Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump addressed a gathering of Indian Americans earlier this month. He expressed his admiration for Hinduism and prime minister Modi’s economic policies, and stated that both countries would be the best of friends under his administration. Back home around the same time, an article about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s hostility towards India was doing the rounds. You can read it here
It outlined several instances of the Clintons acting against Indian interests for the past twenty-five years.
Based on the contents of Trump’s speech and the article on Hillary, it is evident that a Trump administration is better suited for Indian interests. However, this is too simplistic an assumption.
Many of Hillary’s supporters in India or of Indian origin have argued that Trump’s overtures are hollow and aimed at appeasing the sizeable Indian American community. Though there might be some truth to it, the same brigade hides behind a rock when Clinton’s hostility is pointed at. But I am not writing this to put their hypocrisy on display. In fact, they have no reason to be on the back foot when Clinton’s hostility is pointed at. To perceive their actions as hostile is a sign of complete and utter ignorance as to how the Clintons function.
As skeletons keep tumbling out of the closet, it is increasingly evident that the Clintons have no friends or foes. They have no preferences, no biases, and no absolute principles or values. They accept millions of dollars from countries that mistreat women and murder homosexuals, bankers who rob the American people, dictators with appalling human rights records and just about anybody. Big ticket donors of the Clinton Foundation had special access to her when she was secretary of state, and were granted special favours on several occasions.
However unethical it might all sound, it will be a huge advantage for countries across the globe to work with a Clinton administration. Imagine an American president setting American strategic interests aside, and granting all kinds of favours to any country that deposits a few million dollars into some organisation. Instead of long-drawn diplomatic negotiations which often amount to nothing, countries would simply buy their way into whatever they seek. Even if the tariffs were raised to a few billion dollars, it would still be a more economical way of enhancing strategic interests for most countries.
To prove that the aforementioned scenario is neither an exaggeration nor wishful thinking, let’s examine the case of Uranium One. Uranium One was a Canadian company with mining interests stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom gradually took over the company between 2009 and 2013. Since Uranium One controlled one fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States, it had to be approved by the State Department headed by Clinton. Foundations run by the family of Uranium One’s chairman paid the Clinton Foundation more than two million dollars, while Bill Clinton received a speaking gig worth half a million dollars from the Russian bank that was promoting the company’s stock. The approval was granted, and now Vladmir Putin controls a fifth of America’s uranium production.
Of course, the simultaneity of the donations and the approval might be mere coincidence. But these coincidences are too many to ignore. The pattern is all but apparent. What is frightening is that in this particular case, irrespective of whether the donations were a bribe, America literally allowed one of its most valuable strategic assets to slide into the hands of its biggest enemy. It is hard to believe that America would simply let this happen, and consequently, that it was a mere coincidence. If it wasn’t, it is an indication that some people go to any length for a quick buck. It is an indication that under the presidency of some people, one would be able to put a price on literally anything.
In a way, this format works out better for India than a Trump presidency. Being America’s best friend, as Trump conceives India under his presidency, can be disadvantageous. India might lose its leverage with Russia and might be compelled to maintain status-quo, wherein it punches much below its weight internationally. Instead, a system that allows India to get whatever it wants for a pittance, without delay, compromise or interference, might be ideal.
For India, the downfall with such a system is that its enemies will use it too, and probably in a manner that might harm India. But the fact that such a system’s dealings are already under the scanner, will disallow it to be as stoic and egalitarian as before. This works out perfectly for India, because every dealing with a country like China will be inherently shrouded with skepticism and will be closely scrutinized. Other than China, India can simply outbid its rivals.
For India to take full advantage of such a system, it would have to break from the shackles of Nehruvian thinking or mindless idealism. Moral qualms would have to be chucked out of the window, like every country with a dynamic foreign policy. If Hillary Clinton is elected, it is imperative that India make the best of the next four years, for such an opportunity is hard to come by.
India has used the system in the past, and is no stranger to it. When the debate over the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was raging, the Clinton Foundation received anything between one million and five million dollars from Amar Singh, who played a pivotal role at many levels to get this deal through. Though Amar Singh claims the donations were made by a friend in his name, he did camp in the United States in 2008 and successfully lobbied with the Democratic Party to support the deal.
As of now, this seems to be the only dealing India has had with the system. Despite its aim to fulfill certain strategic objectives, the government machinery was kept out of this one. But if India wants to make the best of a Clinton presidency, irrespective of whether the government involves itself directly or not, these dealings will have to be organised and institutionalised. Remember that several countries, several government officials, big conglomerates and the media have acted unprofessionally and even dishonestly to prop her up. Everyone would seek their pound of flesh, and India must ensure it stays ahead in this rat race.
The Clinton Foundation has stated that it will stop accepting foreign and corporate money if Hillary is elected. But do not for a second be under the delusion that she will mutate into an incorruptible, squeaky-clean politician overnight. The billionaires and dictators are under no such delusions, and the inflow of cash suggests that it is nothing more than a token gesture. It is unlikely that pay-to-play will cease. Other means will be found.
