As the US primaries move beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, it is simply impossible to predict who will be the Democratic and Republican nominees, much less who will become the 44th president of the US. But it is not too soon to address the question of what effect US foreign policy is having on the campaign and what it reveals about how Americans see the world.
To the surprise of many seasoned observers, foreign policy is having only a modest impact on voters. This is unexpected, because only six months ago the war in Iraq dominated the political landscape. Although Iraq still matters a lot to Americans, its importance in determining how they vote has receded, partly because US casualties there are markedly down as the security situation appears to be gradually improving. As a result, there is considerably less pressure to do something dramatically different.
Foreign policy has also become less salient than it was only months ago as the chance of war between the US and Iran has diminished, following the recently published National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program. The judgment by the US intelligence community that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons development program -- and, more importantly, that its large-scale uranium enrichment capacity is likely many years away -- postpones the day when a US president may have to decide between living with or attacking a nuclear Iran.
A third reason for the modest impact of international issues on voters' choice of the next president is another surprising development -- more agreement between and among the leading candidates than meets the eye. There is something of a consensus, for example, emerging around the notion that the US should remain in Iraq for some time to come, albeit with a reduced level of military forces.
There is also widespread acknowledgement that the US must do more both at home and diplomatically to address global climate change; that the US must work with its European allies to prevent Afghanistan from slipping back into anarchy; and that the US must take the strongest possible stand against terrorism and those who would support it in any way. No major candidate is advocating anything remotely resembling isolationism.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the deterioration of the US economy is now overshadowing foreign policy. The greatest crisis facing many Americans is their increasing inability to meet their monthly mortgage payments. Recession, job losses and expensive oil, not war, is what Americans fear most this year.
This is not to suggest that foreign policy is absent from the campaign. Along with the economy, a dominant issue on the political agenda -- and one that has affected Republican politics in particular -- is immigration. There is growing opposition to illegal entry, but no consensus about what to do about those who have been in the country illegally for years or those who want to move to the US in the future.
It is also possible to see in the politics of both of the parties mounting concern about globalization. With tougher economic times inevitably come tougher positions toward foreign competition and outsourcing.
There may also be latent concern about foreign policy in the attention being given to the quantity and quality of candidates' relevant experience. A desire for "change" is a common refrain of the US debate, but it is far from the only one.
Renewed interest in foreign policy and the rest of the world could surface if there were a dramatic overseas development. We saw this a few weeks ago, when former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Democratic and Republican candidates alike were called upon to explain what they would be prepared to do if there were an opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden or a need to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Iraq could return to center stage if the positive momentum of recent months were suddenly reversed, perhaps following a new outbreak of violence between the country's Sunnis and Shiites. The US and Iran could go to war not over nuclear issues but because of reckless behavior by the Revolutionary Guards (as occurred recently in the Strait of Hormuz), with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad possibly seeking to provoke a crisis in order to distract domestic attention from his economic failures. Order in Pakistan could break down irretrievably. A terrorist attack could remind Americans of their fundamental vulnerability. The possibilities are endless.
The next US president will face a host of pressing and very difficult foreign policy challenges -- and how he or she responds will affect not only the US, but the entire world. In the meantime, though, foreign policy will have only an indirect influence on the choice of the American voters.
Richard Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has upheld the core goals of “making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” fully implementing an “America first” policy. Countries have responded cautiously to the fresh style and rapid pace of the new Trump administration. The US has prioritized reindustrialization, building a stronger US role in the Indo-Pacific, and countering China’s malicious influence. This has created a high degree of alignment between the interests of Taiwan and the US in security, economics, technology and other spheres. Taiwan must properly understand the Trump administration’s intentions and coordinate, connect and correspond with US strategic goals.
RSS