What about the world?
Richard N Haass
America's next President will face a host of pressing and difficult
foreign policy challenges - and how he or she responds will affect not
only the US, but the entire world. In the meantime, though, foreign
policy will have only an indirect influence on Americans' choice.
As America's primaries move beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, it is
simply impossible to predict who will be the Democratic and Republican
nominees, much less who will become the 44th President of the United
States. But it is not too soon to address the question of what effect US
foreign policy is having on the campaign and what it reveals about how
Americans see the world.
To the surprise of many seasoned observers, foreign policy is having
only a modest impact on voters. This is unexpected, because only six
months ago the war in Iraq dominated the political landscape.
Although Iraq still matters a lot to Americans, its importance for
determining how they vote has receded, partly because US casualties
there are markedly down as the security situation appears to be
gradually improving. As a result, there is considerably less public
pressure to do something dramatically different.
Foreign policy has also become less salient than it was only months
ago as the chance of war between the US and Iran has diminished,
following the recently published National Intelligence Estimate on
Iran's nuclear programme.
The judgement by America's intelligence community that Iran has
suspended its nuclear weapon development programme - and, more
importantly, that its large-scale uranium enrichment capacity is likely
years away - postpones the day when a US President may have to decide
between living with or attacking a nuclear Iran.
A third reason for the modest impact of international issues on
voters' choice of the next president is another surprising development:
more agreement between and among the leading candidates than meets the
eye. There is something of a consensus, for example, emerging around the
notion that the US should remain in Iraq for some time to come, albeit
with a reduced level of military forces.
There is also widespread acknowledgement that the US must do more
both at home and diplomatically to address global climate change; that
the US must work with its European allies to prevent Afghanistan from
slipping back into anarchy; and that the US must take the strongest
possible stand against terrorism and those who would support it in any
way.
No major candidate is advocating anything remotely resembling
isolationism. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the deterioration
of America's economy is now overshadowing foreign policy. The greatest
crisis facing many Americans is their increasing inability to meet their
monthly mortgage payments. Recession, job loss, and expensive oil, not
war, is what Americans fear most for 2008.
This is not to suggest that foreign policy is absent from the
campaign. Along with the economy, a dominant issue on the political
agenda - and one that has affected Republican politics in particular -
is immigration. There is growing opposition to illegal entry, but no
consensus about what to do about those who have been in the country
illegally for years or those who want to come to the US in the future.
It is also possible to see in the politics of both parties mounting
concern about globalisation. With tougher economic times inevitably come
tougher positions toward foreign competition and outsourcing.
There may also be latent concern about foreign policy in the
attention being given to the quantity and quality of candidates'
relevant experience. A desire for "change" is a common refrain of the
American debate, but it is far from the only one.
Renewed interest in foreign policy and the rest of the world could
surface if there were a dramatic overseas development. We saw this a few
weeks ago, when former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was
assassinated. Democratic and Republican candidates alike were called
upon to explain what they would be prepared to do if there were an
opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden or a need to secure Pakistan's
nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Iraq could return to centre stage if the positive momentum
of recent months were suddenly reversed, perhaps following a new
outbreak of violence between the country's Sunnis and Shia.
The US and Iran could go to war not over nuclear issues but because
of reckless behaviour by the Revolutionary Guards (as occurred recently
in the Strait of Hormuz), with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
possibly seeking to provoke a crisis in order to distract domestic
attention from his economic failures. Order in Pakistan could break down
irretrievably. A terrorist attack could remind Americans of their
fundamental vulnerability. The possibilities are endless.
America's next President will face a host of pressing and difficult
foreign policy challenges - and how he or she responds will affect not
only the US, but the entire world. In the meantime, though, foreign
policy will have only an indirect influence on Americans' choice.
The writer is President of the Council on Foreign Relations and
author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course. |