Rus­sian In­volve­ment in US Pres­i­den­tial Elec­tions

An over­view with re­gard to key Pol­icy Changes

Libertatem Magazine - - Front Page - By Adit Ke­sar­wani

IN­TRO­DUC­TION

Hil­lary Clin­ton who ap­peared to be an ex­pe­ri­enced politi­cian and Mr. Donald Trump, who is pop­u­lar for his rhetoric speeches, some­times ap­pear­ing to be crude and con­tra­dic­tory talked about to­tally dif­fer­ent ideas in de­ter­min­ing the role of Amer­ica in in­ter­na­tional ju­ris­dic­tion. As Clin­ton is hav­ing a lib­eral ap­proach in main­tain­ing in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions, Trump had “First Amer­ica” ap­proach. The CIA in a se­cret as­sess­ment had stated that the Rus­sian were in­volved in 2016 Pres­i­den­tial Elec­tions, help­ing Mr. Trump win. [Se­cret CIA As­sess­ment says, Rus­sia was try­ing to help Trump

win White House, Wash­ing­ton Post]. The US gov­ern­ment ear­lier in Oc­to­ber pub­licly an­nounced the in­volve­ment of Rus­sia in hack­ing the Demo­cratic Na­tional Com­mit­tee’s e-mails. This re­sulted in pub­lic re­lease of thou­sands of e-mails, which in­cluded dam­ag­ing rev­e­la­tions about the Demo­cratic Party in­clud­ing the Hil­lary Clin­ton cam­paign, the party’s nom­i­nee.

RUS­SIAN IN­VOLVE­MENT IN THE U.S. PRES­I­DEN­TIAL ELEC­TIONS

CIA al­le­ga­tions were based on its most re­cent anal­y­sis per­formed by the in­tel­li­gence on the hack­ing, stat­ing that the Rus­sian hack­ers breached GOP in­di­vid­u­als and or­ga­ni­za­tions be­fore the elec­tions. There were also al­le­ga­tions that some of the en­ti­ties were con­nected to the Rus­sian gov­ern­ment spread­ing fake news about Clin­ton. In­ves­ti­ga­tors also found out dig­i­tal foot­prints of the in­di­vid­u­als hav­ing re­la­tions with the Rus­sian gov­ern­ment, who were on the hit list of the in­tel­li­gence agen­cies’ radar.

Politi­cians of both the par­ties have ex­pressed their strong dis­ap­proval of the U.S. ad­ver­sary, where Mr. Trump had bluntly re­jected such claims that Rus­sia was in­volved in such an ac­tion for their ben­e­fit, and look­ing at Clin­ton, she con­tended that Trump was en­cour­ag­ing Rus­sia. But on the other side, many of the repub­li­cans have ac­cepted the in­tel­li­gence and law of­fi­cial’s claims re­lat­ing to this in­ci­dent. Both the par­ties have claimed for an in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the said in­ci­dent, and the let­ter had been signed by the top of­fi­cials of the na­tion [Rus­sian hack­ing and the 2016 elec­tion: What you need to know, CNN]

OVER­VIEW OF THE POL­ICY CHANGES

One thing was pretty much clear from the cam­paign of the Repub­li­can and Democrats, that the next Pres­i­dent would di­rectly or in­di­rectly im­pact the coun­tries and their economies which have trade re­la­tions with the U.S. By the newly de­vel­oped eco­nomic re­la­tions and ties, it is very much pred­i­ca­ble that re­la­tions be­tween In­dia and the U.S. will be less af­fected as com­pared to China and Rus­sia. Trade with China and Rus­sia would be dras­ti­cally af­fected by the ap­point­ment of the new Pres­i­dent.

Mr. Trump’s as­ser­tion is that U.S. had en­tered into hor­ri­ble trade agree­ments with var­i­ous na­tions, es­pe­cially China. [U.S. elec­tions – Im­pact on In­dia, China and Rus­sia, Huff­in­g­ton Post]. More­over, he also as­serts that ei­ther he will re-ne­go­ti­ate the terms of NAFTA or will break it. Till now, no such poli­cies have been de­clared for In­dia in the due course. Quot­ing sev­eral World Bank re­ports and anal­y­sis, he said that In­dia will be the fastest grow­ing econ­omy in the next three to five years sur­pass­ing China, and there­fore there is no need to have im­proved trade agree­ments with In­dia.

As far as In­dia is be­ing con­cerned, it is said that In­dia’s re­mark­able growth rate is based on var­i­ous fac­tors. Nu­mer­ous jobs have been cre­ated and many of the cor­po­ra­tions are hav­ing their hir­ing plans. Also, there had been sub­stan­tial in­crease in the salary in gov­ern­ment jobs; the tech­ni­cal in­dus­try is at­tract­ing more for­eign in­vest­ments in new products, mak­ing the ser­vice in­dus­try more ac­ces­si­ble.

Trump’s elec­tion will also hit In­dia, as he has ex­pressly pointed out that they are out­sourc­ing work to In­di­ans, while the U.S. has a high unem­ploy­ment ra­tio. He pro­posed 15% tax on com­pa­nies who out­source their work in other coun­tries and 20% tax for im­port­ing goods and ser­vices. One of the ma­jor area of con­cern for In­dia, is that our soft­ware in­dus­try is dis­pro­por­tion­ately de­pen­dent upon the U.S. ex­ports. Cur­rently In­dia’s soft­ware ser­vices ac­counts for USD 82 Bil­lion which is be­ing ex­ported to the U.S. Fur­ther­more, Trump had strong views on im­mi­gra­tion, i.e. the grant of H-1B visas, which is very im­por­tant for the In­dian soft­ware mar­ket as our highly ta­lented em­ploy­ees are be­ing hired by the U.S. com­pa­nies. Many of the big I.T. cor­po­ra­tions send their em­ploy­ees on tem­po­rary ba­sis to the U.S. for some projects on the H-1B visas, which Trump is plan­ning to scrap off. Even­tu­ally we can say that scrap­ping of H-1B visa is a very big step and there is a strong pos­si­bil­ity of this, or a hike in fees of such type of visas can also be pre­sumed.

