South Asia

Shrugging off its traditional reliance for foreign-exchange earnings on jute goods and tea, Bangladesh has economically made giant strides, with home remittances and garment manufacturing giving momentum to a whole basket of non-traditional exports. But a cursory visit there is enough to dispel the general perception in Pakistan that Bangladesh is doing economically far better than Pakistan.

Despite multiple crises compounded by rampant corruption and a terror-driven law-and-order situation, Pakistan’s economy is far more resilient and multifaceted, notwithstanding the fact that the Bangladeshi taka is performing better than the Pakistani rupee. The pervasive mass poverty in Bangladesh far outstrips the comparable percentage of poverty in Pakistan. The focus of Bangladesh’s economy seems to be the city of Dhaka, with high-rise buildings mushrooming on scarce land with greater value than almost any other capital city in the world. Traffic jams are endemic. There is one thing in common to the two democracies – rampant nepotism and corruption – and these put them increasingly under threat, which is force-multiplied by the widening rich-poor gap and inflation triggering a mass upsurge.

To quote Khadimal Hasan in New Age: “Promises made by the Awami League during the 2008 general elections remain unfulfilled, good governance has remained elusive, the rule of law is yet to be established and human rights violation continues to be rampant.” Despite the Awami League government’s many failings, the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) could not play any significant role inside and outside parliament in projecting people’s concerns. The BNP has concentrated its anger on partisan issues, such as the “eviction of party chairperson Khaleda Zia from her Dhaka Cantonment House and the cases filed against her and her two sons for corruption taking precedence over pressing public concerns.”

Like in Pakistan, without political consensus about elections under a genuinely neutral caretaker government, the atmosphere in Bangladesh is charged with politics of confrontation. Fearing overturn of their present overwhelming mandate, the Awami League government forced an amendment through parliament abolishing the concept of caretaker governments. This could lead to a rerun of 2005 when the BNP, as the ruling party then, tried to engineer the vote. Street agitation for installation of a non-partisan government to conduct polls created a situation for an army-dictated superior judiciary-supported caretaker administration of technocrats taking power. Free and fair elections were ultimately held in 2008.

The ‘Bangladeshi Model’ failed when, within one year, the army forgot its resolve to stay away from politics. Armies can intervene for course corrections but are not equipped to run governments. At most they can run people who run governments, and that too for a short time.

Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya of the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) observed that the country’s economy was approaching lower-level equilibrium in 2013, short of the GDP growth target of 7.2 percent, failing to reach even six percent, compared to the record 6.32 percent of the 2011-2012 financial year. With the CPD projecting that revenues collection will fall short of target, an additional TK100 billion will be needed to meet budgetary allocations. Remittance inflows of over $12 billion were a bright spot, with the budget deficit and balance of payments remaining in the safe zone.

Political uncertainty could destabilise Bangladesh’s macroeconomic stability, having a serious impact on the economy. To quote Abul Kalam Azad and Sharier Khan in The Daily Star: “A series of mega projects aimed at revolutionising communications, ports and energy sectors were rolled out, but due to weak governance, indecision, an inability to execute plans, corruption, fund shortages and donors’ conditions affected the progress of most of them.”

Nevertheless, given the prevailing recession in the developed world, it is not a bad performance. With some headway in projects in the power sector, one must commend the tremendous initiative of the present government for a ‘digital’ nation by 2020, the progress matching India in quality, if not in quantum. An 18 percent interest on loans to the manufacturing sector, rising to more than 20 percent for small businesses, almost double that in India, is pushing up production costs and adversely affecting people’s purchasing power. To its credit, the Bangladesh Bank kept a cap of seven percent for export financing and 13 percent for farm loans when withdrawing the cap on rates imposed in 2008 to help businesses cope with world recession.

The campaign in Assam against Bangladeshi settlers and the water issue will adversely impact India-Bangladesh relations. Expert Mohammad Khaliquzaman said that the entire northern area was turning into a desert due to lack of water, with India releasing 20 percent less water in the past five years than that stipulated for Farakka Barrage in the Farakka Water Treaty. The Indian intention to unilaterally build other dams upstream, including one at Tipaimukh, is alarming. Construction of dams is not needed for saving rivers but to save the lives of people. 

