The high hopes surrounding incoming US president Barack Obama are mostly a good thing, as they remind us that much of the anti-US sentiment that is so apparent around the world is not and need not be permanent.
But this anticipation is also a problem for Obama, as it will be difficult — and in some instances impossible — for him to meet expectations. There will be no Palestinian state this spring; nor will there be a global climate change pact or a new trade accord or an end to poverty or genocide or disease anytime soon.
The reasons go beyond the reality that big accomplishments require time and effort. The incoming president faces extraordinary constraints — constraints that will make it essential for other countries to do more if stability and prosperity are to be the norm rather than the exception.
The most obvious limitation stems from the state of the US economy. Two million jobs disappeared in the last four months alone. The housing market continues to deteriorate. The US’ GDP is contracting at an almost unprecedented rate.
As a result, Obama will have no choice but to devote the lion’s share of his time and attention to reviving the economy. More than anything else, his success in this domain will determine the perception of his administration. Even he acknowledges that this will require him to delay fulfilling several other campaign promises.
A second constraint stems from all the crises that will greet the new president. Israelis and Palestinians are fighting a low-level war. The situation in Iraq is improving but is by no means assured. Obama may have to choose between attacking Iran’s nuclear installations and living with an Iran that has the capacity to build a nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks. Afghanistan’s government is losing ground in its struggle against a revived Taliban. Pakistan, which possesses dozens of nuclear weapons and is host to the world’s most dangerous terrorists, could become a failed state, as could nuclear-armed North Korea. Many of these challenges are less problems to be solved than conditions to be managed.
A third constraint stems from trends in the international system. The era of US unipolarity is over. Obama will inherit a world in which power in all of its forms — military, economic, diplomatic and cultural — is more widely distributed than ever before. This means that he will have to deal with a large number of threats, vulnerabilities, and independent actors who may resist bending to the US’ will.
All of this will make it more difficult for the US to get things done in the world — and for Obama to have any chance of meeting the expectations being set for him — without the active assistance of others. And since Obama will want to meet some of those expectations, other countries had better be prepared for US requests — and pressure — that they act with the US rather than act against it or sit on their hands.
China will come under pressure to revalue its currency (now being held at artificially low levels) so that Chinese exports are more expensive and imports from others (including the US) cheaper. And China and other developing countries will be expected to do their share to reduce carbon emissions and slow the pace of global climate change.
European countries should be prepared for US calls to do more to meet the increasing security challenge in Afghanistan. At stake is the relevance of NATO in a world in which the principal security challenges facing Europe are to be found outside the NATO treaty area.
Countries of every sort will face requests to do their part to overcome hurdles to a new global trade accord. Tariff and non-tariff barriers will need to come down. Rich countries will be asked to reduce subsidies; poor countries to open up their markets.
Arab leaders that criticize the US for the perceived shortcomings of its policies toward the Middle East will be asked in turn how much more they are prepared to do to bolster the government in Iraq. Once the fighting between Israel and Hamas subsides, the question of what the Arab states will do to strengthen Palestinian moderates and to make peace with Israel is sure to arise.
Russia and China should expect enormous pressure from Obama to do more to discourage Iran from proceeding with uranium enrichment. This will include calls for greater political and economic sanctions, and conceivably even support for limited uses of military force to buttress sanctions.
This list is a long one, but it could easily be much longer. The rest of the world was often unhappy with outgoing US president George W. Bush, for both the content and style of his foreign policy. Now others will find that the alternative to the US going it alone or withdrawing from the global scene is real multilateralism, which requires their willingness and ability to commit resources to deal with pressing challenges. Obama is likely to be more diplomatic than his predecessor, but he is also likely to be more demanding.
Richard N. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS