With dramatic political change comes the increased potential for widespread civil unrest. Having turned away from the long-ruling Congress Party, Indian voters have decided to elect a pro-business candidate to help address corruption, ineffective bureaucracy, and lagging economic development. This choice could be a boon for India or a source of instability that will add to mounting geopolitical crises seen around the world.
Because Prime Minister-elect Nerendra Modi belongs to the Hindu Nationalist Party and failed in the eyes of many to protect Muslims from rioting in 2002 that killed 1,000 people when he was Chief Minister of Gujarat State, it is a very real possibility that Modi could become a divisive character should he decide to deviate from a centrist path. India is a highly complex society built on a tangled web of cultures and castes. Consequently, the Prime Minister-to-be needs to stay focused on economic, foreign policy, and national security/human rights issues, as all nonsectarian governments must, in order to properly rule his multi-cultural society and prevent massive outbreaks of civil unrest in his countries of 1.2 billion. Furthermore, India’s long-standing feud with Pakistan creates great potential for a military clash of two nuclear powers should Pakistan test the resolve of the new leader or the new Prime Minister try to prove his strength while the ever-growing material needs of the Indian People are in direct competition with the growing needs of the Chinese People. Given China’s increasingly aggressive pursuit of its interests, including its exploration of natural resources like fish, oil, and potable water, India’s need for the same resources sets up an eventual conflict of interests that would be devastating to the world. That said, the regional and Western interests in balancing the exercise of Chinese power create an opportunity for the Prime Minister-elect. Unfortunately, pro-business too often means anti-regulation, anti-taxes, and anti-labor. In the development, versus simply the growth, of India’s economy, the Prime Minister-elect must avoid turning India into a lowest bidder economy where taxes are eliminated to the detriment of necessary social services, proper regulation is lax, and the Indian People are trapped in poverty by suppressed wages while unfettered free trade prioritizes global interests over local interests. As China’s aggressiveness is creating instability and stoking anti-Chinese sentiments in neighboring countries, there will be major shifts in the global economy that can benefit a more stable India. Should pro-business translate into greater protections for American intellectual property and other business interests as well as stable economic conditions, i.e. proper regulation, and wages that satisfy the interests of Indian workers, the Indian economy will be able to better address India’s broad spectrum of interests as well as the interests of Western powers, thus allowing India to become a strong regional power that can offer partners far more than China when it comes strengthening economic ties.
Comments
If the Russian provoked Ukraine Crisis was not enough to test US soft power and the legitimacy/effectiveness of the International Community, China’s move to flex its muscle is quickly becoming the second major world power conflict the globe is facing. While the Chinese-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands sets America up for a potential conflict with China, thanks to our close alliance with Japan, the Obama Administration’s repeated attempts to pivot to Asia, along with the economic significance of the region, puts the US on a trajectory where we must confront China when its actions and policies conflict with our interests, the interests of our allies, and the conventions of the International Community.
Unfortunately, China has decided to reject international norms and violate the sovereignty of Vietnam by deploying an oil rig, which it considers to be its floating territory, within waters claimed by Vietnam. Due to out-of-control civil unrest aimed Chinese business interests and a minor conflict at sea accelerating, tensions are on the rise and, at some point, the Vietnamese government will have to forcefully confront China to assert its interests. Although Vietnam is a communist country and has no military partnership with the US, it is an important trade partner. More importantly, Vietnam is part of a block of Asian countries the US needs to reassert our influence in the region. In the Ukraine Crisis, America’s strategy has largely been rooted in economically isolating Russia. That strategy, however, depends upon the ability of the US to rally our European and other regional partners. The size of Russia and its significance as a major energy provider means the world is reluctantly confronting Russia and struggling to take more drastic steps to punish Russia for its destructive behavior. As China is the world’s second largest economy, the hesitation when it comes to confronting Beijing is far more intense while isolating China would require a major shift in the global economy and take years to accomplish. That said, dealing with China hinges upon the US being able to unite minor powers in Asia to rebalance economic, as well as military, interests away from Chinese dominance. In many respects, it also hinges on America’s ability to shift trade relations in favor of countries like Japan and Vietnam. Like Russia, this will likely mean a major change in trade policies, i.e. far less free trade for China, as well as responsible efforts to expand trade with minor powers in Asia. If enough people start believing, or acting like, something untrue is true, the world will say it is true, even though it is still untrue. With the poorly prepared and administered referendum held this past weekend declaring 90% percent of 75% of the voting population in the Ukrainian territory of Donetsk wanting the region to secede from Ukraine, the armed pro-Russian separatists, who conducted the unverifiable vote, are using the results to legitimize a Russian annexation of Donetsk. Given polling data suggesting greater support for unity with the rest of Ukraine and a minority in support of Russian rule, the claims of the separatists are more than just suspect.
