Issue Brief

The 2016 Elections in the Star-Spangled Banner

By Muhammad Omar Afzaal
 www.cscr.pk

Why bother with America’s Elections of 2016?

The 2016 US Presidential elections are perhaps the signposts of a new era, the façade of a decision point in US history
and a critical juncture for world powers, including Pakistan. The US executive has increasingly transformed into a
‘global leader’, underscoring that American elections are more than a mere domestic event. What is fascinating is
that US elections are generating a “global constituency”, which believes that it is “participating” in the elections,
even without voting. For better or for worse, Pakistanis certainly belong to this “constituency”
.
Unlike the tenure of President George W. Bush, President Obama’s term appears unlikely to end with a political
exclamation mark. This makes for a rather balanced equation, as far as the contest for the supreme leadership
is concerned. US candidates have presented voters with an assortment of choices, ranging from maintaining the
status quo of US engagement in world politics to producing a gradual exit from the international system.

More crucially, hanging in the balance is the future and diplomacy of US-Pakistan relations and the security of
Pakistan’s development. The American elections have fast progressed into a ‘global event’. As Matthias Maass aptly
states, this fact is neither new nor the insight novel. However, the extent to which this is true or perceived to be
true is much higher in 2016 that in 2008 or 2012, particularly with foreign diplomats including those of India, South
Korea, Japan and Mexico voicing concerns against Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric. According to US officials, this
move for foreign diplomats to express concern (even privately) about the American presidential election is highly
unusual, since foreign allies generally avoid this, being mindful that they will have to work with whoever emerges
as the winner. Most recently, in March, General Philip Breedlove, the top US military commander in Europe,
confirmed that American domestic politics were stirring concerns among US allies: “I get a lot of questions from
our European counterparts on our election process this time in general. And I think they see a very different sort of
public discussion than they have in the past.” Furthermore, from Chris Christie’s fear that “I don't believe that I have
ever lived in a time in my life when the world was a more dangerous and scary place” to Jeb Bush concerns that “the
world is slipping out of control” and America's security hangs “in the balance”, foreign policy has been propelled to
the apex of the Republican, if not the entire Presidential, agenda, especially in stark contrast to the 2008 elections.

Another distinguishing feature of the 2016 elections concerns the magical question of “who is likely to win”, which
still remains to be answered. Unlike the 2008 and 2012 elections, the “Bradley effect” (a theory explaining observed
discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes where a white candidate and a minority candidate
contest against each other) isn’t a factor in the upcoming US elections (at least not as strong as before with Marco
Rubio (Latino) dropping out of the 2016 nomination race).

Does this make the polls more reliable or accurate? Time will tell but polls have to be interpreted carefully and
contextually.

The current global political upheavals call for the new White House to pursue the correct balance of military
force and soft (economic power). The new US president must inspire the traditional and successful American
culture of dialogue, positive multilateralism and consensus-based global rule of law in the Foreign Office. One-
issue engagements with hostiles such as Iran or Syria need to be developed into broader engagement dialogues
to result in viable resolutions. Furthermore, a multi-lateral world has emerged in the 21st century, with China and
India jostling and joining the ‘superpower’ fray. Washington will certainly retain the institutional, diplomatic and
financial outreach capacity to develop the panacea for global peace and stability, whether the Oval Office falls to
the Republicans or Democrats.

In the post 9/11 era, Republican President George W. Bush had urged that there must be a U.S. purpose commensurate
with American use of military power, telling a joint session of Congress on January 29, 2002: “we have a greater
objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war
on terror.” Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska endorsed this view as well: “A wise foreign policy
recognizes that U.S. leadership is determined as much by our commitment to principle as by our exercise of power.”
The very fact that Hagel, a Republican, went on to serve as President Obama’s Secretary of Defense from 2013-2015
reveals that the Republican and Democrat mainstream alike share similar strains of this philosophy.

2
 www.cscr.pk

But the 2016 presidential campaign trail has underscored a significant dimension of US foreign policy, with a fierce
contest between the “inward-looking” strain that savors the US’s relative isolation from the international stage,
denounces internationalism and interventionism, and challenges the Pavlovian American responses to global crisis
and the “outward-looking” foreign policy pursuing peace and stability in the global commons.

What is particularly intriguing in this round of elections is that the inward or outward variety isn’t local to a party. It
isn’t the poster-child for the Democrats or the Republicans, at least not at first glance. Rather, it has greatly come to
depend on the presidential hopeful himself/herself, making the stakes for Pakistan unusually high. A striking feature
of these election campaign trails has been that candidates have been associated with broader ideational appeals,
besides their respective party themes. This tension is particularly exacerbated in the Republican field, where a
Republican Presidency under Ted Cruz would be very different than the foreign policy approach of Donald Trump,
presenting singular challenges to Pakistan-American relations. A somewhat mellow variation of this spectrum is also
present on the Democrat side where Bernie Sanders appears to adopt a foreign policy stance more partial to the
developing world. Or as one senior State Department official put it, “I know what a President Cruz foreign policy will
look like and I know what President Clinton’s foreign affairs approach is, but I don’t know what a President Trump’s
foreign office will be like”.

It is this divergence of views on foreign policy, which has made the 2016 US elections particularly alluring for the
outside world. As Peter Doran from the Center for European policy analysis explains, former US president Bill
Clinton’s theory that “in every presidential election, Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans just fall in line”
holds little currency in the 2016 contest, with Republican voters yet to find a candidate with “whom to fall in line”
and Democrats still “flirting with their options, but with little romance”.

The US Presidential Players of 2016

Reality television mogul and billionaire businessman Donald Trump is the Republican leader so far, with Texas
Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich also in contention. With no clear foreign policy, Trump’s foreign
agenda resonates around “isolationism without nuance”: curb the American overextended foreign policy to prevent
the US from expending its power and resources on foreign allies and only get into a situation where success is
guaranteed, particularly where a foreign ally or stakeholder leads the way. Trump’s campaign has generally mirrored
schadenfreude. The foreign policy outlook of the presidential hopeful from New York has worked to portray him as
an anti-Washington candidate opposed by the Republican establishment, whose policies will inject ‘fresh impetus’
into American and Republican policies.

Trump’s foreign policy has gravitated around “making Mexico pay for it” by building a “wall across the southern
border”, besides austere restrictions against the American Muslim community, shutting down mosques and the
temporary ouster of Muslim visitors to the US. Trump’s foreign agenda runs contrary to that of centrist Republican
circles and neoconservatives, especially the Bush-era policymakers of 2001-2009 and those who favor a robust U.S.
international role. Even US allies have been urged by Trump to play a more active role in supporting the US such
as Japan paying more for U.S. security assistance in the Pacific. Courtesy his unanticipated and startling policies,
Trump’s election as the US executive will no doubt be a watershed moment in US and Republican politics.

Trump’s anti-party establishment outlook has recently led more than 90 Republicans with prior foreign policy
roles and experiences to intensify efforts by the Republican hierarchy itself to derail his path to the nomination,
denouncing his proposals of undermining U.S. security: “Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as
president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would
diminish our standing in the world”. The letter further states, “Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential
power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States”.

