What America Is Better for Us?
Republicans and Democrats have finished their conventions and proposed presidential candidates. That means that it’s time to define what Poland needs from the new American leader and compare Romney and Obama to our expectations.
Despite many reservations, the former suits us more.
Generally speaking, the presidential candidates and their supporters have outlined two models. In the first one, the state protects the citizen. It increases public expenditures and manipulates the money supply. In its foreign policy, it counts on the cooperation with other powers: the old ones like Europe and the future ones like India, Brazil and Russia. Meanwhile, peaceful coexistence with China is wanted.
In the second model, the citizens are self-reliant. In order to relieve them, the state reduces taxes and, as a consequence, public expenditures. It defends the balance of the budget and the healthy basis of dollar, and doesn’t intervene to stand up for those that are “too big to fail.” Meanwhile, America comes back to the role of regulator of the world order abroad. This is why the U.S. considers a political confrontation with China and Russia, strengthens the alliance with Europe and consolidates the Western area of influence.
1
As far as Poland’s interest is concerned, the most important thing is the U.S.' safety guarantees. They include, among others, maintaining the U.S. armed forces in Europe and missile defense complexes, as well as [giving] NATO commitments, military technologies transfers and investments in the power industry (like shale gas) serious treatment.
In turn, the safety guarantees will be effective when America comes back in the international arena as a hegemonic leader, not one of a few players. The current economic crisis is a good opportunity for that. In spite of the economic slowdown, the U.S. is still fit to be the driving force of the world economy. It has a young, growing population and leads the way in innovation. The recent stagnation has been no justification for development parameters; it’s still a country of the future.
A hegemonic leader, after all, doesn’t yield rashly to other powers. It builds missile defense complexes if it’s good for the interests of its allies and itself. It deploys forces where they are necessary for the military (the Pacific), but also political reasons (Europe). It doesn’t blur the world’s construction so that it’s difficult to distinguish friends and enemies. It firmly stands by the former and supports them against the latter. It doesn’t pretend that the fundamental political category “our-foreign” isn’t valid anymore, since it simply doesn’t have to pretend anything.
2
Such an America would be a shield behind which Poland could develop for next decades. Unfortunately, America is different. In addition, Poland isn’t a very strategic country for the U.S. However, this can change.
Taking only Romney’s declarations into consideration, both from the conventions and earlier events, it’s clear that what he wants for America is also profitable for us. As usual, the devil is in the details. The grim reality itself is most important. Being a presidential candidate, one can loudly scold Russia. But after a victory, one must face real politics. Current affairs, like maintaining the Russian-Central Asian delivery corridor for the military forces in Afghanistan, can blur a generally correct direction, and Moscow will remain higher than Poland in America’s list of priorities.
We don’t know what Romney’s politics would be like. We can only hear his declarations. However, we know what Obama’s politics are and what they will probably be like. He isn’t naive, although he’s presented is such a way by some commentators with Republican sympathies. He’s tough, but uses gentle words. And he’s able to act decisively: in secret attacks, Americans have killed more real and alleged al-Qaeda members during his term than in Bush’s time. After all, we know his priorities, and they don’t bode well for Poland.
So if Romney as a president keeps just a part of his announcements, we can benefit from that. If he doesn’t and is crushed by the realities – we won’t lose anything. In the case of Obama, we know exactly where we stand. It’s doubtful that he’ll do an about-face during his second term. There’s only one choice for Poland: Romney. It’s a pity that we don’t have any influence on it.
Despite many reservations, the former suits us more.
Generally speaking, the presidential candidates and their supporters have outlined two models. In the first one, the state protects the citizen. It increases public expenditures and manipulates the money supply. In its foreign policy, it counts on the cooperation with other powers: the old ones like Europe and the future ones like India, Brazil and Russia. Meanwhile, peaceful coexistence with China is wanted.
In the second model, the citizens are self-reliant. In order to relieve them, the state reduces taxes and, as a consequence, public expenditures. It defends the balance of the budget and the healthy basis of dollar, and doesn’t intervene to stand up for those that are “too big to fail.” Meanwhile, America comes back to the role of regulator of the world order abroad. This is why the U.S. considers a political confrontation with China and Russia, strengthens the alliance with Europe and consolidates the Western area of influence.
1
As far as Poland’s interest is concerned, the most important thing is the U.S.' safety guarantees. They include, among others, maintaining the U.S. armed forces in Europe and missile defense complexes, as well as [giving] NATO commitments, military technologies transfers and investments in the power industry (like shale gas) serious treatment.
In turn, the safety guarantees will be effective when America comes back in the international arena as a hegemonic leader, not one of a few players. The current economic crisis is a good opportunity for that. In spite of the economic slowdown, the U.S. is still fit to be the driving force of the world economy. It has a young, growing population and leads the way in innovation. The recent stagnation has been no justification for development parameters; it’s still a country of the future.
A hegemonic leader, after all, doesn’t yield rashly to other powers. It builds missile defense complexes if it’s good for the interests of its allies and itself. It deploys forces where they are necessary for the military (the Pacific), but also political reasons (Europe). It doesn’t blur the world’s construction so that it’s difficult to distinguish friends and enemies. It firmly stands by the former and supports them against the latter. It doesn’t pretend that the fundamental political category “our-foreign” isn’t valid anymore, since it simply doesn’t have to pretend anything.
2
Such an America would be a shield behind which Poland could develop for next decades. Unfortunately, America is different. In addition, Poland isn’t a very strategic country for the U.S. However, this can change.
Taking only Romney’s declarations into consideration, both from the conventions and earlier events, it’s clear that what he wants for America is also profitable for us. As usual, the devil is in the details. The grim reality itself is most important. Being a presidential candidate, one can loudly scold Russia. But after a victory, one must face real politics. Current affairs, like maintaining the Russian-Central Asian delivery corridor for the military forces in Afghanistan, can blur a generally correct direction, and Moscow will remain higher than Poland in America’s list of priorities.
We don’t know what Romney’s politics would be like. We can only hear his declarations. However, we know what Obama’s politics are and what they will probably be like. He isn’t naive, although he’s presented is such a way by some commentators with Republican sympathies. He’s tough, but uses gentle words. And he’s able to act decisively: in secret attacks, Americans have killed more real and alleged al-Qaeda members during his term than in Bush’s time. After all, we know his priorities, and they don’t bode well for Poland.
So if Romney as a president keeps just a part of his announcements, we can benefit from that. If he doesn’t and is crushed by the realities – we won’t lose anything. In the case of Obama, we know exactly where we stand. It’s doubtful that he’ll do an about-face during his second term. There’s only one choice for Poland: Romney. It’s a pity that we don’t have any influence on it.