The ugly controversy over how many people died during the 1971 civil war is politically motivated to vitiate the congenial atmosphere developing between peoples of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The truth is not something to be proud of. While nowhere near the quantum being propagated, the three-million figure is ingrained in the Bangladeshi national psyche. The local population did suffer mass atrocities at the hands of elements of the Pakistani army. However, in many isolated places non-Bengalis were massacred by mob action. There were targeted killings and rapes. In her book Dead Reckoning, Sarmila Bose, granddaughter of Indian revolutionary Subhas Chandra Bose, dismissed the allegations of ethnic-cleansing, rape and killings against the Pakistani army as highly exaggerated. Commensurate atrocities carried out against the non-Bengali population, especially the Biharis, were never documented.

The driving force in the arguments, in her words, is “bitter emotional partisanship.” With both sides remaining in absolute denial of truth, instead of reconciling fact with fiction, there is no closure in sight. Pakistan should request the UN to commission professional verification of the claims of Bengalis and non-Bengalis perishing in this horrific civil war, offering to pay for the services of internationally renowned independent auditors. It will be money well spent.

Another thing common in Pakistan and Bangladesh is widespread resentment against what is perceived as Indian arrogance by the intelligentsia and the masses. This is much less so in Pakistan then in Bangladesh, where the generally held belief is that the Indian government dictates everything to the Bangladeshi government. PCB chairman Zaka Ashraf was either dangerously naive or plain ignorant in fantasising that India would ever allow the Bangladeshi cricket team to tour Pakistan. Neither Pakistanis nor Bangladeshis (as opposed to their present government) like a master-slave relationship. India’s image of a bully is not conducive to a future common market in South Asia.

The inland transit facilities demanded by India highlight an important geopolitical home truth. Bangladesh’s pivotal economic location is extraordinary. Surrounded by West Bengal and the impoverished ‘Seven Sisters’ states of northeast India, Bangladesh’s two bustling ports make for an economic centre of a possible Association of Eastern States of South Asia. The AESSA concept means an economic (if not political) confederation of almost 400 million people. Standing on a failsafe line of destiny with corrupt governance alternating between the two badly polarised ladies, Bangladesh desperately needs an honest, competent government truly dedicated to the people.

Click here to read this column at The News International.

The EastWest Institute has been advocating a major effort to improve the reliability and security of the cables based on the 12 recommendations made in a joint IEEE-EWI Report, The Reliability of Global Undersea Communications Cable Infrastructure (ROGUCCI) Report. EWI continues to champion many of these recommendations and conducts outreach seminars with senior government and industry leaders in India, as well as across the globe.

The security challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, which American "re-balancing" towards Asia and Barack Obama’s tour of some Asian countries so early into his second presidency seek to address, are many and complex. Territorial disputes remain sharp in the region. China lays claim to Indian territory and so does Pakistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan have border differences. China has maritime territorial disputes with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. Taiwan is also party to these disputes, besides China itself having sovereignty claims over Taiwan. Japan and Russia have an outstanding dispute over the Kuril Islands.

The problem of terrorism is more acute in this region than anywhere else. Pakistan, along with the border areas of Afghanistan, is a breeding ground of terrorism targeting India and Afghanistan, and creating a sense of vulnerability in Central Asia. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have seen terrorism on their soil. So has China in Xinjiang. Terrorism has afflicted Thailand and Indonesia. Nuclear proliferation is a problem in the two extremities of this region, in Iran and North Korea. At the eastern end, the threat of a military strike against Iran is real despite the position of Russia and China, while it is most unlikely against North Korea at the western end in deference to China’s opposition.

The presence of the United States of America in the region is substantial, with its Seventh Fleet as well as military bases in Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Diego Garcia. With concerns about China’s rise in mind, the US is reinforcing its military assets in the region further. The US defence secretary has described India, a bit exaggeratedly no doubt, as a “lynchpin” of this new strategy. In any case, this shows the direction of American thinking in terms of partnering with India strategically in this region.

With its Fifth Fleet and bases in the Gulf countries, the US has now a presence in the western end of the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Hormuz. Apart from putting pressure on Iran, the US claims that this presence is intended to maintain stability in the region and ensure uninterrupted supplies of oil and gas to American friends and allies, more so now that the US imports only 10 per cent of its hydrocarbon needs, and even this figure will decline with huge discoveries of shale gas in the US. The US navy has a sizable presence in the Indian Ocean for assuring the security of sea-lanes of communication. For this, it has been engaging the Indian navy in a big way, with the two countries holding frequent naval exercises together. These exercises are now being held also in the trilateral India-US-Japan format.