The Ted Cruz “America First” foreign policy puts US security and interests on priority, shunning any foreign pressure
or UN encroachment on American sovereignty. Cruz mainly follows a broad three-pronged foreign policy, which
puts him at odds with Trump: leading American leadership on the global stage, defending US allies to the utmost,
and doing what is best for America. Furthermore, Cruz is a hawk on deficit spending and stands against the culture

3
 www.cscr.pk

of increased political correctness in the military. In particular, Cruz’s pledge that “anyone who wages jihad on the
US has signed [their] death warrant”, his tough rhetoric against North Korea and his hard opposition against the
“catastrophic” Iran deal resonate strongly with Republican voters, although Cruz has yet to define a coherent,
pragmatic foreign policy. Cruz is a proponent of vigorous sanctions against Russian energy and financial sectors and
in particular, assisting allies such as Ukraine. Cruz’s remarks have indicated staying aloof of the Syrian crisis, not
arming Syrian rebels and believing that Bashar Al-Assad in power presents a more stable Syria against ISIS. According
to Cruz, the US has a responsibility to defend American values abroad. All-in-all, foreign policy doesn’t appear
as Senator Cruz’s top campaign agenda, apart from its use in the usual tactical surgical strikes against President
Obama’s supposed weakness.

With Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign over, Ohio Governor John Kasich was as mainstream as the Republicans
are going to get for their nomination race. Kasich’s foreign agenda appears somewhat contradictory at times. Kasich
stated that the US should not be the world’s police; yet, he also appears fairly hawkish: he wants to “punch Russia in
the nose”, has no problem with a “no-fly zone” in Syria, and insists on intervening in Syria’s civil war. The Syrian Crisis
question particularly reveals the incoherence in Governor Kasich’s arguments with him insisting on intervention in
Syria while pretending that he opposed involvement in civil wars. Interestingly, while he views the Syrian Refugee
Crisis as a European issue, Kasich also believes the US has some responsibility. Yet, his stance on accepting refugees
keeps fluctuating. Moreover, while he further believes that China is the safest way to calm North Korea, Kasich also
wants to boldly counter Chinese influence in the South China Sea with the US Navy. As opposed to his Republican
counterparts, Kasich appears to strongly support allied coalitions, similar to George H.W. Bush’s alliance strategy
during the First Gulf War.

Kasich particularly wants a coalition to lead the anti-Islamic State fight. Other prominent Kasich beliefs involve
the US engaging more selectively in missions aboard, primarily focusing on terrorism and nuclear development.
Regarding the Iran Deal, Kasich appears indecisive in his stance. His views have oscillated from common sense (“You
are going to rip it up and then what?”) to depressed resignation (“I’m sort of sick to my stomach about it because . .
. Iran’s going to get a ton of money”) to defiant opposition (“if I were president, I would call them and say, I’m sorry,
but we’re suspending this agreement”).

Kasich is the guy who talks about healing America, even welcoming moderate Democrats onboard his “compassionate
conservative platform”. The question remains if he is hawkish enough for the Republican foreign policy establishment,
which has traditionally been heavily influenced by neoconservative thinking. However now Trump’s emergence as
the Republican contender looks all but certain with the suspension of both Kasich and Cruz’s campaign as well as
the string of Trump’s victories.

On the blue side of the spectrum, there is an equally, if not more, interesting scenario where the self-proclaimed
socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders is contesting against former Secretary of State and First Lady, Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is a seasoned diplomat with well-oiled foreign policy machinery and with strong leanings to maintain
the status quo multilateralism, especially the European-US and Japan-US alliances. Foreign relations-wise, Clinton
is arguably America’s safest bet: her foreign-policy circle composes of “knowledgeable, experienced, and reliably
mainstream professionals”, who will not act outside the box in foreign diplomacy, which is likely to reassure
foreign allies. For Clinton, success in the global arena demands “smart power”: integrating “the traditional tools
of foreign policy--diplomacy, development assistance, and military force--while also tapping the energy and ideas
of the private sector and empowering citizens, especially the activists, organizers, and problem solvers we call civil
society”. Clinton believes this “smart power” is instrumental for creating more partners, fewer adversaries, more
shared responsibility, and fewer crises. “Smart power” is likely to be critical in restraining from categorizing China
as a friend or foe is an engaging and meaningful Chinese diplomacy to deter North Korea. Despite her opportunistic
criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Clinton will shape her foreign policy to resemble the incumbent one, albeit
with a less creative and more hawkish tone. She supported the use of military force including the Iraq invasion, the
increasingly aggressive Afghan relations and the toppling of Muammar al-Qaddafi. For better or for worse, it was
during her tenure of secretary of state that the US got entangled in Ukraine, leading to the recent standoff with
Russia.

