Obama’s appointment of Indiana Representative Timothy Roemer as ambassador to India is another troubling sign of this administration’s attitude towards its important and critical ally.
Ambassadorships are often key signaling devices. Two weeks ago, for example, President Obama gave China Jon Huntsman as ambassador. In addition to being a rising Republican star, Huntsman is a proficient Mandarin speaker. He has lived and worked in East Asia and has an adopted Chinese daughter. Additionally, he served as Ambassador to Singapore in the early 1990s. Huntsman’s nomination is a clear sign to the Chinese that the United States is committed to strengthening ties. At the press conference announcing his nomination, President Obama noted that: “This ambassadorship is as important as any in the world.”
What then to make of the appointment of Tim Roemer? While China receives a potential future president in Huntsman, India receives in Tim Roemer a six-term Indiana representative who has little connection with the region.
With the opening of the Indian economy in the early 1990s, and increasing military ties, India has emerged as one of the United States’ most important strategic partners in the 21st century. The United States is now India’s largest trading partner and also the largest source of direct foreign investment. Both nations’ navies have conducted joint exercises, and in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks there has been a renewed effort at intelligence sharing and coordination. The Indian military has turned to American suppliers after many years of relying on Soviet and Russian military technology. The passage of the civilian nuclear agreement in Congress allows for India to purchase nuclear technology from the United States. The appointment of a former Congressman with little involvement in the region does nothing to highlight the importance of this growing relationship.
Roemer does have an interest in national security and foreign affairs: he has worked on non-proliferation issues and serves on the bipartisan committee on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet such work suggests he might have been better employed with an appointment to Pakistan, a nation with questions about the security of their nuclear arsenal.
The appointment of Roemer is just the latest in a series of steps which suggest that the Obama administration does not fully appreciate America’s relationship with India. At the G-20 summit in April, Obama raised eyebrows in India with his remark that the tax code should be rewritten to limit outsourcing: “It’s a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.” And during her first overseas trip as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled to Asia, but did not include a stop in India.
Most troubling though are the attempts by the Obama administration to link the dispute over Kashmir to the growing turmoil in Pakistan. During the campaign, Obama suggested that the US might play a more active role in brokering a resolution to the conflict. The Obama administration believes that resolving the Kashmir dispute will both help the Pakistani government earn the support of their people and allow the Pakistani military to redirect their armed forces against the ever-growing Islamic insurgency in their country. New Delhi immediately dismissed the idea, but it will be interesting to see if Roemer once again pushes for an American-mediated settlement. While promoting stability in Pakistan is important, if Obama and Roemer deal with India by asking: “What’s best for Pakistan?” they may alienate an even more important long-term strategic ally.
8 responses so far
1 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:08 am
Again, David your view of our relationships with other countries seems to focus on “allies” who action soley in their national interests regardless of what we think or say and provide little to no support of our objectives or interests.
In what way is India an importan ally? As a counter to Pakistan (another important U.S. ally)? Keeper of the peace in the region? Champion of justice and equality for all? Is it simply that they are a democracy? Or is it that they are an important source of workers to fill out our H1B Visa program (i.e. cheap labor). Please share, are they a good trading partner? It can’t be the call centers.
I think the Obama administration is right, that a solution to the Kasmir dispute could and would provide an opportunity for Pakistan to redirect its military towards the threat from within. A half million Pakistan troops on the Indian border hardly creates the stability Pakistan needs if it is to avoid Afghanistan’s fate.
2 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 am
Midcon – actually, this is Meghashyam Mali’s view – David does bring a variety of voices to the table here, and I’m not sure he completely endorses each one.
But I agree with you – I’m trying to think of where India has provided critical support to the US on any geopolitical issue that didn’t have to do specifically with its own self interest, and I’m coming up short.
3 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Does anyone understand this. Roemer is a long term congressman who built up a reputation on national security issues. He’s an entirely respectable pick as ambassador to India a country that hasn’t been particularly notable in its support of the US. So what’s the big deal. Answer, everything this admin does is wrong. More marginalization tactics.
4 igor_k1 // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Agree with ottovbvs: Roemer is definitely NOT a lightweight, and the writer also failed to mention his key role in the 9/11 Commission. Also, I don’t see how Huntsman’s appointment factors in at all: so what that he knows Mandarin? I’m fluent in Russian and I don’t expect to be sent to Moscow any time soon. And even if I did, I’d have about the same pull as Huntsman does with the Obama admin (who did this to ship him out of the country anyway). And since when does being a future POTUS material make you a qualified as an Ambo? And lastly, US policy on China and India policy largely gets made in DC — not in Beijing or Delhi. Overall, however, agree with author that ignoring India would be a huge mistake by Obama and Clinton, but that won’t be because of Roemer.
5 rmnm // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Some Kashmir background: No part of Kashmir ever belonged to Pakistan. At the time of the Indian partition, the King of Kashmir was free to decide which way to go. Pakistan sent in militias in an attempt to takeover Kashmir by force and coercion. That’s when the King wrote a letter of accession to join all of Kashmir with India. This means that, legally, Pakistan has no legitimate claim to any part of Kashmir, or to meddle in the matter beyond returning the portion of Kashmir it is illegally occupying (and running in an oppressive manner), namely “Azad” Kashmir aka PoK, back to Indian control. China took a piece of Kashmir also, called Aksai Chin. When both China and Pakistan return the segments under their control, and when they cease to be security threats for India, in Pakistan’s case a terrorist threat, then the matter of Kashmir can be resolved by a dialog between India and Kashmiris, both Muslims and Hindus, that either live in or have roots in Kashmir (many Hindu Kashmiris were forced out of Kashmir over the decades by the extremism fueled by Pakistan in the state). Note also that, only India gives Kashmiris full democratic rights, including an opportunity to rule India through the electoral process. One certainly cannot say that about POK or Aksai Chin, and this is a key point to understand. India not only allowed Indian Muslims at the time to form Pakistan, but also allowed them to stay back in India, per their choice, and enjoy the same or even better rights than Hindus, and to be able to participate the democratic process.
Pakistan has been a state sponsor of terror for a very long time, including harboring the Taliban in Afghanistan, which eventually led to 9/11 and caused great damage to the United States. It makes little sense to give any legitimacy to a sponsor of terror that has failed to provide a stable government and services to its people, mainly due to it’s obsession against India, over a secular democracy pluralistic India. The true road to peace in the region can only come from siding with India, and demanding and forcing Pakistan to dismantle it’s entire terrorism apparatus aimed against India as well as the west.
6 Red_Devil // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Talking of what India has done for US, the question is what has US done for India ? Is US a friend of India ? Evidently not. US continues to arm a nation commited to the destruction of India, Pakistan with F16s and other sophisticated weapon systems. US sends over $10 billion to Pakistan, which is mainly used as military expenditure. Further Obama wants to introduce protectionist measures which are geared towards hurting India economically. Obama as the writer points out has appointed a nuclear anti-proliferation ayotollah as the ambassador to India, no doubt with the intention of castrating India as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Obama would gladly give away India’s Kashmir to Pakistan if he could. So much for India and US being allies !
George W. Bush was very popular in India and India was the only country where the public viewed US in a positive light when he was around. Today, US under Obama is trying its level best to p_iss off Indians.
7 Newt // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:37 am
The Super Cop steps up to the Victim of a stickup in progress and asks for the belongings to be handed over to the Mugger. You see they have to get the Mugger’s help in a jiffy to catch his roommate the Serial Killer.
midcon wrote:
>I think the Obama administration is right, that a solution to >the Kasmir dispute could and would provide an opportunity >for Pakistan to redirect its military towards the threat from >within. A half million Pakistan troops on the Indian border >hardly creates the stability Pakistan needs if it is to avoid >Afghanistan’s fate.
8 potan // Oct 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Kashmir never opted to join Pakistan, the only argument Pakistan has to claim Kashmir is its majority muslim population. Giving Kashmir over to Pakistan would be like giving Texas over to Mexico because hispanics are the largest group in Texas. Go learn your Indian history my American friends before trying act like the South Asia experts you are not.
And, midcon to partially answer your question about what India has done for America. India has given America raw talent. Your NASA, your IT sector, your medical sector these are all being supported by the talents of Indian immigrants. Indian students are contributing enormously to scientific research on campuses around America. The richest, most prosperous, most productive minority in America are Indian-Americans. You should be happy that Indians are helping your country move forward while you sit there and drink beer, eat kentucky fried chicken and watch football.
You must log in to post a comment.