Rus­sia is an­other key player for the U.S. as Amer­i­cans and Euro­pean sanc­tions are mak­ing it worse for the coun­try to sus­tain, and their mil­i­tary in­volve­ment is an im­por­tant con­cern over their econ­omy. As Rus­sia wants to free it­self of all the sanc­tions, and re­solve the econ­omy prob­lem, it is in dire need of a U.S. pres­i­dent, with whom it could ne­go­ti­ate it further.

As it was pointed out in some of Trump’s speeches main­tain­ing friendly re­la­tions with Rus­sia, one rea­son might be for re­duc­ing in­ter­na­tional com­mit­ments re­lat­ing to US-NATO al­lies. He has al­ways chal­lenged the va­lid­ity of such al­lies and got to the ex­tent of say­ing that many of the al­lies does not de­serve to be a part of it. Rus­sia has an in­ter­est in this break­down in that way that it will re­gain its power and in­flu­ence over the Euro­pean coun­tries. Such type of step would be heav­ily crit­i­cized on the in­ter­na­tional plat­form by the Euro­pean coun­tries as well as in the USA, in the sense that in main­tain­ing good terms with Rus­sia, USA sur­ren­dered it’s fu­ture.

More­over, it has been said that Trump would like to re-es­tab­lish the en­tire gov­ern­ment con­tracts with other coun­tries in­clud­ing mil­i­tary estab­lish­ment be­tween the two

coun­tries. It has also been pre­dicted that U.S. will try to have more ex­ten­sive co­op­er­a­tion with Rus­sia in Syria, in curb­ing out the ISIS and all other such groups.

Among other ma­jor prob­a­ble changes which have been pre­sumed af­ter the Trump’s vic­tory re­gard­ing the change in for­eign pol­icy, is the one re­gard­ing the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the slo­gan “Amer­ica First” The ap­proach he overviewed dur­ing the elec­tion cam­paign was of the na­ture of re­duc­ing in­ter­na­tional ten­sion and of look­ing af­ter their coun­try i.e. the U.S. in­volve­ment in tackling the global prob­lems and help­ing other na­tions in re­gards to their eco­nomic, po­lit­i­cal and se­cu­rity mat­ters. There is a strong pos­si­bil­ity of re­duc­tion of the U.S. de­fence in­volve­ment in the world at large and we may very soon wit­ness a re­duc­tion in the mil­i­tary in­volve­ment in Ja­pan and South Korea. The newly elected pres­i­dent would also cut down the fi­nan­cial aid pro­vided to the U.S. al­lies in the Mid­dle East­ern coun­tries.

Trump also cleared his in­ten­tion for in­ten­si­fy­ing the bi­lat­eral com­mu­ni­ca­tions with Moscow as it may lead to ease out the sanc­tions which were in­tro­duced by Rus­sia af­ter an­nex­ing Crimea and ag­gres­sion against Ukraine.

In other ar­eas, Trump had shown se­ri­ous change in the U.S. pol­icy. Dur­ing his cam­paign, he was highly crit­i­cal of ac­tions to mit­i­gate cli­mate change and he was of the view of re­view­ing the cli­mate change pol­icy. It is ex­pected that Trump and his ad­min­is­tra­tion will try to un­der­mine the Paris cli­mate agree­ment, which would weaken the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the EU and the U.S., and with de­vel­op­ing coun­tries, in­clud­ing the least-de­vel­oped coun­tries most vul­ner­a­ble to cli­mate change. The most rad­i­cal po­ten­tial step would be if the U.S. were to with­draw from the group of sig­na­to­ries of the agree­ment, which is pos­si­ble in Novem­ber 2019, three years af­ter its en­try into force.

CON­CLU­SIONS

De­spite the pre­vail­ing con­tentions, the al­le­ga­tions made, proved, dis­proved, it is a mat­ter which in­volves grave con­cern of both the coun­tries i.e. Rus­sia and U.S. Bar­rack Obama in such re­gard, re­tal­i­at­ing on the move of Rus­sia in­volv­ing into their Pres­i­den­tial elec­tions said that it is some­thing to in­ves­ti­gate rather than merely think­ing that whether it af­fected or not.

Af­ter as­sum­ing the White House from 20 Jan­uary 2017, Trump seems to plan a quick play on im­ple­ment­ing his cam­paign prom­ises, which in­cludes a re­duc­tion of U.S. en­gage­ment with other coun­tries and with­drawal from sup­port for free trade. It may also be ex­pected that the new pres­i­dent will be seen as a very dif­fi­cult part­ner to ne­go­ti­ate on terms of com­mon point and that less U.S. en­gage­ment in solv­ing global prob­lems will ad­versely af­fect in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions. It also poses a risk that Rus­sia will fill the place left af­ter a U.S. with­drawal, as he is in des­per­ate need of re­mov­ing the sanc­tions be­ing im­posed and wants to re­gain its power and in­flu­ence amongst the Euro­pean na­tions. It is wor­thy to note the risk as­so­ci­ated while for­mu­lat­ing the team of ad­min­is­tra­tion. That may be the mo­ment when other coun­tries test the as­sertive­ness of the new U.S. gov­ern­ment and its will­ing­ness to take ac­tion. In short, Trump’s win is more likely bring risk and un­cer­tainty in the in­ter­na­tional fo­rum as well as in the U.S.!

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.