American Foriegn Policy

[Zurkhardo]

All change?

Mar 27th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Whether it is Clinton, McCain or Obama, the world will still quarrel with America's foreign policy

TO JUDGE by the polls, millions of people in America and around the world are gasping to see the back of George Bush. With his going, America can extract itself from a catastrophic war in the Middle East, stop its preaching and bullying, win back lost friends and rediscover its founders' advice to show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. Or so the millions hope. They had better prepare for a disappointment.

There are several ways in which the next president can indeed act fast to restore America's world standing. But the list is short. The mere fact of not being Bush will bring a dividend of goodwill. On top of this, he or she should send out an early message that on some issues the change of guard will mean a change of heart. An America that closed Guantánamo, imposed a clear ban on any sort of torture (by the CIA as well as the army) and shut the CIA's secret prisons could once again claim to lead the free world by example and not just by military power. A new president should also say more forthrightly than Mr Bush ever dared that America means to co-operate in the fight against global warming, and will consider joining the International Criminal Court. Mr Bush's cavalier rejection of the Kyoto protocol, and his hostility to the ICC, did much to antagonise the world even before the war in Iraq.

After the easy wins

All these would be welcome changes of substance and symbolism. But even this short list will throw up difficulties. Closing Guantánamo may require America to try the suspected terrorists it can build a case against but let the others go free—free, if nobody else takes them, on American soil. And although it is easy for a president to promise international co-operation on climate change, it is hard to make Congress enact laws that trample on vested interests, threaten to hamper growth or price Americans out of their huge cars. The Senate would not have ratified Kyoto even if Mr Bush had asked it to.

Besides, these “easy” early wins do not come close to encompassing the broad sweep of policy that the wider world wants the new broom to change. Millions of Europeans (including the faithful Brits—see our poll) want America to stop playing world sheriff and submit to the same rules as everyone else under the United Nations. A billion or more Muslims want America to boot Israel out of the West Bank, if not dismantle the Jewish state altogether. Strong constituencies at home and abroad are impatient to see America quit Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not just Russians who find America's plans for missile defence in Europe provocative, or Iranians who say the sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme reek of double standards. Most of the world sympathised with America after September 11th, but a large and prickly chunk of it now sees its war against terrorism as a war against Islam.

You have only to inspect this catalogue of things different parts of the world want America to do or to stop doing to see that the new president's honeymoon will be short. No president can satisfy this great welling up of external demands.

And none, of course, should try. Showing a decent respect for the opinions of mankind does not mean competing in a global popularity contest at the expense of sound policy. Much of the next president's foreign policy will, rightly, continue the present one. Its central aims will include preserving the NATO alliance (see article), holding the line against nuclear proliferation, and undergirding the security of allies such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea in Asia and Israel and the Gulf Arabs in the Middle East. America under a new president will need to adapt to the relentless rise of China without seeking refuge in a self-defeating protectionism, keep a weather eye on a newly obstreperous Russia and—yes—continue to seek out and fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

America has a tradition of bipartisanship in foreign policy. As our special report this week argues, Iraq makes this election different. For the Republicans, John McCain has said that America must finish the job even if it lasts a hundred years. Both Democrats promise to start withdrawing troops in early 2009. A stark choice, at first blush. But look beyond the hyperbole. Barack Obama promises to have most combat troops out within 16 months, but would leave some behind; and Hillary Clinton will commit herself only to 2013—if possible. Though many Democrats are angered by such wriggles, the candidates are wise not to box themselves into a corner on Iraq (as, alas, they almost have on NAFTA and free trade).

No matter where you stood in 2003, and we argued for the invasion (see article), it is impossible to deny that the war in Iraq turned into a humanitarian calamity. Its fifth anniversary coincided with the loss of the 4,000th American soldier and a new outbreak of fighting (see article). But the overall trend since the start of General David Petraeus's “surge” last year has been positive. For a future president to decide now what to do in Iraq a year hence would be folly. However flawed the reasons for invading Iraq, the consequences of a premature exit could be worse, not just for America's own standing in a region vital to its economic and security interests, but for the Iraqis too.
Much will stay the same

It is peculiar how often foreigners are surprised to learn that American presidents serve American interests, not those of the world at large. Often, these interests overlap. America and the rest of mankind will benefit alike from tackling climate change and from spreading democracy, free markets and a liberal trading system—and the peace on which such a system depends. A new president needs to make this case anew. But they do not always overlap. And in a world that is still Hobbesian, the country that is for now still the world's sole superpower is going to continue to put its own interests first.

