Looking within

In view of the US presidential elections

Soon after Hurricane Sandy wreaking havoc of historical proportions, it is business as usual for the presidential candidates: incumbent Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. They are back on the campaign trail with full vigour. Come Tuesday the US electorate will elect a new president.

Theoretically, this election should have been Obama’s. After all, four years ago he was elected as the first black president in America’s history. Posing as an agent for change the young and dashing Obama gave a lot of hope to an increasing number of unemployed and frustrated Americans.

Obama can claim credit for taking the country out of recession. But it is too late and too little to help him at the polls. Americans, wary of war in Afghanistan which seems meaningless to them and unemployment rate still running at a historic eight percent, are a deeply divided people. Hence it is no surprise that according to the latest CNN poll, Obama at 48 percent is just one percentage point ahead of Romney.

If Obama loses the race, the elections could be a Carter moment for the Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter as president was strong on human rights and democratic values for the rest of the world. But for Americans, especially after bungling the Tehran hostage crisis in 1981 and rampant stagflation during his tenure, he was considered too weak and inept as a leader. He lost his re-election bid to the Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.

However, if Barack Obama loses to Romney, his case will be closer to that of George H W Bush who lost to the Democratic challenger despite the successful ground invasion of Iraq in 1991. At the time his approval rating was 90 percent. The Bill Clinton campaign using the prevailing recession at the time coined the now famous phrase, “it’s the economy stupid!”

Bush Sr lost to Clinton after his approval ratings plummeted in less than a year. Obama successfully took out Osama bin Laden.

Romney, who was considered a weak candidate representing big business, is successfully challenging him. In fact now he is too close for comfort. Thanks to a weak and sluggish economy.

Wrongly accused of being a Muslim by the ultra conservative, the so-called Tea Party Movement and even by some of the mainstream Republicans, Obama is deeply unpopular in Pakistan. According to a BBC poll, 60 percent of Pakistanis are against Obama and would rather vote for his opponent if they had the vote.

This is not surprising in a country where incidentally the vast majority of the people are anti-US. Under Obama exponential increase in drone attacks has contributed to his poor approval ratings as well as that of his country.

In the third and final presidential debate, the candidates focused on a wide range of foreign policy issues including the US mission in Afghanistan, US counterterrorism efforts and relations with Pakistan. Both the candidates broadly agreed on engaging Pakistan, albeit for the wrong reasons. They consider Pakistan an ally, which is a hotbed of terrorism, and a nuclear state proliferating like no one else.

Romney, interestingly enough, was more vociferous in keeping lines of communications open with Islamabad than his opponent. Owing to the exigencies of the end game in Afghanistan, Pakistan had to be kept engaged, lest it becomes “a failed state”.

There is a perception that under Republican administrations Pakistan has been somehow better off than the Democrats. This was the case when Reagan supported the Zia regime in the aftermath of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

However, judging through the prism of US policies since 9/11, this is hardly true. It was under the Republican administration of George W Bush that Musharraf was arm-twisted to kowtow to Washington. Pakisatn was threatened to be bombed to the stone ages if it did not fall in line with Washington’s war in Afghanistan.

Since Washington’s relations with New Delhi and Islamabad are viewed as a zero-sum game in our part of the world, it is interesting to note that under the Bush administration a strategic shift towards India became quite pronounced. Since 2004, Washington and New Delhi have been sharing a strategic partnership, “based on shared values and generally convergent geopolitical interests”.

The very next year, in 2005 in Washington, making a clear departure from its stated non-proliferation goals, a framework of a US-India Civil Nuclear Deal was announced in a joint statement by George W Bush among with the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.

Under Obama, however, enthusiasm for India has somewhat waned in Washington. The civilian nuclear deal has stalled. Ironically enough, the word “India” was entirely missing from the recent presidential debate.

This does not mean that the Obama administration has in any way cozied up towards Islamabad. He visited India in 2010 and twice flew to Kabul but bypassed its so-called ally who had slipped from being a friend to a “frenemy”.

In fact, Obama has been tough on Pakistan in many ways. He refused to apologise on the Salala incident in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the US troops. Nor did he submit to Islamabad’s demand for reopening of the NATO supply routes on its terms. His administration has also refused to balk on the ever-increasing drone attacks.

It is obvious that whoever wins the US presidential race on Tuesday is going to be equally good or bad for Pakistan. There is a broad consensus in Washington on quitting Afghanistan by 2014. Whether Islamabad is part of the end game will depend on how our policymakers play their cards.

Marc Grossman, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, recently visited Islamabad. Apparently, he had a marathon session with the COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Reportedly, a departure from the acrimonious meetings of the past the session went quite well. Some kind of a framework of engaging the Taliban was agreed upon.

Candidate Mitt Romney, if he makes it to the White House – a realistic possibility now – could be tougher on Pakistan than his predecessor. Drone attacks on our badlands are a bipartisan policy.

These attacks probably might even increase as ISAF troops withdraw from Afghanistan. Neither the pressure on Pakistan from Washington to launch a putsch in N Waziristan is likely to subside whoever occupies the White House.

Our war gamers should be looking within to chart out security policies in the best interest of the country. And backing the Taliban and their cohorts is not an option in our best interest.

The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today