| by B.Raman
( December 28,
2012, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Both Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the outgoing US
Secretary of State, and Mr.John Kerry, her successor-designate already
officially nominated by President Barack Obama, are public servants of style
and substance who had distinguished themselves as Senators for their knowledge
of the world and expertise.
 |
Mr.Obama continues to attach importance to pursuing a tough counter-terrorism policy in the Af-Pak region partly to prevent any more threats to the US homeland from terrorists based in this region and partly to maintain stability in Afghanistan despite the thinning out of the US presence in Afghanistan.
Ms.Condoleezza
Rice, who was Secretary of State during
the second term of Mr.George Bush, and Mrs. Clinton were different from the
traditional cold war style of Secretaries of State that one had seen before
them. They realized that they had to operate in a world that had changed and
that continued to change after the end of the Cold War and that the old style
of policy-making, execution and projection that served the US well during the
days of the Cold War, would no longer serve it well.
They diluted the
elitist tradition that dominated the functioning and thinking of the US State Department
before them. Public diplomacy and greater policy maker-people interaction
became their defining characteristics. They discarded the traditional aloofness
of US foreign policy makers and encouraged their staff in the State Department
to do so too.
Mrs.Clinton was
the most out-going and transparent Secretary of State that the US has had who
never hesitated to speak her mind out whether to China or Pakistan or other
countries. She could be blunt without being unpleasant in her interactions with
her counterparts from other countries. One had a glimpse of her quintessential
style of public diplomacy during her town hall interactions with selected
members of the civil society in Kolkata
earlier this year moderated by Barkha Dutt of NDTV.
Mr.Kerry is as
knowledgeable as Ms. Rice and Mrs. Clinton and his expertise in moulding
policies is considerable. But in a commentary on Mr.Kerry after he was
nominated by Mr.Obama, the BBC described
him as “deliberate and strategic” in thinking, but secretive in style. A
commentary by the ”Christian Science Monitor” drew attention to Mr.Kerry’s past
reputation of elitist aloofness.
Many
commentators feel that public or people-to-people diplomacy of the kind in
which Mrs.Clinton excelled as we saw in Kolkatta does not come naturally to
Mr.Kerry. It is said that Mrs.Clinton was an excellent team manager in running
the State Department. One has misgivings whether Mr.Kerry would be an equally
good and warm team manager.
In fact,
Mr.Kerry was not Mr.Obama’s first choice as Secretary of State to succeed
Mrs.Clinton. His first choice reportedly was Ms.Susan Rice, the US Ambassador
to the UN, who would have been in the
mould of Mrs.Clinton, but Ms.Rice’s controversial statements regarding the
attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi in September, which came in for
criticism from some Republican Senators, made it doubtful whether she would be
confirmed by the Senate. Mr.Kerry should have a smooth sailing in the Senate
because of his experience as a Senator and as the Chairman of the Senate
Foreign relations Committee.
While the style
of Mr.Kerry could be different from that
of Mrs.Clinton, in substance one is unlikely to see any changes in foreign policy except in nuances in relation
to China and Pakistan. The broad features of foreign policy are largely
decided by the President on the basis of inputs and advice from the
Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary, the National Security Adviser and
the Director of the CIA.
One has to wait
to see whom Mr.Obama nominates to the posts of Defence Secretary and Director,
CIA, before assessing what could be the
totality of the impact of the team as a whole on the foreign policy during the
second term of Mr.Obama. Three constants in respect of China have to be kept in
view: Firstly, during 2012, the US replaced the European Union as the largest
buyer of Chinese goods. The economic dependence between the two countries would
rule out any adversarial relationship of a permanent nature. Secondly, the
strong support in the Congress for Japan’s sovereignty claims in the East China
Sea and for continued supply of military equipment to Taiwan would keep alive
the trust deficit between the two countries despite the flourishing bilateral
trade. Thirdly, the US could press ahead with its policy of strengthening its
Asian presence through continued support to some ASEAN countries on the
question of their rights in the South China Sea and further diversify its
growing ties with Myanmar, which would be, in long term, to the detriment of
China.
Mrs.Clinton
vigorously pursued and projected the policy of enhanced presence in the
Asia-Pacific region to counter Chinese activism and to reassure the ASEAN
countries and Japan. The projection and execution of this policy by Mr.Kerry to
protect the interests of the US and its allies would avoid the rough edges of
Mrs.Clinton without changing the overall US objectives in the region.
The continued
importance of India during Mr.Obama’s first term was partly the result of
Mr.Obama’s own conviction on the role that India could and should play as an
emerging Asian power on par with China and partly the outcome of the energy and
enthusiasm imparted by her to the growing strategic multi-dimensional
relationship between the US and India. This is a policy constant that will
continue under Mr.Kerry.
Mr.Obama
continues to attach importance to pursuing a tough counter-terrorism policy in
the Af-Pak region partly to prevent any more threats to the US homeland from
terrorists based in this region and partly to maintain stability in Afghanistan
despite the thinning out of the US presence in Afghanistan.
While vis-à-vis
China, Mr.Kerry will enjoy some latitude in the way the policy as laid down by
Mr.Obama is projected and executed , Mr.Obama is expected to continue in the
driving seat in respect of the Af_Pak region. At the same time, one has to
remember that Mr.Kerry has greater sensitivity to the strategic interests and
concerns of Pakistan in the Afghanistan region than Mrs.Clinton and pays heed
to the perceptions of the Pakistan Army. He might try to moderate the consequences of Mr.Obama’s present tough
policy towards Pakistan in order to soften Pakistani perceptions towards the
US.
It remains to be
seen whether Mr.Kerry would play a more
active role in identifying and executing policy options in respect of Syria and
Iran. There was an impression that Mrs.Clinton, who has future political ambitions
of her own, avoided too activist a role
in West Asia and the Gulf lest any policy mishap come in the way of her future
political interests.
Many believe that Mr.Obama would want Mr.Kerry
to show greater activism in West Asia and the Gulf than Mrs. Clinton
did---particularly in Syria. Those who had seen Mr.Kerry’s policy flip-flops in
relation to the regime change policy of Mr.Bush in Iraq----he first supported
it in the Senate, and then marked his distance from the policy of Mr.Bush---
wonder whether Mr.Kerry would have the stomach for a vigorous regime change
policy in Syria.
( The writer is
Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, New Delhi,
and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate
of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-Mail
seventyone2@gmail.com .Twitter:
@SORBONNE75)
Subscribe Us
 Both Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the outgoing US Secretary of State, ...){kind=link}