The End of the “Obama Dream”?

The economic crisis that had helped Obama win the presidential election in 2008 has this time led to his defeat in the midterm elections. Yet, excluding the so-called Armenian genocide bill, the American elections will directly affect neither American foreign policy nor Turkish-American relations. But it is clear that the midterm elections held last Tuesday evince the decline of the Obama administration vis-à-vis the Republicans.

The American government will be functioning like a coalition for the next two years. The Republicans will speak louder on certain issues such as the economy and domestic politics. Because the making of foreign policy largely falls within the purview of the executive in the American system, the reflections of the midterm election results on the area of foreign policy will be relatively restricted. We will witness the Israeli lobby’s increasing influence in the Congress in the new term. However, this change should not make much of a difference in terms of Turkish-American relations. The risky issues for Turkey will remain the same, the real problems for Turkey being Israel and Iran’s nuclear program. The chief three issues that might complicate things for Turkey in the new term are arms sales, appointment of an ambassador and a genocide bill.

Its Impact on Domestic Politics and Economy

Every two years, American people go to the ballot. Unlike other elections, people do not vote for the presidential seat in midterm elections. Midterm elections determine all members of the lower chamber of the Congress, the House of Representatives, for two years; one-third of the higher chamber, the Senate, for six years; and resumptive governors for four years. The Republicans have come victorious in all of these posts in this midterm elections. Another reason why midterm elections are important in the American political system is the fact that their results indicate popular ratings for the incumbent president. Yet, because the executive branch makes foreign policy decisions, midterm elections do not cause major changes in that realm. American presidents losing in the midterm elections is not unprecedented. The losses Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton suffered in midterm elections during their terms can be remembered here. This, though, is not to deny that the loss Obama has inflicted amounts to shellacking. The reason is, no doubt, the American economy.

The crisis that helped Obama win the presidential elections in 2008 brought his defeat this time. One arena where the effects of this defeat will be seen will be the House of Representatives, to which Obama will have to apply for budget issues. The Republicans will be able to intervene in any budget, add new conditions, and prevent allocation of budget to any issue they do not like. Because the committee presidencies at the House of Representatives will be controlled by the Republicans, ministers, bureaucrats and generals will often be summoned to these committees in order to embarrass themselves in front of the public with tough questions.

Foreign policy-making powers are divided between the Senate and the executive in the U.S. system. The Senate, which is relatively more of an elite chamber, possesses the power to confirm appointment of various high-ranking officials including ambassadors and to sign international treaties. Hence, one can mention the relative influence of the Senate in foreign policy making. Because the Democrats are still in control of the Senate, though, Obama should not face any problems there. Nonetheless, as I just mentioned, the House of Representatives will create problems for Obama.

The fact that those with close ties to the Israeli lobby have emerged stronger from the midterm elections will lead to more provocative discussion of the issue of Iran in the House of Representatives. It is likely that we will see clamorous sessions in the House of Representatives on the issues of Palestinian-Israeli conflict and even Turkey. However, even if Obama will find himself in situations where he has to negotiate with the Republicans, the control will ultimately lay with Obama.

Midterm Elections and Turkey

There are three main issues that concern Turkey and lay within the powers of the Congress: The appointment of an ambassador, arms sales and a genocide bill. Since James Jeffrey, the former American ambassador to Turkey, left his post on July 31 to become the ambassador to Baghdad, the American ambassador seat in Ankara has been empty. Francis Ricciardione, whom the Obama administration had wanted to appoint, failed to get a green light by the Senate before the elections. If no ambassador to Turkey could be appointed when Democrats were more powerful, it will be even harder in the new term. Obama will either wait for some time to finalize this appointment or will pick another candidate. In either case, nothing new is expected to happen on this issue.

If this issue should trouble anyone, it is the American administration. The Israel Lobby generated the problem on the issue of arms sales. There was no serious change during the last term on the issue of high-tech weapons sales, which Turkey wants but which requires Congress’ approval. Since these sales hinge on the quality of Turkish-Israeli relations, the problem is not with Congress but Turkish-Israeli relations. Therefore, it is not possible to say the midterm elections will likely have positive or negative effects on this issue. But still, the fact that the numbers of those with ties to the Israeli lobby increased after the midterm elections will tie arms sales even more to the quality of Turkish-Israeli relations. On the other hand, while the Democrats’ ties to Israel are more categorical and organic, because Republicans’ relations with Israel are more security-focused they are more pragmatic. In other words, the way the rise of Republicans with a special penchant for Israel will influence Turkish-American relations will depend on the lacuna Turkey fills within American security structure. As a consequence, Turkey’s weight in the U.S. Congress will be tantamount to the extent to which Turkish-American relations enter a favorable track on security matters.

Finally, it can be said that Turkey’s position is stronger on the issue of the genocide bill because the presumptive House Speaker John Boehner’s stance is closer to Turkey’s position. But the next head of Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is Cuban and whose family is actually Sefarad from ancient Spain, sticks to a position closer to the line of the Israeli Lobby and Likud in general although she is distant to the genocide claims. Whereas former head Berman’s close ties to the White House somewhat restrained him from acting on his will, Ros-Lehtinen might tend to take steps in spite of Obama on this issue.

As a consequence, midterm elections will neither have significant ramifications for American foreign policy nor Turkish-American relations. Because the composition of the new Congress is more pro-Israeli on certain issues, the Congress will be more vocal against Turkey so as to influence Turkish domestic politics. Yet, except for the issue of the genocide bill, the Congress’s impact will remain at the level of simply being vocal. The possibility that we will observe unanticipated sessions on unexpected issues against Turkey in the new term is still high.