It is argued that while the security architectures during the Cold War were based primarily on military alliances, the need today is to base these architectures on shared values, interests and challenges. This Euro-Atlantic-centric view is debatable, as China, India and scores of non-aligned countries were outside the Cold War alliance systems. Today, Nato not only exists, its membership has been expanded and its role has been geographically extended. Nato operated in Yugoslavia and Iraq. It is operating in Afghanistan; it acted in Libya. The US has declared its intention to strengthen its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia is working to strengthen the Collective Security Treaty Organization in the erstwhile Soviet space. It is wrong to downplay too much the security role of military alliances today.

The idea of basing the new security architectures on “shared values” is also a Euro-Atlantic view. What are these “shared values”: those of democracy, pluralism, human rights and so on? But then, there are serious differences over these issues. Many countries are either not democratic or have their own concept of democracy. There is serious opposition to what is seen as the US crusade for democracy for geopolitical reasons, a tendency to impose it by force at great human cost, and double standards in the application of this principle.

Similarly, the human rights issue has been highly politicized by the West, there is selectivity in its application and the critics believe the issue has been used cynically for regime change, among other things. So, can the new security architectures be built on highly contested notions in their controversial practical application? Can the US, Russia and China be brought on a common platform on them, not to mention many others, including the Islamic countries?

The question arises whether the Indian and Pacific Oceans constitute a single strategic space? The answer would be “yes” from the US navy’s point of view with its responsibilities extending across the two oceans. It could be true for India, which dominates the Indian Ocean geographically, only in the specific context of the expansion of the Chinese blue-water navy and its future ability to break through the first and second chain of islands and establish an increasing presence in the Pacific and eventually in the Indian Ocean, for which China is already creating the basis.

Our navy signals its ability to operate far from Indian shores by, for instance, periodically holding exercises with the Russian navy at Vladivostok. The Pacific is also the venue now of the trilateral India-US-Japan naval exercises. But the Pacific Ocean is too vast for India to have strategic interest in it. As regards the security of sea-lanes of communication, the problem pertains largely to the Indian Ocean area, from the Strait of Hormuz through the Malacca Strait to the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, not the Pacific as such.

The energy and trade flows across these waters are huge and vital for the economies of Japan, South Korea and China. In this vast stretch, there are problems of piracy in the southern Indian Ocean area off the coast of Somalia, but no issues of sovereignty that can threaten international navigation rights, except in the South China Sea. All concerned countries would not want these vital lanes to be interfered with in case of tensions or conflict, but how to ensure this?

For the moment, the two navies best placed to provide security in much of this area are the US and Indian navies, but countries like China may want an independent capacity to do so. This is where geo-political concerns come into play and can be a source of mistrust and problems. The challenge is for all to agree to certain rules of the road and norms of conduct. A wider Asia-Pacific security architecture will not be easy to build. Other continents have continental-scale organizations, but not Asia. There are too many players with conflicting interests and ambitions. Several disputes remain unresolved. The world-view as well as political, social and religious values of countries differ.

It would be more realistic to first build bilateral understandings between countries that have differences and then seek to widen the circle of these understandings to solidify them at the multilateral level in an incremental process. As bilateral relations between key countries markedly improve, existing organizations like SCO, SAARC, ECO, CSTO, ARF, IOC-ARC, BIMST-EC, and the East Asia Summit could become the building blocks of a larger Asia-Pacific security architecture. But that seems far away for now.

