I've seen this attitude among quite a few Indian-Americans, that the Republican party is more pro-India than the Democrats.
If you actually read the post, you would know that this report was written by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Lest we forget, it was the Democratic president FDR who pushed Churchill to liberate the colonies during World War II.
It was the Democratic president JFK who thought that the USA would have to defend India in case another war with China broke out.
It was the Democratic president LBJ who passed the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, which allowed immigrants from non-Western countries to come to the US. He also passed the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to discriminate against minorities.
It was the Democratic president Bill Clinton who allowed US companies to start outsourcing to India.
In contrast, Republican presidents have been thoroughly pro-Pakistan and pro-China.
It was the Republican president Richard Nixon who threatened to intervene in Pakistan's favor during the 1971 war. He also encouraged China to open its economy to Western investment, resulting in its rapid rise as a global power.
Agree with this sentiment.
The think tank that arranged this talk was at the American Enterprise Institute which is a republican leaning think tank. Two of the people on that panel were Bush administration officials and these same people are now pessimistic on the relationship. So this is basically what a very "Republicanish" think tank is discussing now.
Again, going through the presentation is interesting because except for Perkovich who was neutral on India before and now negative, all the other people were supporters of a special US-India relationship which they have changed their opinion on.
Full video of the event is here
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...indians-much-they-think-we-do.html#post476234
At regional level, again we can question which administration was helpful or not. While Bush gave leeway to Musharraf and instead of focusing on Afghanistan launched and unnecessary and futile war in Iraq, Obama from day one has brought the focus back on Pakistan. Infact, the drone wars and the surge in Afghanistan had it been done much earlier would have left Afghanistan in a much better state and Pakistan much more constrained. At least now, Obama is cutting down on CSF funds which Bush use to provide Musharraf blindly and without accountability. Musharraf himself admitted that these same $2Billion a year military assistance under the Bush administration was used to build up its capacity against India.
In any case, there is usually some continuity between both administrations in foreign policy. Leaving the Republican vs Democrat debate, though, it is important to discuss some "problems" the panelists highlight in what they call the failure of India-US relations not picking up
Broadly, the major points that I got were:
(1) On the Indo-US civil nuke deal, the blame is put on India on the liability legislation. The main point for those who followed this was that suppliers should not be liable according to US, while GoI had to compromise with the opposition to bring about supplier liability on top of operator liability. This effectively cuts out US companies from the action because no US company is willing to take up that liability.
(2) India not signing military pacts for transfer of advanced technology and weaponry like CISMOA, LSA e.t.c. One of the reasons why full tech transfer would not be possible if India doesn't sign these agreements. MMRCA also comes into this category perhaps all though it had its own drawbacks
(3) Collaboration with India in the UN and other international bodies like WTO and climate change treaties. India takes an opposite stand in most of these organizations like on agriculture in WTO and emissions treaty. Not to mention that India and Cuba almost had the same level of for/against US votes in the UNSC when both were members in 2010. Vote on Libya for example came up around this.
(4) Business in Multi brand retail and opening of finance and other sectors of the economy to US businesses.
Now what should India be doing here?
IMHO, the India-US partnership is very important and we have to understand that we will have to be no.2 or a junior partner to the US no matter how much it hurts our ego. At least for the short to medium term.
It is only natural for the US to ask that if it helps India and gives them xyz, then what will they get in return? Will India support them in their "projects" in other areas? So GoI should try to achieve a balance on these questions
Just going through the list above, I would suggest
(1) Review the civil nuclear liability and make it compliant under the IAEA regime which caps supplier nuclear liability to some extent. A compromise of sorts with the opposition will be required but necessary to give business to US companies. Ofcourse, this could be put in the too hard basket given the history of the Bhopal gas disaster
(2) All other countries that the US collaborates with have signed these agreements so why dont' we? Atleast the CISMOA should not be big problem IMO. The biggest deal in the Obama era - the Hercules transporters came with less precise avionics because we didn't agree to sign this agreement. Same thing with the P8s. I never understood why the hesitancy in signing the CISMOA when so many other countries already do so. The irony that countries like UAE and Kuwait get better avionics than India because of this.
(3) Similarly, India should make an attempt to align more with the US when we don't have any major interests clashing. The Libya case if an example where India should have voted WITH the US. On other items like emissions treaty or WTO rules on agriculture, India has legitimate interest and will need to defend them. But in other places, India should make an effort to co-ordinate positions with the US.
(4) FDI in multi-brand retail is a no brainer. Its the domestic politics that are messing this up and hopefully, we can go ahead with this sooner rather than later. But overall, I don't see economic relations as a major block as these have been improving and is probably the only positive thing in recent times.
moment. Vietnam has its importance but not to the level he says it is.
