You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #2: It is complex. Another opinion: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It is complex. Another opinion:

Helping Bill = Influencing Hillary?

The Financial Express
Posted: 2008-12-20 02:16:53+05:30 IST
Updated: Dec 20, 2008 at 0216 hrs IST

The William J Clinton foundation finally released a long list of major donors as part of a deal with Barack Obama, which would ultimately pave the way for Hillary Clinton to be confirmed as Secretary of State. The chief concern of the Obama team was to prevent any charges of conflict of interest in the functioning of the country’s next top diplomat. However, it didn’t take long for charges to be leveled. Amusingly, a PTI news report quoted an anonymous Pakistani source expressing concern at the large number of Indians in the list, venting Pakistan’s paranoia about a distinct pro-India tilt in Hillary Clinton’s State department.

Admittedly, the list of Indian donors among the big donors is impressive and includes business people, politicians and media. A closer examination of the biggest donors reveals that most represent business and industry—-Amar Singh is the only prominent political figure. Other prominent donors are CII, Laxmi Mittal, Tulsi Tanti/Suzlon, Reliance, Ranbaxy, Vinod Gupta, you get the gist. Quite simply, more than anything else, this is a reflection of the success of Indian business and entrepreneurs. One caveat: this does not apply to politicians. And the fact that Pakistanis don’t figure in the big league is an indication of their lesser economic clout. But economic clout won’t necessarily turn foreign policy tables.Consider the fact that the Foundation received much larger amounts from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and other Gulf states than from India. But only someone naïve or foolish would think that this will tilt US foreign policy dramatically in favour of Arab countries and away from Israel.

Pakistan’s importance to the US is strategic, not economic. That can’t change and won’t under Hillary. More than paranoia, Pakistani opinion would do well look inwards and get down to some serious economics and business, and not just political rhetoric.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC