US domestic policies slightly change with the change of the president. But the foreign policy rarely does.
It is almost certain that even if one of Bush’s rivals wins the coming US presidential elections, there will be no immediate end to the US occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and several other countries.
As the general trend of the US foreign policy tells us, the US Administration is seeking to occupy other countries such as Iran and Pakistan US war lobbyists, especially linked to the mainstream US media, have been making continuous efforts to manufacture in-home consent to militarily occupy Iran and Pakistan in the future. Especially after the assassination of Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto last month, US opinion cultivators have been doing their utmost to create a situation for US intervention in Pakistan.
Indeed, a country’s foreign policy is and should be consistent. A foreign policy lacking consistency and continuity does not serve desired international relations. In this context, the US foreign policy is an example of consistency and continuity. But it is also an example of rigid foreign policy, sometimes given to superstitions. For example, the White House has heavily disliked the entry of Nepali armed insurgents into the mainstream peace process and the process of state restructuring. As an arms supplier to Nepal, the US Administration has not yet been able to change its rigid policy of indirectly backing up feudal monarchy, already inside the departure hall. Feudal monarchy, mainly founded on its elitist army, has continuously resisted the Nepalis’ desire for overall transformation of their society. Nevertheless, the US Administration seems more worried about the imminent entry of leftist insurgents into the mainstream power than about the chronic and cancerous feudalism blocking the progress of the Nepali society.
Thus, the US consistency and continuity in the US foreign policy, though necessary indeed, in this particular context also harms international relations if the concerned foreign policy contains ideological hostility.
As things are not likely to change so fast in rigid-minded rulers, the mere change of an individual in the presidential position cannot determine a sure path of better international relations.
However, human expectations should always be positive and based on public perspectives and conscience. Should the US war lobbyists be overwhelmed by the peace-and-justice lobbyists, the White House will be compelled to slightly soften its rigidity. Even such a slight softening can provide some relaxation to international relations, paving the way for further de-rigidification that can contribute to the betterment of the international situation.