That is why Mr Bush's promise of a “humble” foreign policy could not survive the extraordinary attack that fell on America on September 11th and sucked him into Afghanistan and Iraq. By the second term a chastened administration was once again seeing the value of working with allies when that is possible. But when it is not possible, America relies on itself. The instinct of the next president will be no different.

[Morgoth]

Whata load of rainbows and pixies crap. I swear these morons have learned nothing from history.

[EternalMothra]

I agree....common sense seems to come sparingly unfortunately.

[Zurkhardo]

Elaborate :P

[Hybrid Gojira]

....

That article is utter trash.

The people who will be elected are not going to solve all Bush has done wrong. McCain is convinced Iran is the devil, and Obama and Clinton want to watch Iraq implode by withdrawing troops. It's just a craptastic situation with no sure-fire answers.

And to be frank, it's not all his fault to begin with. We have moronic judges and Congress deserves just as much of the blame for anything that is done, INCLUDING Iraq since hey - they gave him power to do what he wanted.

[Morgoth]

Ah yes, and lets talk about Kyoto and every other environmental treaty out there. Unless Red China signs on, these treaties aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Worse, they will make the industry of any country that does sign on less competetive with the commies. We already have enough of a trade defecit with the Red Chinese. Lets also ignore the fact that man-made global warming is a hobgoblin invented by certain individuals as a tool for social, commercial and political manipulation. There are a hell of alot of reasons that we need to cut down on emissions and oil consumption, but global warming ain't one of them. Explain to me how if Mars, Venus, just about anything we can observe in the solar system is also warming up isn't related to what's going on here.

Then there's all the pap about democracy as the cure for all ills. It's a placebo folks, democracies work only when the people understand and want it. Otherwise you end up with situations where people like Hitler are voted into office, or Idi Amin becomes - hell I'm not even going to try and list that moron's titles. Democracy and freedom don't promote peace and goodwil, just ask the Greeks and a little thing called the Pelo*****ian War. Stable countries are those with a strong power maintaining control over the excesses of both expression and capitalism. We're in the early stages of paying the price for ignoring that. You can't let the unwashed mob, unlettered and uninformed, make the decisions crucial to survival. ****, the school system in this country has become so corrupt and inefficient, half these tards can't even spell 'common sense'. And if you doubt that, I have two words for you: Robert Blake. Twelve Californians found him innocent of shooting his wife. His defence amounted to going back to the restaurant because he forgot his gun! Oh, AND this was also eerily similar to the plot for the pilot episode of his TV series 'Baretta' back in the 1970's! Yet these people are allowed to vote!

I could go on, but I'm just getting angry now.

[Kaiser Kronos]

So.....the world wants us to stop being the world's policemen, eh? Sure, let's stop....

and watch it go to hell in a handbasket squared....

Seriously, some of what they say is pretty accurate, but much of it is bullshit.

Everyone should realize I am no Bushie, yet to blame George Bush, the most incompetent President in U.S. history for everything....

Russia still feels the scars from the Mongols, much less from Barbarossa (though the latter was self-inflicted), so of course missles in Poland and re-encouraging the Chechens by allowing the Kosovo secession were dumb.

The U.N. is a joke, as if the U.S. did play by the rules, Russia or the PRC would veto every action we'd actually want to take.

The war on terror is not purely a war on Islam. The Maoists we are trying to exterminate in the Philippines hardly qualify as Islamic.

Too...much...bullshit.....

[Morgoth]

Somewhat off-topic, but I just spotted Kaiser's signature. I still have a 'Vote for Cthulhu' campaign button from '92. Part of Chaosium's 'Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?' presidential campaign kit. And, of course, Cthulhu was the canidiate of the Elder Party.

[Goji Son]

No matter who is in office, their presidency is going to be marred, it just depends on how much they **** up to measure the degree of how marred their presidency is.

[Hybrid Gojira]

LOL@ Goji Son's Sig


I am actually watching Alien right now.

But man, your depiction makes the real thing pale in comparison...

[Kaiser Kronos]

Originally Posted by Goji Son

No matter who is in office, their presidency is going to be marred, it just depends on how much they **** up to measure the degree of how marred their presidency is.

Bush and Carter are very similar. Religious people who handed the American people **** on a platter after the ends of their terms. Unfortunately, there's no Reagan to wave air freshener around and say "It's all good!" this time.