Obama made a second visit to India during his tenure of Presidency. There is much talk, envy and speculations about his visit in Indian and Pakistani media. If one takes a close look at Obama's visit agenda, the transcripts of the meeting held between the leaders of the two countries and the structure of the US delegation visiting India it is not difficult to understand the core purpose of Obama's visit to India. As Clinton is reported to have stated on his visit to India in 2000 that: "It's all about business - stupid." Today, in 2015, the same holds true for Obama. US is all about business and so is this visit of Obama to India.
US businessmen focus in India is primarily in the following areas and Obama's target is to make things happen for them.
1. Position US well in India's defence hardware and software procurement by the state and also its defence hardware production market open to foreign investors. Traditionally it's Russian-oriented.
2. To prevail upon India to open up foreign investments in its nuclear technology-based energy plants, which are now totally state-managed and controlled. In lieu of US concessions to India on nuclear fuel it expects a trade -off
3. To enhance US-India bilateral trade, which is now hovering around US $110 billion.
4. To prevail upon India its compliance to global environment controls, especially that related to global warming. On the issue of global warming China is at number 1, the USA at number 2 and India at number 3. The US has taken the lead to work it out among the three largest world polluters to reduce pollution.
Issues related to Pakistan-India relations, India's quest for a bigger role in the region and across the globe and its ambition to secure a permanent seat at UN Security Council appears to be secondary add-ons to US agenda, but, of significant importance to India which it tends to use as trade-off for business concessions to US. Up to now US has managed the balance of power in South East Asia well and has limited it to issue of few statements to satisfy the ego of its over generous host.
India has indeed come up as an economy and an emerging market to reckon with. By early 90s Indian leadership fully realised that its Indian eccentric - Made in India and bottom to top prosperity state policy is leading to stagnation of state economy. Thereafter, it reversed its policy to go for 'Growth as the best way for nation's progress and to alleviate poverty rather then a focus on redistribution'. This policy demanded foreign technology and foreign direct investment. So India opted to globalise its economy. The era 2000 to 2014 witnessed a phenomenal growth of India's economy with GDP growth hovering around 7% with a matching growth of over 8% in the power sector, which grew from 120,000 MW in 2006 to around 200,000 MW in 2014.
Today, India showcase to the world a growing economy driven by their middle class of over 300 million people, mostly the younger population, striving to achieve a better life for themselves and their dependants, a defence budget of over US $50 billion plus a motivation to foreign investors to hold 49% stakes in the growing defence industry and their energy sector with an annual growth hovering around 10 % in order to sustain their GDP growth. All of this is too attractive for all global powers to set their footprints in India especially when all OECD countries are looking at emerging markets for their social and economical sustainability. The US wants the largest piece of the cake. India too wants foreign direct investments to enhance from US $28 billion (2013-14) to 35 billion (2014-2015).
Pakistan's concerns voiced, much by the media and a bit by state, each time US President visits India and not Pakistan, is ridiculously immature and meaningless. None of the points on Obama's Indian visit agenda has merit to be duplicated in Pakistan. The US interest appears to stabilise Pakistan to enable it to play a vital role in the region specially that related to Afghanistan. General Raheel Sharif was well acknowledged and admirably received with much honour in the US, which was soon reciprocated by the visit of John Kerry and the US chief of army staff to set up Pakistan and Afghanistan new defence and political alignments.
Pakistan is a proud nation, which has its roots embedded in the philosophy of Iqbal and the exemplary dignity of Jinnah the founder of the nation. Both advocated self-respect and self-dignity for its people, its leaders and the nation as a whole. We, as individuals and as a nation have not much lived up to it. On two previous occasions we worked on US Presidents Clinton and Bush to make a stopover in Pakistan on their visit to India. Clinton obliged by making a few hours visit to Islamabad and addressed the people of Pakistan on TV and after some stiff handshakes flew out, whereas, Bush made an overnight visit, played a round of cricket and flew out. Such obliging and cosmetic visits do not add value to both the countries.
Global politics and diplomacy is driven by self national interests. At the peak of cold war in 60s Pakistan was of great relevance in view of its strategic location. When President Ayub Khan made an official visit to USA in early 60s he was received by President Kennedy who climbed up all the way to receive the waiting Ayub Khan at the gate of the gleaming PIA aircraft followed by an admirable reception and salutes on the ground. But, soon came a paradigm shift in the world order. Countries relevant then became irrelevant in the new order.
The decade of 70s was a decade of realignment in the world order. In late 80s, upon final ending of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Gorbachov agreed for a new world order, which advocated free economy and globalisation. It was economy and economy alone. China too fell in line and many other countries opened their markets to foreign technology and investments. The trend is still continuing.
Pakistan somehow missed out to drive true benefits out of the globalisation of economies in spite of having much of the right ingredients. It has one of the largest growing and talented middle class, much of it is young, abundance of natural resources and a strategic location. What it lacks is the competence to put its act together and make things happen.
(The writer is Chairman Avant Ventures and former President OICCI and ABB-Asea Brown Boverie)