The World Waits

One of the most repeated topics about North American society is its disinterest in what occurs outside of its borders, and one of the most common places frequented by U.S. electoral campaigns is one that international politics does not understand. Certainly, the global situation isn’t the first issue that the 100,000 voters from Ohio and Florida have in mind, voters who will ultimately decide who will be the next president. However, foreign policy is a determining aspect of the creation of the image that the public will make of a candidate — and therefore, of their chances of winning — and it’s the reason for which the election results in this country have global consequences. The attack last month on Benghazi was an international matter that strongly settled the balance in favor of Barack Obama in this week’s debate in New York, and foreign policy will be the central theme of tomorrow’s debate in Boca Raton. It is the last one and, perhaps, the deciding factor for Nov. 6.

A recent study from the Foreign Policy Initiative showed to what extent Americans feel a part of the world and how they reject the isolationism that some political sectors endorse, more so the liberals than the conservatives: 92 percent of the population believes that their country should play a role in the international scene and more than 85 percent considers the United States a promoting force for the good of all humanity.

Although the world has considerably changed since Washington placed governments in other countries at its will, it is clear that the United States continues to have a great influence on the chain of events in distant regions and that some sources of conflict are waiting for the results of the elections in order to move on to the next phase. The clearest case is that of Iran — the next president will have to decide if he wants to give the green light to a war with potential catastrophic consequences.

But this is just one example. The recent tensions arising in Asia about the fear of China’s expansionism, the settling of Russia into a more or less democratic regime and the evolution of the Arab Spring depend, to a greater or lesser extent, on the laws that are adopted in the White House. Even in a major autonomous territory like Europe, there have been believable rumors this week about Obama having pressed leaders of the European Union to wait until Nov. 6 to make a decision about Greece. In Latin America, where the decline of North American influence is most obvious, it is very possible that the next president of the United States might have to face the start of Cuba’s transition.

Although they didn’t vote, citizens of the world are going to see, then, the effects of what the ballot boxes decide here, and the effects can be different if Obama wins or the Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins.

U.S. foreign policy responds, of course, to well-defined general interests that we will not see drastically altered by the arrival of either candidate in the Oval Office. The economic protection of the free market, the promotion of human rights, the convergence of values with Europe or the defense of the state of Israel are principles that remain constant. However, the practical application of these principles can give rise to diametrically opposite laws. Such that George W. Bush, like Obama, waved the democratic flag — one in order to invade Iraq and the other to help with the Egyptian revolution.

It is difficult to anticipate how Obama’s second term will be, and even more difficult to anticipate Romney’s foreign policy. Obama evolved from an ambitious and visionary politician (his speech on Cairo to the Islamic world and his intervention in Prague in favor of a world without nuclear arms) toward being more pragmatic and realistic (his estrangement from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, his repeated silence about the abuses of human rights in China or his compliance with the behavior of the dynastic regimes of the Arab Gulf). Tradition says that North American presidents usually dedicate more time to international politics in their second term, with an eye on history and not on Ohio. It was in his second term when Ronald Reagan undertook, with Mikhail Gorbachev, the path that ended in the fall of the Berlin Wall.

For his second term, Obama will have to resolve, above all, doubt about his secretary of state. Hillary Clinton, who has been honored as one of the best secretaries of state in history, has announced that she doesn’t intend to continue. Until now, she was considered to be the most probable successor. The ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, has been left very burned from the controversy about whether if the administration reacted correctly after the attack that cost the life of the American ambassador in Libya. In an interview on television a few days after the event, Rice called it a “spontaneous reaction” to the movie about the prophet Muhammad, even after she knew that the attack had been premeditated and well-planned. That has ruined much of the possibilities of Rice being secretary of state — probably what Obama would have preferred — and has opened up a spot that won’t be easy to fill. It isn’t going to be easy for anyone to wear Hillary Clinton’s shoes.

