U.S. Role in the World

We shared our election with the world and now the world is celebrating the outcome, this from the AP:

In concert halls and ballrooms, in plazas and at beach parties, people across the globe hailed Barack Obama’s election as a stroke for racial equality and voiced hopes his presidency would herald a balanced, less confrontational America. […] Many acknowledged that - for better or worse - America’s economic, military and cultural might made the election globally important. […] Hopes were also high among many critical of President Bush’s policies that an Obama victory would herald a more inclusive, internationally cooperative U.S. approach.

The report notes reaction in Australia, China, Japan, Brazil, India, Germany, Kuwait, Israel, Iraq, and Indonesia. And according to this AP report, the American expat community abroad has noticed a definite change in tone. And finally, CNN notes that there have been celebrations in Kenya and throughout Africa embracing the vision of hope offered by the election of America’s first African-American president. The U.S. has earned a windfall of global goodwill and now we ask, will this shared sense of possibility and optimism for the future transform for the better the U.S. role in the world?

Here it is at last, Election Day. I anticipated the long lines and voted early so now I’m just sitting back, eagerly awaiting the ballot counts. There is something truly majestic about the process of democracy. Perhaps it’s merely the mood of the day, but I do tend to get a stirring of patriotic sentiment as I watch the process unfold, the willingness of citizens to brave cold, wind, rain or snow and stand in lines for hours to cast their vote in this orderly nonviolent transition of awesome power. The U.S. is not the oldest democracy in the world or the largest (India), but we do take great pride in being an example, a role model, of the democratic process. In this report from Daily Nation, a Kenyan daily newspaper, we find an affirmation of how the U.S. example resonates around the word:

At a time when everyone, except, of course, the loser, is excited about the election outcome in the United States, it is necessary for us in Kenya, and in Africa in general, to ask ourselves how it is that a gruelling 21-month campaign period can be so free of the sort of incidents that always mar our best efforts in the electoral process. […] Is there, perhaps, something wrong with the way we Africans view competitive politics? The relatively genteel manner in which the candidates conducted themselves should be a lesson for Africa. […] Here is one value that can profit us in Kenya — that true democracy requires tolerance and the ability to give in with grace when we lose a political contest.

There are very real differences between the U.S. political parties, different world views, and yet we know that at the end of this day, John McCain or Barack Obama will make a concession speech in which they thank their supporters and pledge their support for the new president. More than the principle of representatives democracy it is perhaps this idea of the legitimacy of the process itself, and the idea that the losing party lives on to fight another day (on to the next election!), that can contribute most to the new and emerging democracies of the world.

As the U.S. presidential election enters the final hours we here at U.S. Role are taking a look at how the election is playing in the world. First, this nod from Voice of America to our own national estimation of how the world is paying attention to us as a role model for democracy:

U.S. President George Bush is encouraging all Americans to vote in national elections Tuesday and prove to the world that self-government can endure. During his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush said U.S. elections serve as a model, especially to young democracies such at Georgia, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iraq.

And second, I call your attention to this AP report that notes world reaction and varied expectations about the U.S. election, focusing on opinion in Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Vietnam and Pakistan. We Americans tend to be rather self-absorbed about the election, but it’s worth noting that whoever wins tomorrow, the world will be watching.

The AP reports that a substantial number of voters remain undecided as we count down to the election. If you are one of those undecided voters and have an interest in foreign policy please see the Foreign Policy Association’s Election Guide 2008, it features candidate profiles by issue area, video of the candidates discussing the issues, and a user poll to make your voice heard. From Iraq to climate change to energy policy, where do you stand on U.S. foreign policy? The poll results will be compiled and sent to the White House, Congress and other elected officials. Vote today!

The OneWorld Network is a news and community portal for non-governmental organizations and non-profits and they have assembled an election site that does a great job of comparing and contrasting the candidates positions on foreign policy issues:

U.S. presidential candidates McCain and Obama would each make major changes to the national security and foreign policies carried out by the Bush administration, but their ideas of change are very different, says the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. […] The following analysis is based on several indicators: the candidates’ U.S. Senate voting records; their national security platforms as laid out in articles, op-eds and speeches; and their responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires. Although campaign pledges and voting records do not always accurately translate into actual policy, they can provide important clues as to the future president’s inclinations.

Foreign policy issues covered include: the Iraq war, Iran policy, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and North Korea. The issue summaries are fully linked to source material and comments from registered members of the site are welcomed.

The differences between the two presidential candidates on the issue of Iraq is well known, but is it possible that both presidential candidates have the same, or at least similar, views on when the U.S. should use military force in other circumstances? According to this report in The Washington Post, the answer is yes. The report notes the following points of agreement:

• both have revealed a willingness to commit U.S. forces overseas for both strategic and humanitarian purposes
• both agree on a course of action in Afghanistan that could lead to a long-term commitment of American soldiers without a clear statement of how long they might remain or what conditions would lead to their withdrawal
• both candidates favor expanding the armed forces, Obama by 92,000 and McCain by as many as 150,000
• both speak of situations when the United States might have to commit its troops for “moral” reasons, whether or not a vital American interest was at risk
• both accept […] the “unspoken consensus which commits the United States to permanent military primacy”
• both have declared that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be permitted
• both men avoid any broad commitment to the use of force in any situations other than direct attacks or imminent threats to the United States

Given that it is certain that the next president will be called upon to decide on new military commitments, it is comforting that there is a high level of consensus among the two candidates on the important question of the use of military force.

As we count down to the national election voters are looking for every bit of information they can use to help evaluate the candidates. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has assembled some resources devoted to examining the foreign policy issues facing the next president:

Next January, the new U.S. President will be confronted with the longest list of severe challenges any president has faced in decades. Prioritizing among them will be even more important than usual. In its new series, “Foreign Policy for the Next President“, the Carnegie Endowment’s experts endeavor to do just that. They separate good ideas from dead ends and go beyond widely agreed goals to describe how to achieve them.

Topics in the series include nuclear weapons, dealing with Iran, engaging Pakistan, the rise of Asia, the League of Democracies idea, Mideast peace, and climate change.

When former Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on Meet the Press and endorsed Senator Obama he specifically mentioned Gov. Palin’s candidacy as one of the reasons for his doubts about the Republican ticket:

And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin.  She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.  And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

In the realm of foreign affairs, how would these misgivings be addressed? In  (Not Quite) 101 Things Sarah Palin Should Know About the World, Foreign Policy magazine offers some advice for educating this potential world leader. I found some of their advice to be, well, less than serious, but take a look and see what you make of it. What advice would you give to Sarah Palin about world affairs?

The U.S. presidential election is entering its final weeks and it’s not surprising to find most news media saturated with election coverage. Most of it naturally concerns domestic politics, so I’d like to call your attention to an excerpt on the American Diplomacy website of analysis by George Friedman, founder and Chief Intelligence Officer of Stratfor, examining the geopolitical impact of the U.S. presidential election.

The next president will have an opportunity to improve the image of the U.S. role in the world. A recent survey of international public opinion by the Washington-based Pew Research Center found that regard for the U.S. is quite low, even among our allies. This video report from NBC News highlights that survey and notes the challenge facing the next president in restoring trust in American leadership. If you were president, what would you do to reverse the trend and rebuild support for the U.S. role in the world?