that improving U.S.-India relations is one of those rare foreign-policy issues with bipartisan support. Therefore, in her estimation, either a Clinton or Trump presidency would almost certainly attach a high value to maintaining and growing Indo-U.S. ties.
Why might a Clinton administration be favored by India? Curtis stresses that Clinton has a long history with India: traveling there as first lady in 1995; helping to establish the India Caucus when she was in the U.S. Senate; and launching and deepening a strategic dialogue between the two countries during her tenure as secretary of state. The bottom line is that Clinton is a known quantity in India. Polls show most Indian-Americans would welcome her election; I imagine most Indians would, as well.
What about Trump? He is more of a wild card, according to Curtis, despite certain positive statements he has made about India on the campaign trail. Indians are likely concerned as to how his stance on immigration could impact the ability of highly skilled Indians to work on a temporary basis in the United States. However, some Indians might welcome a Trump election based on the belief that he would take a harder position toward terrorism and partner more closely with India in confronting terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan.
Trump actually echoed such sentiments at an Indian-American rally in Edison, New Jersey a few days ago, declaring that the United States and India would be “best friends” under a Trump administration. “There won’t be any relationship more important to us,” Trump said, and he added that “we will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe.”
I was also interested in the perspective of someone who has worked inside the U.S. Congress, so I turned to Shilpa Deshpande Finnerty, a lawyer and former congressional staffer. She believes Americans have long overlooked the importance of strong ties with India. Indeed, she says, India should be a natural ally in the region, given its strong democratic credentials, diverse population and history of dealing with terrorism. Her sense is that Indian-Americans have been waiting for the day the United States would raise India to the level of consideration it applies to some other Asian nations such as Japan. Finnerty is also disappointed that the current U.S. election cycle has not focused on many leading foreign-policy issues, let alone U.S.-India relations. Regarding Clinton and Trump, there is no debate for her. She emphatically indicates Clinton would be better for U.S.-India relations, pointing to the knowledge and perspective the former secretary of state has to continue the encouraging steps the Obama administration has begun in strengthening relations. Clinton also understands the Indian-American community and how it has contributed to the United States while maintaining strong ties to India, Finnerty says. On the other hand, in her conversations with many Indian-Americans, Finnerty detects what she calls a genuine fear of a Trump presidency and what it might do to encourage the profiling of South Asians, hate crimes and increased racial tensions in America – actions that would inevitably impact U.S.-India relations in a negative way.
Finally, I touched base with Pratyush S. Goberdhan, a young Indian-American who serves as the India Fellow at the University of Central Florida. He thinks Clinton would be the better candidate for president when one considers Indo-U.S. relations, given her history of working with the Indian government, serving as co-chair of the U.S. Senate India Caucus, supporting the U.S.-India nuclear deal and making many diplomatic trips to India. To him, these accomplishments are key to future positive and effective relations between the two countries.
In the remaining weeks before the election, it is clearly up to Clinton and Trump to demonstrate their interest in U.S.-India relations, along with other significant international issues. Without such input, voters will have a more difficult time making an informed decision, and the world will be left largely guessing about the candidates’ intentions.
John C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2000, is the special assistant to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. He also co-chairs The India Center at UCF.
Email: John.Bersia@ucf.edu