A Jimmy Carter Moment

The American presidential election has boiled down to a face-off between the Democrat Barack Obama, who seeks to reform government, and the Republican Mitt Romney, who seeks to reclaim power for his party. Although the sluggish domestic economic recovery since the 2008 financial crisis is clearly the priority agenda, issues of international diplomacy have gradually inched into focus. This shift to foreign policy was explosively triggered by North Korea’s attempted missile launch. When North Korea disregarded warnings from both the United States and the broader international community to push ahead with the launch, critical opinions began to form among the American public. This was because Romney was quick to paint this as a diplomatic failure on Obama’s part, actively magnifying the issue. The Romney camp thus attacks Obama on a daily basis as an inexperienced and incompetent president.

Democratic foreign policy is traditionally a target for Republican attacks. Although President Obama has not touted his diplomatic accomplishments as loudly as his Democratic predecessors, his foreign policy record is already providing a basis for his reelection. Despite the fact that the domestic economy is far from a rate of satisfactory improvement, he has been able to earn the sympathy of his fellow Americans through his foreign policy successes. In this context Obama’s three most notable achievements are the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the removal of American troops from Iraq, and the expulsion of Moammar Gadhafi. The GOP is countering with what it argues are Obama’s big three foreign policy failures: the Iranian nuclear issue, the North Korean nuclear issue, and the appeasement policies geared toward Russia and China. In a nutshell, the GOP wields these three issues to argue that Obama’s weak diplomacy has caused U.S. dignity to plummet in Northeast Asia and the Arab world, provoking big losses in American national interests abroad.

Recently, Romney’s foreign policy advisor Richard Williamson referred to the North Korean missile launch as America’s (i.e. Obama’s) “Jimmy Carter moment,” which Romney has repeatedly brought up in subsequent interviews and speeches. This is to attack Obama’s actions abroad as being similar to Carter’s human rights and ethics-centered diplomatic idealism, an idealism that allegedly disregarded realities and resulted in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and an American Embassy hostage situation in Iran in the late 1970s. Carter’s foreign policy had since been considered the worst of any president to date.

Yet, opinions are mixed as to whether Romney’s strategy will be successful. There is some truth to the Republican argument that Obama’s “appeasement” policy is somewhat discordant. Obama’s policies could be seen as stalling on the Iran issue, while currently strong ties to America are being considered a factor in Vladimir Putin’s comeback. The ink hadn’t even dried on the North Korea-U.S. agreement reached this past Feb. 29 before it was breached. Many nonetheless believe Romney’s attacks to be a misjudgment. Indeed, while diplomatic achievements are concrete and complete, incidents being written off as missteps—though still controversial—are harder to establish as conclusive failures. Furthermore, it could be argued that Obama’s diplomatic strategies are far more coherent than the confused policies of the George W. Bush administration.

For example, sanctions against Iran have only become stronger than ever before. With a hardline policy base, Obama can insist that he has not offered support to the Kim regime in any way, differing from the Bush-era North Korea policies of supplying aid in the form of food and oil. The Obama camp has asserted that even the recent missile launch is not to be seen too unfavorably. This is because the launch ultimately failed while North Korea became internationally stigmatized as a “deal breaker,” and because plans for food aid were halted before delivery.

It is still unclear if there is a twist to the “Carter moment” propagated by the Romney campaign, but it is true that foreign policy was seen as the Carter presidency’s greatest weakness. However, in the midst of the 1994 Haiti and North Korean nuclear crisis, Carter successfully negotiated a suspension of military conflict. November’s votes will determine whether Obama’s foreign policy is like Carter’s 1979 failures or like the successes of 1994. The problem now lies in Korea. Even if a successful Carter moment reappears on the Korean peninsula, the American political timetable dictates that we will have to wait at least another year.