GZERO Media logo

US election seen from India: "Deteriorating US-China relationship is a good thing"

Art of man carrying the Indian flag in front of a map of India

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri is the foreign editor of the Hindustan Times, based in New Delhi. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Gabrielle Debinski: Is there a lot of focus in India right now on the US election?

PC: The focus on the US election in India at present is not that great. There has been coverage, obviously of the riots and the protests [against racial injustice]. President Trump's own, shall we say, eccentric statements do get a fair amount of coverage here, but otherwise, partly because of our present problems with China and the continuing problems with COVID-19, local media coverage definitely has been very internally and domestically focused.


The government of India is monitoring of course — as I presume most other governments are — what's happening in America. But I would argue that they are not overly concerned about results because there's a view, and I think seconded by people I've talked to in Washington, that there is a very broad bipartisan consensus in the United States regarding the importance of the Indo-US relationship.

GD: So the Indian government is generally confident that the close Indo-US relationship will continue regardless of who wins in November?

PC: In the broadest sense, yes. There are a number of issues which the governments, depending on who becomes president, will be different. For example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is very concerned about climate, it has been one of his signature concerns as prime minister. Obviously, with Biden, he will be able to do a lot more than he would be able to with President Trump.

On trade, the Indian government is a strong supporter of the WTO and the multilateral trade system, and probably the biggest friction with Trump has been on the issue of trade and this presumably will be different under a President Biden.

But on the other hand, [the Indian government] has also been very broadly pleased with the fact that President Trump has taken on China aggressively, if sometimes a little incoherently.

The fact that he's been able to shock China so much, both on trade, or things like ripping apart the INF treaty, which India thought was an excellent move because of its importance for the strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific, were things that they saw that Trump did. And they are not clear in their mind yet that a Biden administration will take these issues as seriously — at least in the first year.

GD: Turning back to China — how is the India-China spat perceived, broadly speaking, by the Indian people? And is the growing US-China rivalry becoming a headache for the Indian government?

PC: The Indian government's goal with China is to have a certain, should we say, a modus vivendi, rather than to be friends. They don't expect to have a good relationship.

India has always had a tough line regarding China, for example, and Chinese investment. The total Chinese FDI into India today barely totals $8 billion. Which is basically almost nothing. That's been because of deliberate policies by the Indian government to keep Chinese investment out of the country.

So for them, if anything, a deteriorating US-China relationship is a good thing as far as India is concerned. Trump, in their view, was willing to break China, literally, in an attempt to recalibrate the relationship.

Too often they felt that American officials privately say, "yes, China's terrible" and then say, "but we can't do X, Y and Z."

In Trump's case, it's "China is terrible and I'm going to do X, Y and Z." And the Indians are very pleased that this was happening though they're not necessarily, should I say, all in praise of the tactics that he used.

GD: Looking back at 2016, how much would you say the outcome of the US election affected your country?

PC: Well, the Indians were as surprised as anybody else when Trump was elected. They had a very good relationship with both Bill and Hillary Clinton and had assumed that they would pick up a lot of the strands that the bilateral relationship already had based even on their previous experiences with Bill Clinton.

I think with Trump, they came to recognize one thing which they hadn't understood —which perhaps many other countries hadn't understood — that the deep cleavages in the United States, particularly on the issue of equity, had delegitimized the American establishment and that they had not realized how deeply that had occurred.

They were also surprised, and continue to be worried about, the degree to which the Republican Party has turned, as the Americans would say, on a dime, on two key issues: immigration and trade. The Republicans have in recent times at least been the party of free trade and the party of immigration. And Trump obviously turned his party against both of those issues.

The [Indian government] now recognizes they have to invest a lot more in both sustaining the international trading system, as well as working more closely with the Americans on things like immigration, which they've sort of left to the American political system.

America issues more visas to Indians than they do to any other country in the world other than Mexico. Almost a million visas are issued every year to Indians, and the Indian-American community has expanded at an enormous rate.

Before Trump came, it was rising at about 20-25 percent a year, and it has now become by far the largest, wealthiest Indian diaspora anywhere, far surpassing the diaspora that exists, for example, in England. So until now, it's just been taken for granted. And they've been rated as a sort of model immigrant population in the United States.

And now you have a president who is actually saying that, well, I don't really care anything about them. For example, in some of the trade negotiations we have now been holding with the Americans, India is bringing in immigration issues and saying can we incorporate H-1B visas or something into the larger trade dialogue, which is something we've never done.

This interview is part of the GZERO project Global voices on the US election, which you can find in full here.

Carbon has a bad rep, but did you know it's a building block of life? As atoms evolved, carbon trapped in CO2 was freed, giving way to the creation of complex molecules that use photosynthesis to convert carbon to food. Soon after, plants, herbivores, and carnivores began populating the earth and the cycle of life began.

Learn more about how carbon created life on Earth in the second episode of Eni's Story of CO2 series.

As we enter the homestretch of the US presidential election — which is set to be the most contentious, and possibly contested, in generations — Americans are also voting on 35 seats up for grabs in a battle for the control of the Senate. The 100-member body is currently held 53-47 by the Republican Party, but many individual races are wide open, and the Democrats are confident they can flip the upper chamber of Congress.

Either way, the result will have a profound impact not only on domestic policy, but also on US foreign relations and other issues with global reach. Here are a few areas where what US senators decide reverberates well beyond American shores.

More Show less

On September 23, GZERO Media — in partnership with Microsoft and Eurasia Group — gathered global experts to discuss global recovery from the coronavirus pandemic in a livestream panel. Our panel for the discussion Crisis Response & Recovery: Reimagining while Rebuilding, included:

  • Brad Smith, President, Microsoft
  • Ian Bremmer, President and Founder, Eurasia Group & GZERO Media
  • Jeh Johnson, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP and former Secretary of Homeland Security.
  • John Frank, Vice President, UN Affairs at Microsoft
  • Susan Glasser, staff writer and Washington columnist, The New Yorker (moderator)

Special appearances by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde, and comedian/host Trevor Noah.

More Show less

Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, offers insights on the Supreme Court vacancy:

Will Senate Republicans, who stopped a Supreme Court nomination in 2016, because it was too close to an election, pay a political price for the change in tactics this time around?

Not only do I think they won't pay a political price, I think in many cases, they're going to benefit. Changing the balance of power on the Supreme Court has been a career-long quest for many conservatives and many Republicans. And that's why you've seen so many of them fall in line behind the President's nomination before we even know who it is.

At this point, do Senate Democrats have any hope of stopping President Trump from filling the ninth seat on the Supreme Court?

More Show less

In a special GZERO Media livestream on global response and recovery amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Eurasia Group & GZERO Media president Ian Bremmer discussed the difference between Europe's unified approach to economic stimulus and the deeply divided and political nature of the current conversation in the US. While initial stimulus support was bipartisan, there is little chance of Democrats and Republicans coming together again ahead of the November 3 presidential election. "It's red state versus blue state. President Trump's saying that coronavirus isn't so bad if you take the blue states out. He's president of the blue states, you can't take the blue states out," Bremmer told moderator Susan Glasser of The New Yorker.

UNGA banner

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal

Panel: How will the world recover from COVID-19?

UNGA Livestream