US presidential poll throwing-up vital foreign policy issues

April 20, 2016, 12:00 pm

US Democratic presidential canditate Bernie Sanders (R) and Bolivia’s President Evo Morales attend a conference on social and environmental issues, organised by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in the Vatican on April 15, 2016. AFP

The US or any other major economy cannot afford to let opportunities for new economic tie-ups promising growth, to slip past them. Added growth as a result of normalizing relations with Iran is one such opportunity the West cannot afford to miss. Likewise, Iran cannot afford to lose new growth opportunities which would come in the wake of it mending relations with the West. As often pointed out in this column, economics drive politics. Currently, no less a quarter than the Iranian political leadership is leading from the front in strengthening economic ties between Iran and the foremost economies of the West.

The current presidential polls campaign in the US has helped focus on some foreign policy issues of great significance for the US and the world. It should be plain to see that these questions and the debates surrounding them are as vital to the world community as the domestic policy matters that have thus far surfaced in the campaign. For example, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has raised the issue of the dignity of Palestinians and for doing so he needs to be complimented. It amounts to breaking new ground in debates of this kind.

One could say that it is high time that the issue of the rights of Palestinians was raised in a forthright and consistent manner by those hoping to lead the US. Thus far, policy issues on the Middle East question have been handled by US presidential candidates with a degree of reserve and caution on account of the significant role the Jewish lobby is seen to play in US politics. Among other things, sections of this lobby are seen as bank-rolling presidential candidates who are viewed as important for their interests and this factor has prevented the majority of presidential candidates from broaching the question of Palestinian rights with the required forthrightness. This is the perception an objective observer in South Asia is prone to subscribe to.

Consequently, matters of importance in the Middle East imbroglio have gone largely unaddressed and unexplored to the desired extent by those aspiring to the presidency of the US. Nor has the US public been afforded an opportunity to debate these issues with the required candidness and vibrancy on account of this factor. The end result is a continuation of policy perceptions among the public which are detrimental to Middle East peace.

Accordingly, Sanders’ interventions on the Middle East question should be seen as timely and appropriate. As he has said, the rights and dignity of the Palestinians go to the heart of the problem. Speaking on the issue of the ‘disproportionate’ nature of the Israeli response in the 2014 Gaza war, Sanders was reported as saying: ‘If we are ever going to bring peace to that region, which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.’

Even the Israeli state has come a considerable distance by endorsing the ‘two state principle’ in the Middle East but Israel and the US need to go very much beyond this policy position if the basis is to be laid for a degree of peace and stability in the region. Israel and Palestine need to fully recognize the dignity and rights of each other and this is where the Middle East needs to get to if the political process in the region is to be greatly advanced. In other words, the two sides need to see each other as being equal in dignity. Unless and until this principle is recognized fully and implemented peace would evade the Middle East.

Land borders are a complex and demanding question in the Middle East but antagonisms are bound to only heighten if the Israeli side continues to establish Jewish settlements on contested land. This is no way to building confidence among the main parties to the conflict. Much could be achieved by way of conflict resolution if each side respects the others land rights. Such achievements would be possible only if one side respects the dignity and rights of the other and vice versa.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has shown a disquieting ineptness in deliberating on foreign policy issues by saying that he would dismantle the accord on nuclear issues arrived at between Iran and certain key world powers a few months back. This amounts to succumbing readily to US populist sentiment. More precisely, Trump betrays a strong penchant, here, to pander to the more hard line sections among the Jewish lobby. Needless to say, this is not the sort of material a world political leader in the waiting, of any exceptional stature, ought to be made of.

Trump’s deficiencies and unsuitability for the US’ highest political office need to be gauged not only on these populist pronouncements, which smack of a substantial lack of political foresightedness, but also on the basis of his unsure grasp of international economic trends. Given the extreme complexity of the current world economic situation, the US would be acting most inadvisedly by working against the Iranian nuclear accord at some future date. While it is true that the US economy remains in the number one slot as regards growth, developments on the international economic plane, are characterized by a high degree of fluidity and uncertainty.

Growing material interdependence is the chief feature of the contemporary international economic order. Neither the US nor China could afford to ignore this stark fact. This is the reason why China has been attaching top priority to strengthening economic relations with the so-called emerging economies of the global South. A notable result of these efforts is the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The latter is certain to strengthen China’s hands in its dealings with the West and its financial institutions. It is on account of the current international economic fluidity that the US decided to put in place the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example, which brings together some of the most vibrant economies of the Asia-Pacific region, for the purpose of common economic uplift.

The conclusion is inescapable that the US, no less than China, is guided by a spirit of economic pragmatism. It could not be otherwise on account of the current global economic uncertainties. It is abundantly clear that, given these realities, Donald Trump and his camp are merely idea-mongering and very dangerously so.