Syed Hamad: Republican race sheds light on foreign affairs

AS THE process to find a US presidential candidate for the Republican Party heats up, a big question mark remains over whether there can emerge a candidate who is able to beat Barack Obama in November’s election.

For most American voters, the main concern is clearly the poor state of the economy. Yet to the more than one million US soldiers deployed abroad, and for ordinary people around the world, an even bigger concern is the trajectory of the country’s foreign policy.

In this regards, America’s troubled relations with Asiatic countries such as Iran, China and Russia are all major talking-points to consider. But there is one relationship which has proven particularly tough for the United States over the past 12 months – nuclear armed Pakistan. This is a strategically key country into which billions of US aid dollars have poured in over recent years. At the same time, Pakistan has been on the receiving end of hundreds of drone attacks by the CIA targeting “suspected” militants.

Among the Republican hopefuls the most hawkish stance came from Michele Bachmann, who became a bit too personal with Pakistan, calling it “a nation that lies, that does everything that you could imagine wrong”. Thankfully she is out of the race, after an embarrassingly poor show in the Iowa caucus. Then we have Newt Gingrich, also clearly not a big fan of Pakistan. “We were told, perfectly natural Washington assumption, that our killing bin Laden in Pakistan drove US-Pakistan relations to a new low. Well it should have. We should be furious,” he said.

More nuanced views have been put forward by two other prominent candidates. Mitt Romney, the front-runner and widely seen as the establishment choice, acknowledges that “American approval in Pakistan is 12 per cent. We’re not doing a very good job with that investment”. But then he presents some really strange comparisons in dealing with Pakistan. “Look at Indonesia in the 1960s,” he said, “We helped them move toward modernity. We need to help bring Pakistan into the 21st century, or the 20th for that matter.” Such views are not only patronising, but also wildly impractical – take Afghanistan and a decade of US failure in trying to “modernise” it.

Pakistan’s population is 180 million, while the US has 300 million people. According to a recent census one in two Americans is now poor or on low income – meaning the US president’s top priority should be the welfare of the country’s own citizens, before making any pledges to uplift faraway nations into the “21st century.”

The one voice of reason on Pakistan in the whole debate is of Dr Ron Paul, the 76-year-old libertarian congressman from Texas, seen as something of an underdog – but one with a very loyal following. “How can we deal with a country, at the same time we are bombing them?” he asked in a TV interview. “Just recently we bombed and civilians once again were killed. Why wouldn’t they get upset with us? The nature of our foreign policy has to totally change. And besides, we can’t afford it.”

Instead, Dr Paul would like to see the US cut foreign aid to Pakistan, and withdraw military forces from Afghanistan and many of the other 130 countries where US soldiers are present.

Interestingly, Dr Paul is a hit with the troops, receiving more funding from military personnel than his Republican opponents combined. But his views are seen as “radical”, leading many pundits to dismiss him.