Romney, for his part, is a total amateur on foreign policy; that makes his presidency even more unpredictable. Obama, at least, chose Joe Biden, an expert who presided over the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, to be his vice president. Paul Ryan, in contrast, is even greener than his running mate. Among the 200 people who make up Romney’s committee of foreign policy advisers are Elizabeth Cheney (Dick Cheney’s daughter), Robert Kagan (inheritor of his father’s ideological position), the famous conservative intellectual Elliott Abrams (the man responsible for Reagan’s Central American policy and deputy national security adviser under George W. Bush) and John Bolton (the ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush administration and one of the most passionate members of the neoconservative movement). But in Romney’s environment there are also moderates like Condoleezza Rice, whom he invited to make one of the principal speeches at the Republican Convention, and Robert Zoellick, who was deputy secretary of state and responsible for foreign trade under Bush, and who has been named the head of the team that will make the transition with the present administration in the case of a Republican victory.

International policy is the only field in which the U.S. Constitution grants the president nearly absolute powers, except declaring war. Bush opened Guantanamo, organized a network of secret prisons in various countries and authorized torture and spying backed by the legal instruments placed in his hand, although the correctness of his interpretations of them is debatable. Obama did not even solicit the authorization of Congress in order to launch the bombing against Moammar Gadhafi. Although the opposition claimed otherwise, the president argues that there wasn’t a war and therefore he wasn’t subject to the constitutional obligation of submitting to the legislative power.

With this new conception of powers, the next president, who is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, will have the world ahead of him to design at his discretion and will respond to some immediate conflicts in agreement with his particular instinct. We review the most outstanding:

Europe

The growth of the U.S. has been hampered by the European crisis in which this country doesn’t have a way to directly intervene, even if it exerts influence indirectly. In the last year, Obama has acted as a counterbalance to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Convinced of the role the state could play as a motor to the economy, the North American president has encouraged European leaders, with whom he has maintained telephone contact almost daily, to favor a major public investment to create employment or to have more convincing action from the European Central Bank in order to protect the euro. Strengthened by an electoral victory, Obama would find himself in a better position to insist on that line as well as to promote a coordinated effort with Europe to avoid a slowing down of the global economy.

Romney not only does not believe in the role of the state, but he doesn’t believe in Europe either. “I see our president doing more and more things like in Europe, and I don’t want that we become like Europe,” he said at a campaign rally this past month in August.* Forced by the reality that the U.S. must rely on Europe, Romney would identify much more with Merkel’s ideas than with those of any other; if it is consistent with his thinking, he might encourage the Europeans to deepen cuts to state welfare.

An element of little immediate impact, but still significant, is that of the emotional and political identification between Europe and the United States, the essential axis around which the West rotates. With Obama, after the dangerous estrangement that occurred during President George W. Bush’s presidency, that axis strengthened and resulted in successes such as Libya. With Romney, that effect probably would be in danger again. According to a poll conducted in Germany, France and the United Kingdom that was published this past month by The Guardian, only 5 percent of the population of these countries would be sympathetic to Romney’s victory.

Iran

Until now, Obama has been a containing factor of the Israeli government’s desire to attack Iran as soon as possible so that it can paralyze its nuclear program. The administration’s current position is that there is still room for negotiation because Iran is still far from producing an atomic bomb. Pressured by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama has warned that the U.S. will prevent by any means a situation where Iran comes to own such weaponry; however, Netanyahu’s ability to put pressure on Obama will diminish during a second term.

Romney hasn’t clarified what he would do regarding this matter. He has criticized Obama for allowing Iran to continue developing its nuclear program and for confronting Netanyahu, but insofar as his own initiatives, he has only said that he might put stronger sanctions against the Islamic regime.

Syria

Obama has assured that Bashar Assad’s regime will come to an end, but he has so far opposed a military intervention or providing weapons to the rebels. No immediate changes are expected after the elections, but the development of events, especially the risk of a confrontation between Turkey and Syria, can force him to take risky decisions.

Romney has expressed willingness to supply arms to the Syrian opposition through Turkey and Saudi Arabia and has announced that he would act on this crisis outside the United Nations Security Council, where China and Russia currently veto all measures against Syria.

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

It is a pending objective for Obama. In the first days of his administration, he presented the solution to this conflict as the cornerstone on which to rebuild the relationships between the West and Islam. All attempts made until now have been frustrating, but it is possible that Obama, freed from the burden of other elections, will dedicate new energy in favor of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Romney has already anticipated that he doesn’t think he should waste his time on that. According to him, “the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace.” Therefore, their principal task should be to reinforce the ties with Israel that had supposedly been weakened during the Obama administration.

