Humbled by the Republicans’ landslide mid-term election victory, US President Barack Obama will now need to negotiate every minor detail of his domestic agenda with a confrontational Congress — at least until the next elections in 2012. Congress can obstruct Obama’s foreign policy as well, but this remains a domain where any US president “enjoys almost royal prerogatives,” to use Alexis de Tocqueville’s somewhat inflated description.
These prerogatives, however, have so far allowed Obama only to describe the world that he wants, not to bring it about. Former US president George W. Bush committed the cardinal sin of all fallen empires — that of overreach. The Obama alternative was supposed to be collective global security sustained by multilateral structures. Rather than containing rising powers such as China and India, they would be drawn into a civilized world order, one based on global governance and “smart diplomacy.”
Yet, instead of building such an order, Obama’s presidency has so far been a mighty struggle to stem the decline in US power. He has fallen desperately short in making real progress towards the Promised Land, in which the US lives in peace with the Muslim world, thanks to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement; brings about a nuclear-free planet (a noble, yet entirely delusional pledge); gets Russia’s support in addressing other global problems; contains China’s quest to translate its growing economic power into major strategic gains; ends its two diversionary wars in Muslim countries; and leads a solid international alliance to cut short Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Foreign policy has almost invariably been the refuge of US presidents hit by mid-term defeats. However, foreign policy cannot be detached from its domestic foundations altogether. Can a president shown to be hesitant in the Middle East and Afghanistan even before his mid-term setback muster the authority needed to advance his global vision after such a domestic debacle?
One should hope so, if only because no better alternative to Obama’s vision is in view. And now, with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Obama might not be able to fulfill major foreign-policy promises, including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a key item in the president’s vision for reinvigorating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Should Congress not ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, Obama’s most tangible foreign-policy achievement so far, the entire inspection system for nuclear arms might collapse.
However, with respect to most other foreign-policy issues, the question is one of presidential leadership. Obama’s problem lies not in his vision for the US and the world, but in his deficient efforts to move from theory to practice.
Nevertheless, despite the new Congress’s overwhelmingly pro-Israel cast, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu should not assume that the Republicans will stymie Obama if he pushes resolutely for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. After all, it was a Republican who produced the Reagan Plan, calling on Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Thus, however much they despised former US president Bill Clinton, the Republicans were prepared to allow him the glory of being a Middle East peacemaker, believing that any agreement reached with the Palestinians at the 2000 Camp David Summit was in the US’ interest.
Obama was recently advised by David Broder, a long-time Washington Post columnist, to launch an attack on Iran. Convinced that history will judge the president by his success in containing the Iranian threat, Broder also assumes that a war with Iran would reignite the the US economy. That is a strange idea, given that today’s two ongoing wars have only compounded the US economy’s weaknesses.
A US war against Iran is plausible only as a response to a blatant and immediate Iranian challenge to vital US interests, such as a major terrorist attack, an invasion of an ally in the Gulf or disruption of the free flow of Middle East oil to the West. The Iranian regime is far too astute to cross any of these red lines.
Iran, like North Korea, will continue to test Obama’s capacity to build international alliances aimed at putting pressure on defiant states. Those, like Netanyahu, who stick to the lunacy of a military operation against Iran, will not find a ready ally in Obama. Such an operation would make the US appear to be doing Israel’s bidding — even Bush refused when former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert asked the US to attack a Syrian nuclear reactor — and destroy Obama’s strategy of reconciliation with the Muslim world.
Glory in foreign policy is no guarantee of future electoral gains. Conversely, Obama did not lose the mid-term elections because of his foreign policy’s inconsistencies. He lost because US unemployment remains near 10 percent, with no prospect of rapid improvement. And only one major foreign-policy test for Obama has clear implications for the US economy and job creation: the need to recalibrate relations with China in a way that restores balance to bilateral trade.
At the end of the day, Clinton was right: now, as then: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
It certainly wasn’t — and isn’t — foreign policy, as former US president George H. W. Bush, one of the US’ most proficient presidents in international affairs — can attest.
Shlomo Ben -Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, now serves as the vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace in Spain.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS