|
The 2012 U.S. Republican Party presidential candidates may disagree on many issues, yet they are all united in their desire to heap vitriol on Pakistan. They say that it lies; that it cannot be trusted; that it is falling apart; that it is uncivilized; and that it better help the United States track down terrorists -- or else.
Understandably, Pakistanis resent this tough talk. Alas, it is neither new nor a uniquely Republican phenomenon. Back in 2007, Democratic Party presidential candidate, Barack Obama vowed in a campaign speech that he would not hesitate to use military force in Pakistan, even without the country’s approval. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won’t act, we will,” he declared. Similar threats have been issued from the campaign trail in 2012.
Still, despite the bellicose rhetoric emanating from the current crop of candidates, Pakistanis should not be overly concerned. Why? Because it is just that - rhetoric. The 2012 election will be won or lost on economic issues, not foreign affairs. America is a country where 46 million people live below the poverty line -- the highest number in the 50-plus years the U.S. Census Bureau has published poverty figures. Additionally, median household incomes have fallen to levels not seen since 1996. Little wonder so many Americans today are financially worse off than their parents’ generation.
So when the Republican hopefuls step to the podium to parrot their Pakistan positions, they know that they need only deliver some well-placed sound bites that tide the electorate over until the substantive discussions resume on jobs, healthcare costs or other economic issues.
Since U.S. public opinion about Pakistan is so negative, the most desirable sound bites are those that malign and insult. Therefore, Republicans’ harsh language does not reflect any unified party position on Pakistan -- which, owing to the party’s internal divisions, does not exist. Rather, the angry talk is channeling the zeitgeist of the American electorate -- one that is both ignorant and indignant. Americans confuse Pakistan with Palestine, yet also denounce it as “The Ally from Hell” -- the title of a recent article in The Atlantic, one of the country’s most prestigious magazines.
It also bears mentioning that if the Republican nominee were to become president, his Pakistan policy would not be very different from Obama’s. This is because across the mainstream political spectrum, American interests in Pakistan are basically the same. They include maintaining a modicum of relations with Islamabad and ensuring some level of cooperation with the military -- no matter how hostile the environment. Remember the last Republican president? With the assistance of his administration’s many India experts - including Nicholas Burns and Robert Blackwill - George W. Bush deepened ties with New Delhi. Yet he also pursued and secured a counterterrorism partnership with Musharraf.
If a Republican were to move into the White House in January 2013, it would be Mitt Romney -- because it is Romney who will face Obama come November (defeating Obama, however, will be a tall order). There are several reasons why he is the consensus favorite to secure the Republican nomination. In polls, he has led his closest competitors by 2-to-1 margins. Additionally, while the party’s conservative base deems Romney too liberal, he has quietly garnered the endorsement of Tea Party favorite and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, and attracted support from conservative darlings like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.
Furthermore, following the suspension of Jon Huntsman’s campaign, and excluding Ron Paul (whose isolationist views turn off many Republican voters), Romney’s fellow candidates are all deeply conservative. This means that conservative votes will likely splinter among Romney’s opponents, thereby dashing any hopes of defeating him. As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently observed, “By the time the anti-Romney forces get organized, he’ll be giving his acceptance speech.” Given his prodigious financial resources and establishment support, Romney is unlikely to falter, even if, as expected, several of his opponents withdraw and enable the strongest remaining conservative to receive more votes.
What would be the elements of a President Romney’s Pakistan policy? Some may point to his crude campaign comments about Pakistan being mired in the 19th century, or about the need to be guided by U.S. policies in Indonesia in the 1960s (a stance that some believe suggests an openness to military solutions), and conclude that Pakistan would be in trouble. Yet in fact, Romney has stated his intention to engage Pakistan’s government and masses through aid and development. This is a position that places him squarely in Obama’s camp -- and at odds with his Republican opponents, most of whom want aid to be severed. Herein lies the lack of Republican consensus about Pakistan, which underscores the divide between the party’s moderate establishment and its conservative base.
Yet perhaps the most telling indication of Romney’s convergence with Obama on Pakistan-related matters is a comment he made last year about Afghanistan. “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can -- as soon as our generals think it’s okay,” he said at a Republican debate in June. “One lesson we’ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”
No Republican candidate -- excluding Paul -- would ever make such a comment. Obama, of course, has been saying this for a long time (albeit with less emphasis on the approval of “our generals”). In truth, other than ex-candidate Huntsman, previously Obama’s ambassador in Beijing, no Republican presidential aspirant’s foreign policy worldview has been more closely aligned with the president’s than Romney’s.
Does Republican hard-line rhetoric on Pakistan serve U.S. interests? No, because it pours more fuel onto the raging conflagration of anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Yet the better question is whether a Republican president’s actual policies in Pakistan would serve U.S. interests. For the answer, one must appraise the outcomes of Obama’s Pakistan policies, which a President Romney’s would mirror. The takedown of Osama Bin Laden suggests success, yet the tragic raid in Salala screams failure. The verdict, much like the Republican Party, is split. 
Michael Kugelman is the South Asia program associate with the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He holds an MA in international relations from The Fletcher School at Tufts University and a BA from American University’s School of International Service.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
