"He Must Demonstrate Democracy Isn't A Cloak For Pursuing US Goals"

Author of the highly-acclaimed book The Idea of India, Sunil Khilnani is currently director of the South Asia Studies Program at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. In an interview with Ashish Kumar Sen, Khilnani discusses the importance of Obama's win, areas his administration is likely to focus on and what it will mean for US-India relations.

What is the significance of Obama's victory—for America and the world?

First, it marks a decisive rejection of the Bush presidency. Beyond that, it's important to distinguish between the symbolic and real aspects. Symbolically, Obama's victory is rich with meanings: it marks a historical shift in how race figures in American public life, signals a generational transition, and expresses a desire to revive an idealist strain in American politics. Above all, it speaks of a hope that America might, after the Bush years, somehow redeem itself, in its own eyes and those of the world—and show once again that, as Obama put it on election night, America is the place where all things are possible.

In reality, as Obama himself recognises, he enters office with very constrained options: America is massively in debt, the global economy is teetering on the brink of systemic crisis; America's counter-terrorism wars are adrift, and climate change is no longer a discretionary subject. So, it's safe to expect much of Obama's energy to go into trying to contain the fires ignited by his predecessor.

Analysts and pollsters seem to suggest that America's image has been tarnished over the past eight years. Can Obama help restore some of the sheen?

Simply by winning—against such long odds (remember, even just two years ago he was an unknown)—this election, Obama has already done a great deal to remove some of the tarnish from America's image.

He must demonstrate that the principles of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law and the free market, are not merely an ideological cloak for the pursuit of American interests, but that America is truly committed to upholding these values—and willing to be judged by them. This means he must remove the blight of Guantanamo and its illegalities; and he must show a will to renew and build global institutions—which oversee global markets and terms of trade, and deliver security—through the US engaging with others in cooperative strategies.

The US is in the middle of two wars abroad and is struggling at home with an imploding economy and rampant unemployment. What do you believe should be the No. 1 priority for an Obama administration?

Undoubtedly, the No. 1 priority will be the economy: the extent and depth of the recession is still unclear, but America faces a very serious readjustment of its economic structures and beliefs. Obama will need to restore the confidence of Americans in their financial mechanisms, while trying to reconcile them to greater austerity; and, if he wants to leave a legacy, he'll need at least to reform America's broken healthcare system. This means that in fact Obama's initial focus is likely to be domestic.

Is there likely to be a shift in American foreign policy under President Obama?

Despite his preference for visionary rhetoric, Obama doesn't have a sharp ideological vision of the world—unlike, for instance, John McCain's notion of a 'league of democracies', Obama does not have a 'big idea'. He is an intelligent pragmatist: his approach will be inductive, not deductive. The big foreign policy shift will be in style: Obama recognises that the US can only pursue its interests by pursuing a consensual style—it must appear less hectoring, arrogant and insouciant of international norms and the rule of law.

But will an Obama administration mark a radical break in US policies, domestic and international?

Only to some extent. It inherits from the Bush era a plague of global problems: the need to devise a more functional international financial regime; the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and in Pakistan; a precarious lull in Iraq; uncertainty in relation to the intentions of Iran and North Korea (problem of nuclear proliferation); the ever-present Israel-Palestine problem; and intractable problems of global climate change. Obama will address these on the basis of a more sophisticated conception of global power—which recognises that the US has no monopoly over power, and so must work with others to achieve its ends. But this should not be mistaken to signal a dovish strategy: a commitment to maintain US global preponderance is inbuilt into the US state policy managers, and this will not change.

US-India relations blossomed on President Bush's watch. Could you share with us your predictions of US-India relations under Obama?

India will have to work harder to develop the US relationship under Obama. He doesn't share Bush's enthusiasm for India—he thinks of India more as a regional than a global power, and India will have less prominent place on his agenda. In fact, Obama will be more focused on what is happening to the immediate west of India: Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iran. Here, we have some opportunities—by offering, for instance, to play a larger role in stabilising Afghanistan (something that is also directly in our own interests). On the economic front, there will be some tax measures to discourage US companies outsourcing—and there may be some protectionist measures. But it's unlikely that this will override the compulsion of US companies to maximise profits.

Democrats have historically been known to be concerned about proliferation. Do you see the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty becoming a thorn in the side of US-India relations now?

Here too, there is a possible opportunity: disarmament has come back into the US discussion—advocated now by Henry Kissinger and others on the right as well as the Democrats, who talk of reducing the US nuclear arsenal to 1,000 if Russia follows. India could take a lead in encouraging this line and working with the US—so returning to one of its own commitments (though neglected since Rajiv Gandhi). India has a direct interest in putting disarmament back on the international table, since its own wider region is threatened by a destablising rise in nuclear-armed states.

Obama has spelt out a firm stance regarding Pakistan. Do you anticipate him taking a tougher line?

Obama has certainly spoken of unilateral strikes within Pakistan against Al Qaeda or Taliban targets. Yet he understands that the US has interests both in building institutions of civil society in Pakistan, and in continuing to work with the military. So, his administration, like all previous ones, will be trapped by the enduring contradictions of the US's policy towards Pakistan.