Moscow is, however, using the results of the referendum to support their framing of the Ukrainian Crisis as the result of pro-Western forces seizing power. If Putin’s efforts to distance himself from the pro-Russian separatists last week when he called for the delay of the referendum, were sincere, the world can expect Putin to further back down if the Ukrainian government enters into a dialog with those in the East who feel their interests are being neglected by Kiev. Consequently, when the May 25th Presidential election is held, which must be undeniably legitimate, the victor must, at the very least, engage the pro-Russian population of Ukraine in order to resolve underlying issues. If Putin’s efforts to distance himself from the separatist movement are simply part of his larger propaganda war, we can expect Russia to undermine the Presidential election and the results. If Moscow feels threatened by the political orientation of the victor, Russia may well even use the referendum results to justify annexing Donetsk. With international sanctions in place, Putin may well be recalculating his road map to domination. As such, the International Community must be prepared to implement far more devastating sanctions to the Russian economy should Putin act. On the other hand, Putin must be given room to make the decision to unwind his destructive involvement in the Ukrainian Crisis, so action should not be taken, at this point, i.e. until Putin makes his next move. The thing about manipulators is that they use doubt, confusion, and unknowns to make you question whether you are being influenced by preconceived notions or are being manipulated by others. With Russian President Vladimir Putin celebrating the Russian holiday Victory Day in Crimea, his actions and words betray the truth, i.e. the annexation of Crimea was orchestrated by Russia, which is why it is being hailed as a victory. Not only did Putin frame the seizure of Crimea as a “legal interest” of Russia and “historic justice in today’s various remarks, he proclaimed he respects the interests of other nations, which he probably does until there is any conflict of interests with Russian interests.
Although the People of Crimea have the right to self-rule, i.e. they have the right to democratically elect their officials, protest the policies of their leaders, and change the structure of their government through processes that respect the interest of all its People, the territory of Crimea was given to Ukraine by a legitimate leader of Russia decades ago while Russia agreed, at end of the Cold War, that Crimea was part of Ukraine. In other words, the individual (liberal) rights of the Crimean People to self-rule do not outweigh the national rights of the Ukrainian state to maintain its territorial integrity, which is a right Russia has always fiercely defended. That said, even if there was a legal procedure for the People of Crimea to declare the independence of the Crimean territory, they did not have the patience to setup such a process. Russia, of course, wasted no time in immediately annexing Crimea. The fact is that Crimea and Russia had little, if any, desire to “liberate” Crimea, until Russia lost its control over the Ukrainian political process. Given the political forces Putin cultivated in Donetsk, which he may or may not directly control, his overall goal is likely to annex Ukraine piece by piece or leave the former Soviet State so small it will never be a perceived threat to Russia. At any rate, actions speak louder than words and Putin’s action best fit the Western interpretation of the Ukrainian Crisis. The 2014 Midterm Election season is well underway. While the American People will soon notice an ever-increasing number of political ads popping up all over the place, their busy lives and the real world impact of the issues our candidates will be discussing offer a great deal of competition for the political theater we are sure to see in the coming months. Although most Americans have traditionally been disengaged from their democratic government on a daily basis, the negativity and thorough dysfunction of our political system in recent years truly fosters political apathy on the behalf of all voters.
If the goal of our elected officials has been to saturate the airwaves with so much confusion, distrust, and anger that that it drives voters away from the polls, so they can win solely with the support of their core base of voters, they are doing a pretty job. If the goal is govern and represent the interests of Americans, however, they are failing. Civil disengagement ultimately leads to a government that does not adequately represent the interests of the American People, in which case government becomes the intrusive problem that prevents our country from thriving. Fortunately, campaigns are starting to experiment with positive ads. Unfortunately, the issues of the 2014 Mid-Term Elections have yet to be defined. Certainly, there are a great number of economic, foreign policy, and national security issues that the American People are concerned about, but there are few believable solutions on the table. The American People already know what is not working, or has not worked in the past, and we know when elected officials are not performing, yet they we do not see solutions to these problems. No one can easily predict which issues will go viral in an election cycle; however, candidates who both recognize when they need to find better solutions and when they can offer well-considered, balanced solutions that can actually be effective for the American People will be able to define themselves as the best option for voters. Positive ads will fail if a candidate has nothing new to offer the American People. At best, negative campaigning helps persuade voters that the other guy is the greater of two evils. On the other hand, positive campaigning can be successful if a candidate can offer a credible vision built on viable solutions and honest, responsive constituent input. This will eventually help candidates define the issues of the 2014 Mid-Term Elections for each race at the local level. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|