4
 www.cscr.pk

However, Clinton’s foreign policy isn’t a panacea either, particularly with American hegemony coming to form
a cornerstone of her strategy, where integral pillars include the U.S. role being indispensable towards a global
leadership and the ability of Washington to resolve any global issue. Her strong suit is perhaps her acceptance to
distinguish inherited problems from new ones.

Clinton stands out from Sanders in her view that not all critical transactions in a democracy are exclusively financial.
Furthermore, over time, Clinton has adjusted to countering Sanders: her responses, especially to domestic troubles,
have exhibited a different and more emotional reaction rather than a policy-oriented one. Harvard’s Stephen Walt
backs this observation, citing her South Carolina victory speech, where Clinton responded to an African Methodist
Episcopal reverend who had asked, “How, how are we ever going to strengthen the bonds of family and community
again?” with “Well, we’re going to start by working together with more love and kindness in our hearts and more
respect for each other, even when we disagree.”

Stiff competition to Clinton comes from Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist from what Time columnist Joe Klein
calls New England’s “latte lands” and who strongly appeals to the Democrat left wing. While Sanders’ domestic
policies regarding income equality, socialized health care and debt-free college education are immensely popular
and aren’t merely “radical liberal nonsense”, recent estimates put the cost of Sanders’s proposals at $18 trillion over
10 years, leaving little financial room to execute a comprehensive foreign policy.

However, Sanders has stimulated American politics with a breath of fresh air, particularly energizing the liberal
youth and the disillusioned of America, a fact exhibited by his surging popularity online. With remarks such as
“I value two things above all others when it comes to analyzing issues and politics in general: Facts and common
sense”, Sanders gives the aura of a ‘no-nonsense’ policy-maker and a ‘champion of the people’ politician.
Despite Sanders’ top manifest not including foreign policy, what does a Sanders Foreign Office appear likely to offer?
Previously, Sanders has opposed the Iraq War but has also voted for weapons such as the F-35. His stance offers
non-meddling and pragmatic US foreign relations: not to interfere with countries that aren’t directly threatening
the US.

Furthermore, Sanders opposes all free trade agreements including the TPP. Sanders’ foreign policy is likely to have a
lot of heart, resonating around the American need to focus on domestic issues instead of international conflict. He
believes that the US and Europe have a moral responsibility to accept Syrian refugees; a political diplomatic solution
is the key to the Syrian crisis, which he perceives to be an opportunity for the US to negotiate with Russia; the Arab
states need to take charge of the Middle East conflicts; the Israel-Palestine conflict demands a two-state solution;
and negotiation with Iran is a plus. Sanders criticism of Israel’s Netanyahu and cooperating with India as a nuclear
power puts him at odds with the rest of the Presidential hopefuls.

However, Bernie Sanders’ anti-big business and anti-Wall Street stance has made the Democrat hierarchy nervous.
Sanders portrays a binary America of oppressors (billionaires) and the oppressed (the rest of Americans), underscoring
government and infrastructure jobs more than free enterprise. He has proposed that the most significant question
facing the American people is “Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the
billionaire class, or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy?”

Regarding this, Harvard’s Stephen Walt draws an interesting comparison between the Sanders campaign and that
of Bill Clinton’s 1992 run. Walt writes: “George H. W. Bush had won the first Gulf War and managed the collapse of
communism, thereby demonstrating serious foreign-policy chops. But then Clinton came along and told Americans:
“It’s the economy, stupid,” thereby implying that Bush had lost sight of what really mattered. But where Clinton
embraced Wall Street and globalization, Sanders thinks corporate fat cats have rigged the system for their own
benefit and are giving the rest of America the merest crumbs.”

