Campaigns, be they political or military, are waged to be won, and the current US presidential campaign is no exception. The Democratic and Republican candidates are doing all they can to distinguish themselves from an unpopular incumbent and from one another in the remaining weeks before the vote.
For good reason, much attention is focused on foreign policy differences between the two nominees, which in many areas are both obvious and considerable. Still, it is possible to discern some similarities between them, in part because some of their disagreements are not as pronounced as they seem, and in part because the constraints that the next president will face are certain to limit what either man can do in office.
Consider Iraq, the most divisive issue in US politics for the past five years. Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama regularly points out that the decision to go to war was deeply flawed; his Republican rival Senator John McCain emphasizes how much things have turned around since early last year, when US troop numbers were increased and US strategy revised.
Observers could be forgiven for thinking that they are speaking about different conflicts.
But what about the future? No matter who wins next month, it is clear that Iraq will not dominate US foreign policy in the years ahead to anything near the degree that it has in recent years. We are entering the post-Iraq era of US foreign policy. Consistent with this, the US’ military presence is decreasing. Where the two candidates differ is on the timing and pace of this drawdown, not on its general direction.
By contrast, the US commitment to Afghanistan will increase and troop levels will climb. Behind this prediction is a widely shared assessment that the trends in Afghanistan — unlike in Iraq — are negative, and that the US must strengthen its military presence there and revise its strategy if the Taliban are not to gain the upper hand.
It is also widely understood that Pakistan has become part of the problem. Pakistan’s western reaches are now a sanctuary for militias and terrorists moving in and out of Afghanistan. Here, Obama appears more willing to have the US launch unilateral military raids against terrorists should the opportunity arise. But whoever is elected will confront difficult choices if a nuclear-armed Pakistan remains unable or unwilling to act as a US partner and meet its responsibilities in the effort against terrorism.
A third area of some consensus — and some distance from President George W. Bush — is climate change. Under the next president, the US will no longer be a drag on international efforts to create a global regime that sets a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions. One result of this likely evolution in US policy is that pressure will shift to other countries, particularly China and India, to accept some limits on their economic behavior.
McCain or Obama will take steps to improve the US’ image in the world. One of the first decisions will be to implement a ban on all forms of torture. Also to be expected early on is a decision to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, where terrorism suspects have been held for years without trial.
Iran is another area where the differences — at least initially — may not be as sharp as the campaign suggests. Both candidates have stressed that an Iran with nuclear weapons would be unacceptable. The victor will surely endorse a new diplomatic initiative aimed at ending Iran’s independent ability to enrich uranium. Less clear are the details of such an initiative, or what the US would do were it to fail.
The candidates’ statements on Iran do suggest two different philosophies of diplomacy. Obama seems to regard meeting foreign leaders as a normal component of foreign policy, to be employed as one of many tools.
McCain appears to embrace the view that such meetings are something of a reward, to be offered when preconditions are met (Iran comes to mind) and withdrawn when certain lines are crossed, as Russia was judged to have done in Georgia in August.
Despite such differences, either would carry out policies closer to those of Bush’s second term than his first. With a strained military and a struggling economy, the next president will often have little choice other than to talk.
On other issues, such as trade, there are distinctions between the candidates. McCain is a stronger advocate of free trade than Obama. But this difference may have less impact than meets the eye. Congress plays a large role in trade policy, and the near certainty that the Democratic Party’s majority in Congress will grow after the election means that protectionism will grow as well.
Difficult economic times will make it hard to generate support for trade pacts, despite the current importance of export-oriented firms for the US economy.
There are real and important differences between the two candidates when it comes to how they would approach the world. But there are also more similarities than might be evident from the debates and the campaign. Aspects of the next president’s foreign policy are there to see if observers read between the lines and take as much note of what is not said as what is.
Richard N. Haass, a former director of policy planning in the US State Department, is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS