Thursday, November 13, 2008

Politics: In Defence of George Bush Jr.

I expect this to be a deeply unpopular blog with plenty of adverse comments. How can you defend George Bush Jr, people will ask? Look at the mess he has made, especially in Iraq. Look at his approval ratings – barely 25% of Americans approve of his presidency at the moment. He is dyslexic, clueless about foreign affairs and policy and knows very little about macro-economics. His prior experience as a businessman and owner of a baseball team show him to be a failure. So how can you defend him?

To begin my defence, let us first list the facts. All of what I have mentioned in the previous paragraph is true. George Bush made a huge mistake going into Iraq, a country that under Saddam Hussein was a tyranny. However, it was a secular, reasonably moderate country in the Middle East. Crucially, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an important counterweight to the other key player in the region – Iran. As long as you had these two countries balancing each other out, the world was a safer place. Now that Iraq is no longer a rival, Iran has aspirations of becoming a regional superpower and there is nothing the US can do to stop them.

There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq either. I agree that Iraq was Bush’s one big mistake. Because of that expensive error of judgment, the US became deeply unpopular throughout much of the Islamic world. Dubya’s father, the far more capable and intelligent George Bush Sr., did the right thing during the first Gulf War in 1991. He bombed the hell out of Saddam Hussein, destroyed the Iraqi Army and left, having taught Saddam a lesson for invading Kuwait. That war was won in days, it was inexpensive and the body count was low.

But if you take the Iraq War out of the equation, how would George Bush Jr. fare as a president? Would his legacy be viewed more favourably? Here again, it depends on your perspective. Bush did nothing to help in managing the two big domestic economic crises that an aging America faces – Social Security and Medicare. He refused to tackle the key problem of prohibitively priced healthcare insurance - a problem that deprives tens of millions of Americans from getting access to affordable healthcare. At the beginning of his presidency, he laughed off concerns about global warming, saying these fears were exaggerated. He did not encourage American automakers to develop alternative fuels.

But George Bush Jr. also did quite a few good things. The most important among these (for countries such as India and China) was that he encouraged and supported free trade. As a result, China became the manufacturing hub of the world. Its economy grew by leaps and bounds, and millions of Chinese were pulled out of poverty. India became the services and information technology hub of the world. The explosive growth of India’s services sector in the last decade owes a lot to George Bush Jr. He made it easier for qualified foreigners to live and work in the United States, by liberalising immigration policies. During his presidency, the U economy remained robust and grew faster than it had in decades, which created jobs for Americans, Indians and Chinese alike.

George Bush Jr went out of his way to work with India on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. I do not claim to be an expert on this deal, but when people like former Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Indian National Security Adviser K. Narayanan support the deal, I assume that it is in India’s best interests. He stayed out of the Kashmir issue, and said it was a bilateral matter that needed to be resolved between India and Pakistan.

It is easy (and completely wrong) to blame George Bush Jr. for the current economic recession in the US. The fact is that he had nothing to do with it. The legislation to provide supposedly “affordable housing” to those who could not afford it was one that was passed many years ago, by his opponents the Democratic Party. This legislation was a populist one designed to garner votes. Dubya in reality, tried hard to nullify this legislation. The fact is that Dubya presided over the largest global economic expansion in history – one spanning six years from 2001 to 2007. Thanks to the economic policies of his government, the U.S, China, India and many other countries prospered.

It is possible that history will be a little kinder to George Bush Jr. From an American viewpoint, Bush started the Iraq War, and did nothing to combat global warming, resolve the healthcare crisis or reduce that country’s dependence on foreign oil. But he also ensured seven years of unprecedented economic growth. From an Indian viewpoint, he was a friend of India and his policies were consistently pro-India. Therefore, his legacy for Americans will be a mixed one. His legacy for India however, will be uniformly positive.

This does not mean that I have anything against Barack Obama. I wish him well. But there are a couple of areas of concern. The first is his view on outsourcing. He has said that he will find ways to penalise American companies that are “shipping jobs overseas”. This is like the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena saying that jobs in Maharashtra should be reserved for only Marathi speaking people. The fact is that all employers around the world will always find ways to reduce their costs of production. Lower costs of production means that consumers like you and me pay lower prices for goods and services. I sincerely do hope that Obama does not try and curb US outsourcing work to other countries, because this is something that is mutually beneficial.

The other warning sign is that Obama plans to appoint Bill Clinton as “envoy” to help “resolve” the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. This is being done in the mistaken belief that Pakistan will fight terrorism better if they had all their troops stationed on the Afghanistan border. Also of course, now that Hillary Clinton is no longer a candidate for US President, Bill needs something to do to keep him gainfully occupied. This desire to appoint an “envoy” to “solve” the Kashmir problem is worrisome. Kashmir is a bilateral problem between India and Pakistan.

But it is still early days. Obama is intelligent, charismatic and seems to be a unifier. He has overcome formidable obstacles to become the President-elect. He appears to be very serious about combating global warming. He has publicly stated that he will encourage research into alternative fuels and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. He appears serious about resolving America’s healthcare and social security crises.

But will he be a good friend to India? Only time will tell.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bushji carried himself and America gloriously in the aftermath of 9/11. It is a tribute to his administration that America has not had any untoward incident, not for lack of efforts by the terrorists.

Despite his slips with words and occasional mis-steps, he was a people friendly and humorous President. Arguably he was not the best man in this difficult period for America and the world. But a lot of the flak directed at him ought to go to his team of advisers like Rumsfeld, Powell etc, who led him and America down a blind alley.

Anonymous said...

Every story has two sides to it, and I quite appreciate your point of view. India never needed friends and does not need in the future either. It is a Pavithra Bhumi which will blunder its way and survive one way or the other. The nuclear deal was done to give business to industrial interests wanting to supply nuclear power plant machinery and equipment. GB Jr, represents American business. His misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are to provide business to the armament industry.

To expect any American politician, or for that matter, any politician any where, to represent ordinary human beings is being unrealistic.

There is always some business interest behind every political decision.

This is the undeniable truth, and hundreds of Presidents and Prime Ministers can come and go, without affecting that particular vested interest.