With Sanders’ attractive propositions coupled with a few apparent loopholes and the fact Democrat voters seem
to view Sanders as a passionate foot soldier rather than a leader in their quest, NBC’s Perry Bacon’s prediction may
well come true: Sanders may not win, but his progressive ideas will still travel to the White House. Sanders may end
up pushing Clinton towards liberal policies more than she would have preferred, particularly concerning the middle
class.
5
 www.cscr.pk

What’s in it for Pakistan?

As for much of the world, US elections are ipso facto not only “important news” but also, “relevant news” for Pakistan
as well. But what is critical is in what sense are the elections relevant. Japan, for instance, considers US presidential
candidates according to their economic and financial acumen to resolve the global economic crisis; Saudi Arabia
evaluates the same hopefuls based on their stance against Iran; Palestine, on their support for Israel, and so on.
For Pakistan, ‘military and bilateral diplomacy’ involving backing for India, arms exports and the aggressiveness of
counter-terrorism in the region are sure factors for US candidate evaluation.

Perhaps the late 1990s and early 2000s era reveals that observing the dominant perception in Pakistan regarding
the attitude and policy difference of the Democrat and Republican parties vis-à-vis Pakistan has divulged that
Pakistanis believed the latter to have a soft corner for them. The post 9/11 period however, reversed this trend
as the Republicans led austere efforts against the troubled Pakistan-Afghanistan region. Since then, a Democrat
presidential candidate has presented a “lesser evil” to the Pakistani public, who have viewed Democrats as “people-
focused, not state-focused” as far as Pakistan is concerned, prioritizing non-military aid. Increasingly, US elections
have appeared as the dichotomy between hope and fear for Pakistanis.

Pakistan-American relations have generally responded to critical issues in Pakistan including Indo-Pak tensions,
ethno-nationalism, religious extremism, economic failures, development flops, judicial crisis, and a weak democrat
set-up. While Republicans and Democrats haven’t exhibited concern with most of these issues in the election rounds,
either party’s candidates consider religious fundamentalism, nuclear proliferation and the Pakistani democracy as
vital to American interests. Concerning every US elections, perhaps the question near and dear to every Pakistani
remains “whether a Democrat or Republican President is better for Pakistan?” Nasim Zehra, a Pakistani security
analyst provides one response to this million-dollar query:

“The primary answer to this lies within Pakistan itself. How effectively do we negotiate for and are able to promote
Pakistan's interests depends on skillful diplomacy, sound politics and governance at home and our use of the leverages
available to us at this juncture. To some extent, the better interlocutor will also be the one who embraces the 21st-
century negotiation tools, one who engages in broader engagement processes and not narrow one-item agendas.
This debate on whether the Republicans or the Democrats are “better” for Pakistan betrays a lack of understanding
of how nations seek to promote their foreign policy interests. There are some lessons for Pakistan in the way Indians
pursued their nuclear deal and their trade and defence interests with successive US administrations. It is a tribute
to India’s skillful diplomacy and politics that while the Democrat Clinton initiated in late 1998 the beginning of a
strategic opening with India, the Republic Bush was keen to practically implement this strategic relationship.”

For Pakistan, a critical factor which differentiates the US 2016 elections from the 2008 and 2012 ones, is that in
some sense, the 2008 and 2012 elections were being fought “in the tribal areas of Pakistan”, as Moonis Ahmar
calls it. The 2008 elections’ foreign policy agenda gravitated on tracking down Osama Bin Laden and intensifying
drone attacks around the Durand Line while the 2012 one garnered vocal promises to root out Bin Laden’s legacy
of terrorism. Furthermore, incidents such as the Red Mosque drama of 2007, the Taliban Swat takeover, the 2008
Mumbai attacks, and the shooting of Malala Yousafzai were still fresh in American political minds as those two
elections were held.

