Whether US President George W. Bush or Senator John Kerry wins the White House next Tuesday, the next president faces an overflowing in-tray of international problems.
America's global power has never been greater. But never, since the Sept. 11 catastrophe, has the US' global leadership been under such sustained challenge. Rarely have issues of foreign policy had such a direct, existential bearing on America's sense of itself and its security. Rarely has what the US president decides mattered so much to so many.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
The most immediate worry is the security situation in Iraq. As the US tries to steer the country to elections in January, the predicted surge in violence may be compounded by a Sunni Muslim poll boycott. The insurgent redoubt of Falluja is again the likely, lethal flashpoint.
Iran's nuclear ambitions are moving up the agenda. On Nov. 25, the International Atomic Energy Agency must decide whether to report Iran to the UN Security Council. If it does so, punitive sanctions could follow. If the UN fails to agree, the White House will come under pressure, not least from Israel, to consider unilateral measures including possible military action.
The next president will also quickly face demands, from British Prime Minister Tony Blair among others, to launch a new drive to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict -- which many European and Arab governments view as a precondition for winning the "war on terror."
Other problems in need of action include the humanitarian crisis in Sudan that the US Congress has termed genocide but which is proving resistant to international remedies.
Some European diplomats fear a second Bush term could open the way for a sweeping expansion of Republican neo-conservative policies.
This would only exacerbate existing divisions over issues such as the Kyoto climate change treaty, global trade and development, and international law.
Victory for Kerry would entail different kinds of uncertainty. A sort of interregnum would ensue until his inauguration next January. Once in office, a new Democratic administration would take months to settle in -- confronted in all probability by a hostile Republican-controlled Congress.
Whoever wins, these are some of the principal issues facing the next president:
ANTI-AMERICANISM
The Bush presidency has brought a surge in anti-American sentiment, notably in the Arab, Muslim and European spheres. This phenomenon is undermining US influence and effectiveness across the board, making it difficult to persuade others to follow America's lead.
For the first time, the US is seen by majorities in many countries, especially by younger Muslims, as a potential enemy rather than a friend.
Such conclusions are borne out by a clutch of international opinion surveys and by an official worldwide study undertaken last year by a former US ambassador, Edward Djerejian. He found the US was losing the battle for hearts and minds. Since then, the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib abuse scandals have further damaged America's standing abroad.
TERRORISM
While the next president will be under intense pressure to win the "war on terror," it remains unclear exactly who or where the enemy is -- or how it can best be defeated.
Despite the elimination of some leading al-Qaeda figures, Osama bin Laden remains at large. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda's cause has devolved to loose-knit, copycat groups in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Chechnya and Pakistan. The Iraq insurgency has proved both magnet and recruiting sergeant for Islamist extremists.
Bush has repeatedly claimed to have al-Qaeda and its affiliates on the run. But a report this month by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London estimated that al-Qaeda can potentially draw on 18,000 operatives in 60 countries. Al-Qaeda, it said, had been "galvanized" by the Iraq war.
Unless remedial action is taken, the "war on terror" will continue to be destabilizing in geopolitical terms. It has been used by states such as Israel, Russia and China to justify harsher treatment of nationalists and separatists. It has drawn the US into problematic alliances with undemocratic regimes in central Asia. And it has led to divisive erosion of civil liberties abroad and in the US
PROLIFERATION
Bush and Kerry agree that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the single most serious threat to international security. While the next president's focus will be on Iran and North Korea, a bigger fear is that non-state actors such as al-Qaeda will obtain weapons of mass destruction (WMD). North Korea claims already to have nuclear weapons.
Multilateral negotiations to induce it to disarm have stalled. Kerry says he will talk directly to Pyongyang, something Bush refuses to do.
Syria is another concern, as is a region-wide Middle East WMD arms race should Iran obtain the bomb. Unsecured WMD-related stockpiles in the former Soviet Union and smuggling rings like that uncovered in Pakistan are also a big worry vis a vis future terrorist capabilities.
All these problems are compounded by the weakness of international regulation, inspection and verification regimes and by the "double standards" of existing nuclear powers which refuse to renounce their weapons.
CONFLICT ZONES
The US urgently needs more international military and UN civilian support in Iraq. Washington will ask NATO and Muslim countries to contribute additional troops at a conference in Egypt next month. Severe US military over-stretch lies behind the recent, controversial request for British redeployments in Iraq. Overall, meeting the US' myriad global military commitments is becoming increasingly expensive and problematic in terms of personnel, hence the speculation about a post-election draft.
The US remains heavily committed in Afghanistan, with 20,000 troops still fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. There are also growing concerns about a reviving instability in the Balkans, particularly in Kosovo where final-status talks are due to begin next year.
Israel-Palestine and Iraq apart, the Middle East as a whole remains a critical national security concern for any US president, given America's chronic dependence on oil. Bilateral post-Sept. 11 relations with Saudi Arabia are especially fraught.
OLD RIVALS
China's rapid economic growth is creating political and geo-strategic challenges for America which the next president will be forced to address.
Bilateral trade is booming. The Olympics are coming to Beijing. But China remains an undemocratic Communist state with a poor human rights record. President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) is an unknown quantity. Yet the US needs China's good offices if, for example, the North Korean stand-off is to be ended.
Russia is another potential problem, despite relatively greater stability under President Vladimir Putin. Moscow's reaction to the Beslan school tragedy has revived questions about Putin's authoritarianism -- which also affects countries in the "near abroad" like Ukraine and Georgia.
Like China, Russia is developing new long-range missiles in response to Bush's "son of Star Wars" ballistic missile defense project, prompting fears of a new arms race.
MULTILATERALISM
US relations with leading EU countries, especially France, are in need of repair. But trade and other disputes with the EU will certainly figure on the next president's agenda.
More fundamentally challenging is the EU's gradual emergence as a global political player. Its development of a collective military capability, potentially undermining NATO, is a gauntlet that the White House may be obliged to pick up. This in turn relates to knotty questions about the legitimacy of intervention and "just war" concepts.
Radically different European attitudes to the UN and upholding international law through institutions such as the world court and the International Criminal Court are key areas of contention. UN reform is another pressing issue.
Underlying all these concerns is the European insistence on multilateral approaches to common problems, in contrast to Bush-era unilateralism. For the next president, perhaps the most difficult challenge will be to decide if and when the US goes it alone. If Bush has proved anything, it is that even the US cannot do it all.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS