|
When President Obama announced on December 21 that Massachusetts Senator John
Kerry would be the next Secretary of State, it marked the recognition of Kerry’s
long and distinguished tenure in public service, his familiarity and high grasp
of foreign relations, acquired as a member, and most recently, as chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A decorated Vietnam War veteran, he is
widely known as 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.
While announcing the nomination, President Obama very aptly said, “I think it’s
fair to say that few individuals know as many presidents and prime ministers or
grasp our foreign policies as firmly as John Kerry. And this makes him a perfect
choice to guide American diplomacy in the years ahead.”
This time around President Obama was presented with the opportunity to recast
his national security team, beginning with Hillary Clinton expressing her
inability to continue as the Secretary of State during Obama’s second term.
‘A New Era of American Leadership’
Over the past four years, President Obama has claimed that his administration
had begun ‘a new era of American leadership’ by ending the war in Iraq,
strengthening global alliances and upholding human dignity around the world. At
the beginning of his second term, Obama maintained, “It’s fair to say that there
are going to be some great challenges ahead. An uncertain world will continue to
test our nation, but the United States is safer, stronger and more respected in
the world”. What has caught everyone’s attention is President Obama’s confident
assertion that Kerry ‘understands that we’ve got to harness all elements of
American power and ensure that they’re working together – diplomatic and
development, economic and political, military and intelligence, as well as the
power of our values, which inspire so many people around the world.”
A tough balancing act awaits Kerry; he will be expected to advance US
objectives, and deal with rapidly changing geopolitical situations and the
rising tide of violence in various forms following the collapse of absolute
rule.
This was further evident at his nomination hearing, where he asserted, “The
United States needs to assert a new role in the world to meet the challenge of a
young generation seeking greater opportunities and their right to participate as
individuals in their governance.” His emphatic declaration that US foreign
policy is not defined only by its military force, but also by critical issues
such as food and energy security and humanitarian assistance, and by the
country’s efforts to fight disease and promote economic development around the
world, is an attempt to determine an activist agenda for US foreign policy as a
mark of continuity but with greater assiduity. His admission of the increasingly
complicated and interconnected world, where ‘economy, health, environment,
issues of proliferation, poverty, diseases, refugees, violent conflicts and the
demands of new technology and modernity are inextricably linked’, is reflective
of his desire for the US to assert ‘a new role in a world of increasing failed
and failing states’. This is surely like a red rag to a bull given the fact that
our world is still being governed by some form of absolutist rule in certain
parts. His emphasis on raising ‘human rights concerns with global leaders and
push for greater religious tolerance, gender and ethnic equality, and respect
for diversity and pluralism’, though may be a welcome assurance to the
protagonists of democratic governance, yet it is a source of discomfiture as it
threatens to jeopardise the existing world order that is teeming with young
people rebelling against years of disenfranchisement.
John Kerry – India’s Friend?
Hillary Clinton worked hard to bring about a qualitative transformation in US
diplomatic efforts on the world stage, which included Obama’s much-debated
‘pivot to Asia’. She undertook many visits to strengthen strategic, economic and
security ties with the Asia-Pacific region, especially since regional powers
like India, Japan, Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines were of prime
importance in this policy pivot towards Asia. She was hailed by many in the
Indian strategic community for her maturity in accepting the reality about India
US strategic relationship – that there would not always be unanimity with regard
to the strategic challenges and interests facing both these vibrant democracies.
Despite the inherent differences, Clinton ensured that the bilateral
relationship remained cordial. She understood the historical and geopolitical
ties between India and Iran, and hence was able to placate US policymakers in
Washington over India’s proximity to Iran.
Her successor, on the other hand, is viewed as being predisposed towards
Pakistan. He is the co-author of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Law, which directed the
US Congress to grant a five-year, $7.5 billion pay-out to Pakistan, and has been
instrumental in the Obama administration mending ties with Pakistan. More
importantly, he travelled to Pakistan after bilateral relations suffered a
setback in the wake of the Osama killing.
But it is unlikely that Kerry, as the new Secretary of State, will pursue an
independent policy in a departure from the Obama administration’s strategies. It
is also wrong for any country, including India, to expect any radical change in
their favour. Just like any top US diplomat, John Kerry would work towards
strengthening US interests worldwide, and not work in favour of any country or
region.
|