In 2016 however, the geographical and tactical focus to assure American security has somewhat shifted from
Pakistan towards North Korea and the Middle East, particularly with increasing Russian advances in Syria and
vitriolic anti-American rhetoric by North Korea. Cultivating a stronger alliance with the Saudis and Arab allies is
more on the cards rather than aggressively pursuing the “arc of crisis” in Pakistan. Ultimately, the respective foreign
policies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders seem poised to shift the status quo of American relations towards
Pakistan, be it in a negative or forward frame for Pakistan. Other US presidential hopefuls, despite their differences
with the Obama administration, appear likely not to gravitate from Obama’s foreign relations with Pakistan. As
such, President Obama’s policy towards South Asia of “we should probably try to facilitate a better understanding
between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis” and “The most important thing we are going to
have to do with respect to Afghanistan, is actually deal with Pakistan”, is expected to stand.

6
 www.cscr.pk

Former Pakistan Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, had expressed his views about the 2008 US elections, as
“the outcome of the US presidential election will have no outcome on Pakistan. Those relations between Pakistan
and the US would rather depend on the political steps taken by the leadership of both countries. The stance of
the US presidential candidates would be different after the elections, as whoever won would make policies in line
with the international situation.” With a Democrat Clinton or Republican like Kasich or Cruz in the White House,
Mr. Haqqani’s predictions are likely to hold true for the 2016 US elections as well. Naturally, American interests
and security will continue to drive US foreign relations. Had it not been for the Trumps and Sanders in the 2016 US
elections, Pakistan wouldn’t have seen much difference to be able to bestow the halo to Republicans or Democrats.

What Next?

As of May 20, 2016, the Republican and Democrat Presidential nomination results stand as the chart below illustrates:

Source: USA Today Democrat Electoral Map

Donald Trump won all five North-East states in the latest Republican primary on April 26. He is estimated to have
won 110 of the 118 pledged delegates. If Trump maintains his current lead and level of support in the remaining
races, he will attain the delegate majority of 1237 delegates before the convention. States left for the Republicans
to jostle for include Indiana, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and
South Dakota. At this stage, arguably, the biggest prizes, New Jersey and California, look like Trump wins: A Rutgers-
Eagleton poll released in April found the business mogul with a 28-point lead in the Garden State while a CBS News
Battleground Tracker predicted a significant lead for Trump in California, with the billionaire winning 49% to Cruz’s
31% and Kasich’s 16% in the predicted results.

However, as if the US Presidential race wasn’t interesting enough, John Kasich has struck a deal with Ted Cruz,
as of April 24, whereby, Kasich won’t compete in Indiana, while Mr. Cruz will leave New Mexico and Oregon to
Kasich. Considering the delegate rules of these states, the Kasich-Cruz arrangement is aimed to give the non-Trump
Republican candidates a better chance of denying Mr. Trump the Republican nomination.

This arrangement could be critical as the whole Republican race could come down to Indiana, which has 57
pledged delegates, and awards those delegates on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district.
Consequently, for Donald Trump, the difference between a narrow win and a loss is huge: Trump winning statewide
in Indiana, even by a point, will make it most likely for him to reach 1,237 delegates with a victory in California,
7
 www.cscr.pk

which appears to be an easier state for him than Indiana (on paper, at least).

Source: USA Today Democrat Electoral Map

On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders could only win the Rhode Island primary, losing Maryland, Delaware,
Pennsylvania and Connecticut to Hilary Clinton on April 26.

However, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana,
North Dakota, and South Dakota are all remaining pit stops for Sanders and Clinton. Again, California is perhaps the
major prize here with 475 delegates. With around a month ahead of the California primary, the CBS Battleground
Tracker poll in the Golden State reflects a Clinton lead over Sanders (52% compared to 40%). Since this isn’t an
overwhelming lead, the California Democrat primary is likely to be more thrilling.

A February “snap poll”, conducted by the Teaching, Research & International Policy (TRIP) project at the College
of William & Mary, in collaboration with Foreign Policy Magazine, had revealed American foreign policy priorities
and their confidence in the presidential candidates’ foreign policy approaches. The poll asked IR scholars to select
“what they believe to be the three most important international issues facing the United States today” and “which
presidential candidate — Democrat and Republican — is most fit to tackle the foreign-policy end of the job”.

Regarding the first questions, “conflict in the Middle East” and “global climate change” appeared to be the leading
issues with over 81% of scholars choosing one or both of these issues. Other prominent issues that emerged were
renewed Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism, and China’s rising military power. For the second question,
the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton, with over 80% of the vote, emerged as the one who would most effectively
manage foreign policy as president. On the Republican candidate list, John Kasich got 54% of the votes, followed by
Jeb Bush (who at that time, was still in the running), with under 30% of votes. Trump garnered a mere 1.7% while
Cruz stood at 1.5%.

This snap poll is interesting, given recent US Presidential electoral results. Thus far, while the Democrat Primary
results have corroborated the snap poll’s results with Clinton having a superior lead over Sanders, the same hasn’t
been true for the Republicans. It is the same Trump with 1.7% respondents who has a significant lead over Cruz and
an overwhelming lead over Kasich, despite the latter viewed as a favorite amongst Republican candidates, as far as
foreign policy was concerned.

8
 www.cscr.pk

The upcoming US elections aren’t as much about Democrat or Republican but concern the bigger picture. With
the US moving away from being a homogeneous and wealthy community and a sure leader of the global world,
Americans need robust leadership charting them away from the direct chaos of the global world. Most importantly,
US foreign policy must draw upon good governance, the rule of law, investment in people, and economic freedom.
Washington must continue to set an example, “not arrogantly, but cooperatively” as Chuck Hagel notes, through
strong leadership and multilateralism.

America also needs to realize Michael Porter’s belief expressed in ‘The Comparative Advantage of Nations’: “a
nation’s standard of living in the long term depends on its ability to attain a high and rising level of productivity in
the industries in which its firms compete.” Consequently, the US must continue the incumbent President Obama’s
free and fair trade agreements such as the TPP to encourage trade and investment.

Finally, the US needs to carefully attend to working relationships with Russia and China, besides American allies
to develop a regional security order for the greater good. In turn, regional stability can be a bridge to a political
settlement and dialogue with Iran to address the latter’s nuclear ambitions. Even with Ted Cruz’s “America First”
foreign policy, the White House must grasp that coalitions and international institutions are invaluable extensions
of US influence. US global strategy must maintain the UN and particularly NATO as key for preserving American
security, for both institutions promise cooperation in economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian fields, besides
military strategies.

The incoming US executive must realize that global conflicts seldom remain stagnant, but worsen in the blink of an
eye, increasing radical politics and violence. Ultimately, the US must seize the moment of crisis as an opportunity
to lead towards a stable and peaceful world. For this, it requires an astute and ingenuous yet imaginative leader. A
US foreign policy well grounded in American identity and beliefs will assuredly cultivate trust and balance the view
that US interests are not independent from the interests of allies.

9
 www.cscr.pk

References

• Akhtar, S. T., & Imran, H. (2014). Geopolitics of International Relations for Pakistan, US Political Regimes and the
US Bilateral Aid to Pakistan. GSTF Journal of Law and Social Sciences (JLSS), 4(1), 61
• Doran, P. B. (2015). America’s new direction in foreign policy. European View, 14(2), 253-261
• Hagel, C. (2004). A Republican foreign policy. Foreign Affairs – New York - 83, 64-76
• Geier, B. (2015). Here’s how much Bernie Sanders’ ideas could cost. Fortune, 15 September
• Kuhn, D. P. (2007). The neglected voter: White men and the democratic dilemma. London: Macmillan
• Maass, M. (2009). The World Views of the US Presidential Election: 2008. Palgrave Macmillan
Mazrui, A. A. (1996). Between the crescent and the Star - Spangled Banner: American Muslims and US
foreign policy. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 493-506
Zehra, N. (2008). US Elections: Four Key Questions” in The News International. October 29, 2008.
• https://ballotpedia.org/Ted_Cruz_presidential_campaign,_2016/Foreign_affairs
• http://bigstory.ap.org/article/98e1356c379245c6b6a925f34483fed1/apconversation-cruzs-ambitious-foreign-
policy-has-limits
• http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/02/the-big-5-and-the-sad-state-of-foreignpolicy-in-2016-sanders-clinton-
trump-cruz-rubio/
• http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ted-cruz-stumbles-again-foreign-policy-15197
• http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/06/observer-view-uselections-donald-trump-hillary-
clinton
• http://time.com/4246106/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-race/
• http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/02/why-rest-world-shouldget-vote-greatest-reality-
tv-show-earth-us-election
• http://www.forwardprogressives.com/5-pros-cons-bernie-sanders-presidentialcandidate/
• http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-bernie-sanders-matters-even-if-he-cant-win
• http://www.cssforum.com.pk/general/news-articles/20699-us-elections-four-keyquestions.html
• http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-wont-win-his-ideasmight-n349991
• http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-detailseconomic-agenda-for-america
• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-foreignidUSMTZSAPEC37O1O8W3
• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-foreignpolicyidUSMTZSAPEC33FXD386
• http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/27/donald-trump-is-right-about-foreign-policy/
• http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_29138451/trump-sends-sparksflying-worcester
• http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Foreign_Policy.htm
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Hilary-e-mails-show-US-strugglingwith-Pakistan-policy-amid-
Ghandi-fiasco/articleshow/47904681.cms
• http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/what-might-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-meanfor-asia/
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31120958
• http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35712363
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/11594053/US-election-2016-What-you-need-to-
know.html
• http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/2016-election/384828/
• http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/us-presidential-candidates-must-thinkstrategically-about-south-asia/
• http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/here-s-what-world-thinks-u-s-presidentialrace-n508481
• http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/03-Sep-2015/us-presidential-election-2016
• http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5843.html
• http://www.risingpowersinitiative.org/with-obamas-re-election-asian-powersponder-future-relations-with-
us/
• http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/war_cost_472/472P_2009_Pakistan_
Anger_at_U.S._Increasing_With_Bombing_Policies_August_2009_NYTimes.pdf
• http://www.meforum.org/345/muslims-and-the-us-election-of-96
• http://search.proquest.com.revproxy.brown.edu/docview/218809706?pqorigsite=summon&accountid=9758
• http://time.com/4066484/these-5-facts-explain-us-presidential-election/
• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/kasichs-misguided-foreignpolicy/

10
 www.cscr.pk

• http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Kasich_Foreign_Policy.html
• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-debateidUSTRE7AL0EO20111124
• http://nationalinterest.org/blog/kasichs-contradictory-foreign-policy-15531
• http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/19/snap-poll-who-will-make-the-next-bestforeign-policy-president-trump-
syria-scholars/

Muhammad Omar Afzaal After earning his bachelor’s degree in economics

from Grinnell College, Omar is furthering his multi-disciplinary education through a
Masters in Public Affairs from Brown University. He is specializing in international
security, civil-military diplomacy and nuclear non-proliferation from Harvard University
through the Brown-Harvard program. Omar has worked extensively on international
politics, ethno-religious nationalism and developmental economics as a research
assistant to various organizations including Harvard University, Oxford University, World
Bank and United Nations University (Netherlands). Omar is actively engaged in cross-cultural exchanges

Copyright © 2016 Center for Strategic and Contemporary Research. All Rights Reserved

11