OPENING

John Edwin Mroz, President and CEO, EastWest Institute
Armen Sarkissian, Vice-Chairman, EastWest Institute
Vijay Bhargava, President, IEEE Communications Society
Arbind Prasad, Director General, Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)
Som Mittal, President, National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM)

KEYNOTE

Kapil Sibal, India’s Minister for Communications and Information Technology

KEYNOTE

Nandan Nilekani, Chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India

CYBERSECURITY: HOW INDIA SEES THE WORLD

Anurag Jain, Chairman, Laurus Edutech Pvt. Ltd.; Chairman, Access Healthcare; Member, Board of Directors, EastWest Institute
J. Satyanarayana, Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India
Pradeep Gupta, Chairman & Managing Director, Cyber Media (India) Ltd.
Subimal Bhattacharjee, Country Head, General Dynamics
R. Chandrashekhar, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, Government of India

CYBERSECURITY: A GLOBAL ASSESSMENT

Maria Livanos Cattaui, Former Secretary General, International Chamber of Commerce; Member, Board of Directors, EastWest Institute
Christopher Painter, Coordinator for Cyber Issues,U.S. Department of State
Burgess Cooper, Vice President & Chief Technology Security Officer, Vodafone India Ltd.
Toru Nakaya, Director-General, Institute for Information and Communications Policy (IICP), Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan
John Suffolk, Global Cyber Security Officer, Huawei

KEYNOTE

Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, Chertoff Group; Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; Member, Board of Directors, EastWest Institute

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND GOVERNANCE

Bob Campbell, Member, Board of Directors, EastWest Institute
Gulshan Rai, Director General, CERT India, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India
Zhou Yonglin, Director, Internet Society of China
Greg Shannon, Chief Scientist, CERT Program,Carnegie Mellon University
Vartan Sarkissian, CEO, Knightsbridge Cybersystems
Erin Nealy Cox, Executive Managing Director, Stroz Friedberg
Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, Chertoff Group; Former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; Member, Board of Directors, EastWest Institute

KEYNOTE

Punit Renjen, Chairman of the Board, Deloitte LLP

BREAKTHROUGH GROUP PROGRESS

Karl F. Rauscher, CTO and Distinguished Fellow, EastWest Institute

STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT

Armen Sarkissian, Vice-Chairman, EastWest Institute
Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, Data Security Council of India (DSCI)
Philip J. Venables, Chief Information Risk Officer, Goldman Sachs
Mike St John-Green, Former Deputy Director, Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance, United Kingdom
John M. Howell, Executive Director, IEEE Communications Society
Latha Reddy, Deputy National Security Advisor, Government of India
Harry D. Raduege, Jr., Lt. General (Ret.), Chairman, Deloitte Center for Cyber Innovation
 

“CERTs have to drive nations to international cooperation,” said Gulshan Rai, Director General of CERT India. “India and China will be cooperating with each other to secure cyberspace.” Zhou Yonglin, Director of the Internet Society of China, added: “We had very good talks with Dr. Rai on how to improve cooperation between China and India CERTs. We can help each other to stop the threats.” Both representatives also pledged greater cooperation with other nations.

Vijay Bhargava, president of the IEEE ComSoc, signs a MOU with EWI President John Mroz

“I am honored that the 3rd Worldwide Cybersecurity is being organized here in Delhi,” said R. Chandrashekhar, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, at the official opening. Citing the enormity of the problems posed by the rapid expansion of the Internet, he asserted: “We have to start looking at the individual pieces. That’s where this dialogue becomes important.”

Recently, the Indian National Security Council Secretariat released recommendations by a joint public-private working group on cybersecurity that aimed to strengthen India’s capability to combat the rising threat from cyberspace. One of the key recommendations is the establishment of a “Joint Committee on International Cooperation and Advocacy” to promote “India’s national interests at various international fora on cybersecurity issues.” This begs the question: What exactly are India’s national interests in cyberspace?

Given the recent declaration by the United States that it wishes to strengthen the U.S.-Indian relationship, this question is especially important to U.S. foreign-policy makers. Diplomatically, India is caught between the China-Russia bloc and the West; it enjoys close military ties with Russia and strong economic ties with China (New Delhi's largest trading partner). At the same time, India is moving cautiously towards the United States and the West on a number of key cybersecurity issues, such as norms for cyber conflict. Before openly committing to either side, however, India must streamline its internal cyber capabilities; the establishment of the public-private sector group is evidence that this work has already started.

During his visit to India in the summer of 2012, U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta mentioned the need for cooperation on legal questions posed by cyber warfare. But despite official statements touting cooperation on cybersecurity, real collaboration between the two nations has been slow. India and the United States conducted a second round of cyber consultations in June 2012 within the framework of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue. They previously agreed on cooperation between the Computer Emergency Response Teams of both countries, and India participated in an international cyber war game hosted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. There also is an ongoing U.S.-India Information and Communications Technology Dialogue, and Indian and U.S. experts collaborated in developing some recommendations for norms of behavior and confidence-building measures in cyberspace for the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security. Conversely, substantive progress has been slow because of the wider diplomatic discrepancies between the two nations.

The United States’ principal objective in its pivot to Asia is containing China through regional alliances in which India plays a key role. Nevertheless, the Indian foreign-policy establishment still harbors deep suspicions about the utility of its relationship with the United States. First, India must carefully balance its relationship with China, of which it also is suspicious but which it approaches pragmatically. After all, China and India are neighbors with an unsettled border dispute and the legacy of short war in 1962. Second, the relationship with Russia, India’s biggest weapons supplier, is of great importance to the growing Indian military and cannot be jeopardized in the short run. Third, the U.S. stance on Iran is perplexing to India, which evinces very little understanding about the rationale behind sanctions, given that Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state and base for radical Islamists, enjoys U.S. support. Finally, the legacy of India’s role in the nonalignment movement during the Cold War continues to influence policy makers in both countries.

All these factors pervade the bilateral dialogue on cybersecurity. In addition, the perception of the West’s adversaries in cyberspace, Russia and China, differs substantially between Washington and New Delhi. For example, one of the biggest points of contention between the United States and China is cyber espionage—what experts call advanced persistent threats—a subject barely mentioned by the Indian private sector but of huge importance for the United States. This is in part the result of denial. Private-sector companies are reluctant to share data on this subject and there is a lack of awareness in Indian board rooms. But it is principally the product of India’s economic development. In 2011, research and development expenditure in India was only 0.7 percent of GDP, with government expenditure accounting for 70 percent of that figure, according to a report released by India’s Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

Today, the attitude of New Delhi is comparable to the Mozart opera Cosi Fan Tutte (Thus Do They All). Industrial espionage is committed by all countries, but it hasn’t reached the level and intensity seen in the United States because other targets are less interesting to Chinese intruders than America. Also, in contrast to Western countries, the Indian government is taking the lead in cybersecurity awareness, which, given that 90 percent of India’s critical information infrastructure is in the hands of the private sector, will progress slowly. This will naturally impact Indo-U.S. cyber diplomacy.

The first sign of true progress will be when India joins the European Convention on Cybercrime. The Council of Europe extended an invitation to India in 2009, and it is something that “India is carefully watching,” according to a panelist at the press conference of the National Security Council Secretariat held on October 15 in New Delhi. China and Russia oppose the convention on various grounds, and consequently it has become one of the principal determiners of alliance structures in cyberspace. The U.S. State Department and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs already formed a working group to further discuss the issue of international norms in cyberspace and global Internet governance, including discussions on the European Convention on Cybercrime, a sign that the discussion is moving in that direction.

“East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,” said Rudyard Kipling. But when it comes to the field of cybersecurity, India’s economic development demands closer diplomatic ties to the West.

Click here to read this piece and comment at The National Interest.

For further information on how the global community can co-create solutions to these challenges, visit the website for the EastWest Institute’s 3rd Worldwide Cybersecurity Summit in New Delhi, to be held on October 30-31, 2012.

Even though most cannot really explain why, who the US president will be seems to really matter to the rest of the world. The US presidential debates therefore excite much interest, more outside the US see them within the US. A young, buoyant John Kennedy got the better of a seemingly tired Richard Nixon in the live debate in 1960. Since then instant perception influencing the elections has come to make a huge difference.

Ronald Reagan was decidedly trailing the meticulous Jimmy Carter in 1980, but his self-deprecating, laidback “there you go again” spiel took the incumbent president off his feet. Al Gore squandered a considerable lead against George W Bush by his ponderous debating style. Though Obama did not land any knockout blows against John McCain in 2008, his enhanced debating skills easily outscored the much older senator. In the mass aspirations for change public perception ignored Obama’s relative inexperience in government.

A record US audience of nearly 70 million viewers, second only to the Super Bowl, watched the first debate on Wednesday, October 3. By the end of the evening President Obama had blown his comfortable lead in public opinion, the Republican contender clearly scoring over his seemingly listless opponent. It was a dramatic 67 percent victory, according to a quick CNN poll after the debate. To quote The New York Times, “voters want someone who can stand in the public square and not only sell themselves but the power of their ideas.”

