Obama Can Now Save the World as a ‘Lame Duck’

When a U.S. president loses important elections after six years in office, they focus on the end of the term, especially on foreign policy. With Obama it could now lead to new determination.

When Barack Obama arrives on Monday in Beijing on his first foreign trip following the lost midterm election, a question confronting many in the world travels with him: Is the president so weak that he and his position affect the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy abroad?

Even before the president lost the Senate to the Republicans, America was faced with significant challenges by Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, in addition to the South China Sea. Some of these are the result of Obama’s mistakes, or the perceived weakness of American leadership. It is possible for a president now paralyzed in domestic policy for the last two years to still manage to set a new course in foreign policy and build a positive legacy.

It’s about Obama’s Foreign Policy Legacy

Indeed, it is probable that Barack Obama will be outside of the United States more often in the last two years of his term than in the previous six years. Word has also spread to Beijing that “lame duck” presidents who lose important elections in office after six years will change to a position focused primarily on foreign policy at the end of their presidency.

In no other field does the president have so many ways to select his own course without the consent of Congress. Ronald Reagan, for example, negotiated important disarmament treaties with Moscow in the late phase of the Soviet Union following lost elections.

Free Trade Agreements with the Help of Republicans?

There are also policy areas in which Obama may well hope for Republican approval — for example, with the desired free trade agreements with Asian countries (TPP) and the EU (TTIP). In this realm, it was his own Democrats, skeptical of free trade, who had previously thwarted the president.

In January, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denied Obama the so-called fast track authority that allows the president to externally broker an international trade agreement and then submit it to Congress as a proposal. The Republicans are far more open to free trade than Obama’s Democrats. The president had stressed this area after the defeat as “a real opportunity for cooperation.”

The newly designated Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the record: “I’ve got a lot of members [of the Senate] who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America.” Some observers believe, however, that there is only a window of about a year before the two parties begin internal campaigning for candidacy for the White House.

Congressional Support for the Fight against Islamic State

Obama can hope for the support of Congress everywhere when undertaking corrective measures for a stronger U.S. foreign policy. The threat of the Islamic State terrorist movement certainly seems to have moved the isolationist-minded part of the tea party movement to silence. Even the libertarian, isolationist, and known potential presidential candidate Rand Paul now advocates the call for air strikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

It is expected that the Republican hawk John McCain will become chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. McCain has campaigned in the past for more American involvement in Syria, including the creation of a no-fly zone over Syrian territory in the north near the border with Turkey, in order to protect Syrian opposition against air raids by the Assad regime.

The Obama administration has supported the moderate Syrian opposition in the fight against Islamic State group extremists; however, no attempt has been made to assist the moderate opposition in their fight against the Assad regime.

Contention over Strategy in Syria

So far, Assad has indeed benefited the most from the air strikes against Islamic State group positions in Syria. Shortly before the elections, U.S. media reported on a secret memo by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to National Security Advisor Susan Rice, in which Hagel demanded that the White House clarify its stance on the Assad regime so that it does not jeopardize its strategy against the Islamic State group. The Republican majority in the Senate could now accelerate this clarification process.

At any rate, Obama has asked Congress for formal authorization to use the military in the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. So far, the government has justified military strikes by an authorization to use military force against al-Qaida in 2001. Republicans are mostly in support of the airstrikes.

Congress has shown little interest so far in making the White House take responsibility for the current strategy against the Islamic State group. Now, however, the representatives must show their true colors. “In principle, it shouldn’t be hard to assemble a large bipartisan majority behind the goal of degrading the Islamic State,” wrote the Washington Post on Sunday in an editorial. “But the specific terms of the legislation could produce paralyzing dissension.” Among other things within the Republican Party itself.

Armor-Piercing Weapons for Kiev?

Leading Republican foreign policy experts in the conflict in Ukraine are pushing for a tougher stance toward Moscow. In September, Democrats and Republicans of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee had $350 million (approximately EUR 280 million) approved to provide the Ukrainian army with anti-tank weapons, drones and ammunition.

However, the Obama administration has so far been unable to bring itself to the task. Given the currently increasing intensity of Russian military activities in Ukraine, the Obama administration is under pressure to do more. The more Russian provocations more clearly take on the character of a new cold war with the West, the louder the calls from Congress will be to pursue a resolute containment policy toward Moscow.

Passing a Deal on Iran in Congress

The greatest potential for conflict is undoubtedly the issue of Iran. The Obama administration is currently in the final stages of negotiations with Tehran, which should be completed by Nov. 24. It is still unclear whether negotiations will come to a final agreement, or whether they may be extended. The Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago on a letter Obama sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in which the president courted an offering of cooperation between America and Iran in the fight against the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State group in the event of an agreement on negotiations.

In Congress, both camps were already very skeptical regarding Iran before the election. One fears that the government could be in too much agreement with Tehran. Only intensive lobbying of the White House and some Democrats in Congress earlier this year prevented the Senate and House of Representatives from adopting tougher sanctions against Tehran. The new majorities have strengthened the Iran skeptics in Congress.

A leak from the White House in the past few weeks suggests that the president does not, therefore, seek Congress’ approval for an agreement, and that sanctions adopted by Congress could only be delayed once by means of a presidential mandate. The president has the legal scope to close a nuclear deal with Iran without the support of Congress.

The question is whether Tehran would like to take the risk of relying on a presidential mandate and the problem of repealed sanctions by the next incumbent. After the defeat of the Democrats, Iranian state broadcaster Press TV said in a commentary that at any rate, “the rest of the world is drawn with a heavy heart and in pain to the conclusion that Obama’s power is on the wane.”

Weaker Obama, Stronger America?

The waning power of Obama, so obviously followed by the mullahs with much concern, makes it difficult for the president to be viewed abroad as a heavyweight. But that does not necessarily mean a weaker America. The Republican Congress will try in any case to move the president to more decisive action, a place where the great procrastinator has committed only reluctantly so far.

The Obama administration has slightly corrected its course in recent months, as shown in the fight against the Islamic State group, and with leadership in Africa in the control of Ebola. If both political camps return to the tradition of bipartisanship in foreign policy over the next two years, this change of course could feature greater engagement in the world for Obama’s last two years in office.