A political transition in the US, especially when the control of the White House moves from one party to the other, is a massive affair.

Nearly 8000 government jobs, from the Cabinet to the mid bureaucratic level, change hands. Many of the senior appointments will have to confirmed by the US Senate.

In communist or authoritarian states, this broad sweep of personnel change would be described as a “purge”. In the US, a presidential transition is the big moment for the circulation of the elites. Those on their way out of the Bush Administration are seeking jobs at the think tanks, foundations, universities and law firms, besides negotiating book contracts with publishers about their time in the corridors of power. Those who have been cooling their heels in the non-governmental sector over the last eight years writing learned tomes and op-ed pieces are elbowing their way into the Obama administration.

Unlike in India or Britain, where the permanent bureaucracy rules the roost, it is the permanent establishment that takes turns at manning the American system. This necessarily implies a major discontinuity in American policy making. But by keeping half the establishment outside the government, America helps itself by preventing concentration of power and facilitating an informed debate on policy between the ruling and opposition parties.

Hillary at State

Many in New Delhi and the Indian American community in the United States will be pleased at the prospect that Senator Hillary Clinton might be appointed as secretary of state by president-elect Barack Obama.

Well before President Bill Clinton found time to visit the subcontinent in March 2000, the last year of his tenure in the White House, Hillary had made frequent trips to India and the region. Since then she had consciously cultivated an association with Indian Americans. Unlike Obama, Hillary offered early support to President George W. Bush’s controversial nuclear deal with India. Not surprisingly there was some disappointment in New Delhi when Hillary lost the contest for Democratic Presidential nomination. All is well that ends well? Not so fast. The talk of Hillary as America’s top diplomat has set off a storm of media criticism in the US. Most commentators agree that Hillary has all the qualifications to become great secretary of state, but raise a number of objections.

Some have drawn attention to the potential complications that could arise out of Bill Clinton’s expansive business arrangements with a variety of international sources. The Clintons, however, are apparently eager to ensure that there will be no conflict of interest, if she takes charge of American diplomacy.

Others point to a sharper conflict of interest between Hillary and Obama that could undermine the effectiveness of American diplomacy during the next four years. As a strong persona with presidential ambitions of her own, the argument goes, Hillary could accentuate the inevitable friction between the White House and the state. Unless the duo works as a team with Hillary clearly agreeing to a subordinate role, analysts say, she might not be an effective secretary of state.

Some argue that the appointment of Hillary to the state department might create problems with Vice President elect Joseph Biden, who has wide experience in foreign affairs and might expect to shape the Obama administration’s national security policy.

Hillary’s nomination could also disappoint Senator John Kerry, who was the losing Democratic Presidential candidate in the 2004 elections and an early backer of Obama’s quest for the White House. If he does not get the job at the state department, Kerry is expected to inherit Biden’s current powerful position as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Iran move

President George W. Bush appears to have set the stage for an early diplomatic initiative on Iran by his successor. For months now, there has been speculation in Washington that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recommended the opening of the American interests section in Tehran. Bush has apparently put a hold on this decision.

Although the US and Iran have had intermittent contact since the Islamic revolution rocked Tehran in 1978 and put it at odds with Washington, there has been no American diplomatic presence in Iran. If Obama does want to keep his word on engaging Iran, the establishment of an interests section in Tehran might offer a perfect opening gambit.

(The writer is a Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.)

iscrmohan@ntu.edu.sg