New president, new policies

Until a few months ago Obama seemed to be living proof of the claim that no matter who wins the White House, not much changes. But the cynics may need to reappraise that view. As he nears the end of his second term, Obama has set about creating a genuinely distinctive foreign policy record.
From the start he kept US military interventions abroad to a minimum. But now he is going much further. As well as the unprecedented breach with Israel he is making peace with two very long-standing US adversaries: Iran and Cuba.
All of which prompts the question: what change might the next president bring? We have reached that point in the US electoral cycle when Pakistani politicians and military officers start to think about which candidate they would want to win.
Hillary may be virtually unopposed on the Democratic side but she has not yet wrapped up the party’s nomination. The betting markets suggest her nearest rivals are Elizabeth Warren – who has said in unambiguous terms that she won’t run – and Vice President Jo Biden who would clearly like to.
He recently told political chat shows that he is “uniquely qualified” to be president. “I think my knowledge of foreign policy, my engagement of world leaders, my experience uniquely positions me to follow through on the agenda of Barack”, he said. That’s not just words: if Biden got the top job he could be expected to build on Obama’s legacy.
Both through conviction and pragmatism, Clinton will be more likely to tilt to the right as she distances herself from Obama’s record. That will mean not only a restoration of better relations with Israel but other adjustments too. When it comes to South Asia Hillary Clinton may well decide to focus on India – particularly in relation to Mumbai and official Pakistani indulgence of LeT. Such a move would burnish her credentials as a hard-nosed foreign policy realist.
The Republican hopefuls’ foreign policy views are less well known.
When he was running for office George W Bush famously failed to come up with Musharraf’s name. Current frontrunner Jeb Bush has displayed greater knowledge and has already started the tricky task of distancing himself from his brother’s record. “There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure”, he has said.
As for policy positions, he seems to be placing himself in the Republican mainstream demanding a more muscular US approach. He has also shown some familiarity with Pakistani politics or at least its nuclear politics. In one recent speech he used the case of AQ Khan to illustrate the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
“I don't know”, he said to an audience in Chicago, “if you follow the story of A Q Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who stole technologies from Europe, brought it back. He’s a national hero in Pakistan… He lives, you know out in the open… Pakistan and was caught trying to export that technology to where? Iran and to Libya.”
The key issue for Republicans will be what to do about Isis. Opinion polls show strong support amongst the Republican base for sending US troops to confront the caliphate. Jeb Bush has described Isis as “perhaps the greatest security threat that we now face for our own homeland.” He said the US should have a strategy of: “taking them out.”
Calls for stronger US action on Isis will put pressure on Democratic hopefuls to adopt equally hawkish positions. It might well be that Clinton feels she too has to argue for the deployment of more US troops in Iraq.
One Republican clearly opposes such an approach. Libertarian Senator Rand Paul believes the US should try to pull back from foreign policy entanglements. Republicans who want to rebuild the US relationship with Israel have already come out against Paul’s isolationist tendencies. Indeed his distinctive approach to foreign policy is one of the reasons he is often described as a fringe candidate.
Other Republican possibles such as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Florida Senator Marco Rubio have relatively unformed foreign policy platforms. Walker, for example, has said: “the most significant foreign-policy decision of my lifetime” was Ronald Reagan’s decision to fire thousands of air-traffic controllers. Walker believes the decision signalled Reagan’s strength and resolve to US adversaries abroad.
If the foreign office is doing its work it will now be trying to place Pakistani academics and public policy experts in the campaigns of all the leading candidates. It is not just that Islamabad needs to know what is going on in the various camps, it will also want to influence the different candidates’ emerging policy positions.
Given a choice Nawaz Sharif would probably prefer a Hillary White House. He believes he has a good personal relationship with her – and her husband – dating back to his last time in office. The army might be less sure and will worry about any candidates who, in the event of more jihadi attacks on India, might be tempted to portray Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
American presidents determine foreign policy on the basis of their perception of US interests. And with India an ever more important economic market and with US interest in Afghanistan diminishing, Pakistan faces a period when it will be on the sidelines, less central to US policy objectives than it has been in the recent past.
Obama dealt with Pakistan less than George W and the next president will deal with Pakistan less than Obama.
Until the next major crisis, that is.
The writer is a freelance British journalist and one of the hosts of BBC’s Newshour.
Email: bennettjones@hotmail.com
Twitter: @OwenBennettJone