A Weakened International Leadership

It’s with something between fatigue and disbelief that the world witnesses the last American psychodrama. The “shutdown” is just the latest manifestation of the dysfunctions facing the United States and, by ricochet, the whole world.

First of all, there are repercussions on foreign policy. At the end of last week, the State Department announced the postponement of a second round of negotiations on trade and investment and the cancellation of President Obama’s trip to Asia. On one hand, the federal officials needed for the preparation of the summit are the ones missing. On the other hand, it is believed that the presence of the president in Washington is indispensable to fixing the crisis. Many public contracts abroad have been suspended. Following the example of the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns, we can expect that a return to normalcy will allow a fast restart of the U.S. government.

But the closure of the federal government is no more than an element of the crisis tied to the disastrous budgetary situation of the country. Behind the shutdown are the automatic budget cuts, in place since Mar. 1, that affect the budgets of the State Department and the Pentagon. Next week, it will also be necessary to raise the federal debt ceiling, fixed at $16.4 trillion. This ceiling can only be changed by law, which, in the context of hysteria on budgetary matters, will not be done without a new confrontation between the tea party, a radical minority, and the other members of Congress.

The World Economy Weakened

The risk of rating agencies lowering the country’s credit rating and the loss of confidence in the financial markets is not invalid, as well as the risk of a new recession with consequences for the rest of the world. The world economy is therefore weakened.

The important budget cuts imposed by the sequestration could, moreover, have more serious effects in reality than the shutdown by imposing long term changes to the foreign policy of the country. That is the case, for example, of the “pivot to Asia.” This policy, which the president announced during his first term, was supposed to be the main legacy of his foreign policy: the United States would finally clear out of the Middle East and its thousands of difficulties to move toward the Asia-Pacific region. Strong relations with the Southeast Asian countries were supposed to materialize through the redeployment of American forces. However, in the downward trend of the defense budget initiated since 2010, the sequestration added a cut of $37 billion dollars in 2013 and $52 billion in 2014. These elements have already made it clear to observers that the pivot to Asia will not go as planned.

Finally, picking up where the Syrian crisis left off, the shutdown contributes to the weakening of the image of the United States. In his latest book, “Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era,” Harvard professor Joseph Nye emphasizes the personal role of presidents in matters of foreign policy.

If Republicans treated Mr. Obama like a weak president, his supporters saw in him a wise and thoughtful president. However, the weeks that followed the chemical massacre on Aug. 21 in Syria have plunged the most faithful into doubt. His delays, in any case, have finished tarnishing his image in the Arab world. Beyond his person, it is the capacity of American leadership in the world that is doubted. Mr. Obama’s inability to bend the pro-tea party elected officials and to create a climate conducive to compromise with Congress reinforces the impression of weakness.

If the personality of the president is a decisive element in defining foreign policy, it is very possible that the next host of the White House will be able to redress the image of his country. The question then is what kind of man or woman will be the next American president.