Within days voter sentiment in the polls had swayed 4-6 percent in Romney’s favour, turning the race into a statistical dead heat. One may forgive the rest of the world for being mystified as to how in one single evening the tide had turned enough for the momentum to go with the feisty Republican aspirant for the presidency. Obama’s problems notwithstanding, the tracking of countrywide polls show Democrats retaining their narrow lead in the US Senate in close races, even doing better in the US House of Representatives presently controlled by the Republicans.

The Democrats have done far better in the voter’s registration drive, maintaining an average majority of 6-8 percent in the swing states among registered voters. The commensurate registration of independent voters constitutes an average of 25 percent in each state. A majority leans towards Romney after the first debate. Not enough in the six battleground states, but combine these with the so-called “Reagan Democrats” who tend to vote for Republican contenders and you come up with a whole new ball game, a huge difference in the Southern states and a wide swath across the Midwest. The counter-balancing is achieved with New York and California having many electoral votes, definitely going for Obama.

For someone from the Third World it was a privilege to gauge at first hand the reaction of a cross-section of US citizens of some standing during my current visit to the US. Their perception of a generally ineffective president was reinforced by Obama’s rather strange and inexplicable performance during the first debate. Even then, informed outside observers can never really comprehend how the US voters can forgive the Republicans for squandering the fiscal surplus generated by Clinton and not give credit to Obama who inherited this horrendous economic situation for containing further economic damage.

His major mistake was in opting to give “Medicare” rather than the economy the pride of place in presidential attentions. Disappointment over his performance, and even dislike, one can understand, but the virulent hatred that seems to overwhelm dislike was a shock. Even more surprising: given that the financial stimulus by the federal government generally profited the elite one percent, why will a major portion of the less than privileged (including Romney’s “47 percent” gaffe) still vote against him?

To quote from a recent article: “The O-Man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tactical empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.”

It goes on to say: “He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, like his first two names, which he hides. Obama is not the descendent of slaves, he is the descendent of slave-owners, thus he makes the perfect liberal Messiah. Thank heavens the voting majority of Americans remain ‘Christian’ and are in no desperate need of a phony saviour. His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any ‘thinking American.’”

This was not written by an extreme white racist supremacist but by a respected former Reagan advisor who devised the “Star Wars” strategy that brought the Soviet Union down to its economic knees. This “thinking American,” Dr Jack Wheeler, represents the diehard whites never coming to terms with a black in the White House. Governor Romney may not be their favourite, but any alternative to Obama is acceptable to this lot.

In 2008 nearly 65 percent whites voted against him. While the black vote remains rock-solid, Obama will lose more of the white vote. His appeal to the Hispanics who voted for him in 2008 in strength is somewhat suspect. He may well lose the popular vote but to be ousted as president he has to lose in the rather complex Electoral College system. Here Romney has a real problem.

In crucial swing states with big electoral counts like Ohio and Florida, Obama seems to be holding onto his portion of the white vote, the Electoral College mathematics giving him enough to retain the presidency. The joker in the pack could be former Republican New Mexico governor Gary Johnson as the Libertarian Party Candidate, taking away crucial votes for Romney similar to Ralph Nader’s erosion of Al Gore’s vote bank in 2000. The Republicans allege that the Obama campaign machine put Johnson up to it.

Much depended upon the vice-presidential debate between incumbent Biden and challenger Ryan. Ryan held his ground against Biden’s experience, his youth giving him an image advantage over the much older Biden on TV. A virtual draw gave heart to the Democrats but did not entirely stem the Romney momentum. The second TV debate on Tuesday, therefore, assumed enormous importance, Obama needed to erase the memory of his last performance. Otherwise he could forget being re-elected.

The dilemma: how feisty could he get without turning off the voters by seeming to be rude and losing the presidential high ground? Romney just had to imitate Ryan in not losing his cool and contain Obama’s frontal attack without crossing the failsafe line of good behaviour and manners one expects from a would-be US president. The incumbent had to somehow stem the challenger’s surge or anything could happen in the presidential stakes. Obama was a different man last Tuesday, a quick CNN poll giving him 49 percent to Romney’s 46 percent. The race may go down to the wire but the question is: does it really matter to us in the Third World who is chosen as the leader of the greatest nation on the face of this earth?

Click here to read this column at The News International.