China

There aren’t any big changes expected from Obama, although China will have a new leader after next year, which can give rise to variations in the traditional agenda between the two nations. One of the most delicate aspects of this agenda is the North American military presence in the Pacific. The current government has advised that it not only does not have the intention of reducing its presence but that it is thinking of increasing it with the permanent mobilization of another aircraft carrier in these waters where different sources of regional tensions are currently concentrated.

In the last electoral debate in New York, Romney promised that on the first day of his presidency he will sign a document that declares that China is artificially manipulating its currency to harm the U.S. That is announcing a trade war that can have repercussions in every area that the two major powers of the moment are obligated to share an understanding.

The relationship with China is also subject to any variation of behavior from North Korea, an unpredictable regime in possession of nuclear arms.

Russia

Whoever wins in November, the horizon of a difficult relationship with Vladimir Putin seems inevitable. In Obama’s situation, it is because he is going to feel the pressure from his own party and his own congressmen who demand that he more clearly denounce the democratic backsliding that is happening in Russia. In Romney’s case, it is because he himself defined Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.”

Afghanistan

Obama, with the endorsement of NATO, has already declared the end of 2014 as the limit for the presence of North American troops in that country. It isn’t likely that Romney, despite being critical of establishing artificial deadlines for the war, will modify those plans.

Latin America

Mexico is the second largest trading partner of the U.S.; its economic, political and security influence in this country is growing. Despite the fact that Mexico is not included as a priority in the election campaign and serves more as a reference for the origin of the majority of illegal immigrants, Mexico will be an issue that the next U.S. president will have to look out for. It is, perhaps, the only truly strategic Latin American country for the United States. Regarding the rest, there aren’t any great predictable variations with respect to the empty rhetoric that has dominated during this administration. Obama and Romney agree about the promotion of trading agreements in this region.

Any modification of U.S. foreign policy is determined by the reality of its economic problems. The death of the ambassador in Libya came shortly after the Republicans in Congress introduced a proposal for reducing the security budget for all embassies. Money is going to determine the degree of penetration in the Pacific and the reduction of military installations in other regions, including Europe.

Money is also going to determine the military’s ability to intimidate. Obama has proposed a reduction of the defense budget of $350 billion in the next decade. Romney disagrees. He proposes to reduce the deficit without taking away a penny from the Pentagon. This would be his first battle in the White House.

On that and other fronts where the will of local actors is determined by the direction of international winds, one will have to wait until Nov. 6.

The Republican Foreign Agenda

– It will consider, in line with traditional Zionism, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It promises to cut U.S. humanitarian aid to the Palestinians if they continue to unilaterally seek acknowledgement of their state within the United Nations.

– In Latin America, Romney wants to create the Campaign for Economic Opportunity in Latin America [CEOLA] in order to strengthen ties with partners like Colombia, Chile or Mexico and will, according to its program, “draw a stark contrast between free enterprise and the ills of the authoritarian socialist model offered by Cuba and Venezuela.”

– An oft-repeated promise in Romney’s campaign events is that on his first day in the White House he will formally label China as a “currency manipulator.” Romney believes that this way, Beijing facilitates exportation and protects its manufacturers.

– Regarding Iran, Romney wants to increase U.S. economic sanctions so that he can end the regime. In addition, he promises that the option of a military intervention, if all else fails, will be stronger and more real with him than with President Obama.

The Democratic Foreign Agenda

– As he did in the case of the war in Iraq, Obama has promised to remove all the soldiers from Afghanistan before the end of 2015. The first soldiers have been removed this summer. Thus, Obama will have put an end to both wars initiated by George W. Bush.

– “General Motors is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead.” This is a slogan of Obama’s campaign. Together with his stimulus and bailout measures, the president has notably debilitated al-Qaida’s leadership, something that he promises to continue doing.

– Obama, convinced of the role the state can play as an engine of the economy, encouraged European leaders to favor greater public investment in order to create jobs and have stronger action from the European Central Bank to protect the euro.

– Obama considers that room for negotiation with Iran exists, since the regime is still far from producing an atomic bomb. Under his mandate, the U.S. would contain Israel’s desires to attack Tehran in order to avoid it having nuclear capability.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.