CentreRight

An improved US-India relationship

Parts I, II and III of this ten part series looked at Bush's achievements in Africa, his solidarity with Israel and his fight against judicial activism.  My fourth entry is the strategic relationship forged with one of the world's fastest growing powers.

From the perspective of London it is easy to be overwhelmed by the scale of anti-Bush sentiment in Europe but Europe ain't the world.  In Africa, Japan and Israel Bush was always reasonably popular.  China-US relations were also relatively good during most of the last seven years.  But it was an improved relationship with India - and its one billion plus population - that is most notable.

I'm not going to say much on this subject as it's been examined in more detail by Duncan Currie at the Weekly Standard.  There was lots of opposition to Bush's big decision to co-operate with India on civilian nuclear issues.  US Democrats delayed a deal for years but it was eventually ratified a few months ago.  The deal was a very significant milestone in a long transition of the English-speaking India from a state close to communist Russia to a more free market state and now a strategic (in doggedly independent) ally of American interests.  Currie touches on other factors including aid policy, co-operation on natural disasters, shared defence training exercises, a preference for tech-based solutions to the environment, worries about China and also joint action against Islamic terrorism.

In terms of what this means for the future, a final word to Ashley J Tellis:

"The strengthening U.S.-Indian bond does not imply that New Delhi will become a formal alliance partner of Washington at some point in the future. It also does not imply that India will invariably be an uncritical partner of the United States in its global endeavors. India’s large size, its proud history, and its great ambitions, ensure that it will likely march to the  beat of its own drummer, at least most of the time. When the value of the U.S.-Indian relationship is at issue, the first question for the United States, therefore, ought not to be, “What will India do for us?”—as critics of the Bush administration’s civilian nuclear agreement with New Delhi have often asserted in recent memory.  Rather, the real question ought to be, “Is a strong, democratic (even if perpetually independent) India in American national interest?” If this is the fundamental question and if the answer to this question is “Yes”—as it ought to be, given the convergence in U.S. and Indian national security goals—then the real discussion about the evolution of the U.S.-Indian relationship ought to focus on how the United States can assist the growth of Indian power, and how it can do so at minimal cost (if that is relevant) to any other competing national security objectives."

A fightback against judicial activism

So far in this interrupted ten part series I've looked at Bush's support for Israel and his record on international development.  Today his greatest domestic achievement.

US lawyers and courts have enormous powers - and like in our own country and across Europe - many have become 'activist' interpreters of law.  Through inventive interpretation of laws and constitutions, activist judges effectively create new rights – unilaterally adopting the functions of elected officials.  Robert Bork (a Ronald Reagan nominee for the US Supreme Court who was rejected by Congress because of his constitutionally conservative views) has said that judicial activism involves unelected judges “legislating from the bench on issues that would not pass muster at the ballot box”.

In America rights to abortion and gay marriage have been imposed by judges and have made the appointment of future judges a massive political issue.

George W Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices - John Roberts and (eventually after the Harriet Miers debacle) Samuel Alito.  For conservative commentator Fred Barnes, "Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 58, should be justices for decades to come."  David Frum has made the case that Roberts, as Chief Justice, is almost worth two justices.  Other conservative judges - notably Thomas and Scalia - are very sound but are not persuaders.  Roberts is liked by all who meet him.  At long last conservatives have a Supreme Court justice with the personality to bring the Court together and be winsome against judicial activism.

Bush's appointments at lower courts are just as significant.  Huge numbers of “strict constitutionalist” justices have been appointed throughout the American legal system in the last eight years.

A friend of Israel

In my series on the things Bush got right I focused on international development yesterday.  Today, his staunch support for Israel.

Israel is a far from perfect nation but it is the region's only long-standing democracy.  It is the only country in the region where religious tolerance is protected in law and culture.  Surrounded by hostile nations with very poor human rights records it deserves the support of western democracies but rarely receives it.  It has won consistent support from George W Bush, however.  He is probably the most consistently pro-Israel President in modern times.  In his presidential radio address below - broadcast yesterday - he explains why he supports Israel in its current military action against the terrorists of Hamas.

"Mr Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did."

Plenty of negative reflections have been written on the Bush years and a lot of that negativity is deserved.  I want to offer some balance to this early writing of history, however.  In these last days of George W Bush's Presidency I hope to record some of his real achievements.  First of all: International development.

The praise for George W Bush's record on international development has come from surprising and independent sources:

“Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa.” - Nicholas Kristof, left-wing New York Times columnist

"[The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar)] is the largest commitment ever made by any nation for a global health activity that’s dedicated to a single disease. I mean, that’s just not disputable. It has a prevention component, a treatment component, and a care component, but treatment is the centerpiece. The last number I’ve seen is that this initiative has led to treatment of more than 1.7 million people, most of them in Africa. Now, that’s not all the people who need treatment, but it’s a huge amount. Pepfar at least tripled our aid flow to Africa—I’m talking about total aid flow." - Dr Michael Merson, an international AIDS researcher, who evaluated President Bush's $15bn AIDS relief programme, PEPFAR.

Travelling in Rwanda, Mike Gerson - former Bush speechwriter - noted that the programme had transformed access to health treatment.  In 2003 just 4% of Rwandans in need of AIDS drugs were receiving them. That figure was 92% by 2007.

And basic medical care hasn't just been focused on AIDS.  Twenty-five million Africans across fifteen nations have benefited from the White House's Malaria Initiative.  Gerson again: "With an infusion of bed nets and effective drugs, [Rwanda's] child malaria deaths were cut by two-thirds in less than two year."  Fifteen countries have been targeted overall.

America now provides more than half of the world's food aid.

President Bush hasn't just spent a lot more money (although America's overseas private giving dwarves governmental giving (the reverse of Britain)) he has also ensured it is spent a lot better.  Under the Millennium Challenge Account developing nations agree to reforms including on democracy and anti-corruption measures in return for US aid.

But enough statistics.  Here's a real story of one person helped by PEPFAR:

"John Robert has a family of two children; he has HIV/AIDS.  This disease ravaged his body.  His weight dropped to 99 pounds.  He developed tuberculosis and other health problems.  He and his family felt certain that he would die.  Then John Robert began receiving antiretroviral treatment through PEPFAR in Uganda.  The treatment restored his strength. He returned to the classroom and he continued being a dad. John Robert is earning his bachelor's degree in education.  He's volunteering to help other people."

Conservatives are wrong to crudely oppose all international development spending.  We must simply insist that it is effective, that it supports wider progress within developing countries and that it takes place alongside more important changes such as trade liberalisation.