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 FPA’s Pakistan blog notes that conditions are dire in Pakistan’s quake zone. Given the fragility of the U.S. alliance with Pakistan (due in part to recent drone attacks), there is an opportunity here to work on relationship building. An immediate and substantial offer of humanitarian assistance by the U.S. would go a long way toward winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Let’s demonstrate that the U.S stands by allies in times of trouble.

You are president and confronted with a situation which tests your basic philosophy about diplomatic negotiation, your philosophy can be described as:

A. Talk with friends and ignore enemies.

B. Talk to friends and enemies.

This is the simplistic depiction of how diplomatic negotiation has been presented during the election and we can all acknowledge that reality is much more complex. The Progress Report blog offered a post today that examines the issue and explains why the Bush Administration has both vilified negotiating with enemies while pragmatically doing just that. I suspect that a McCain Administration would continue that tradition, while an Obama Administration would dispense entirely with the notion that enemies are not worthy of direct negotiation. The voters will soon decide which approach best reflects the American temperament.

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.

Glenn Greenwald reacts in this Salon piece to an op-ed in The Washington Post by a Democrat and a Republican urging the next president to immediately prepare for war with Iran. Here is a quote that I find interesting:

It’s just objectively true that there is no country in the world — anywhere — that threatens to attack and bomb other countries as routinely and blithely as the U.S. does.  What rational leader wouldn’t want to obtain nuclear weapons in a world where the “superpower” is run by people like Dan Coats and Chuck Robb who threaten to attack and bomb whatever countries they want?  Even the Coats/Robb Op-Ed argues that Iranian proliferation would be so threatening to the U.S. because “the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent” — in other words, they’d have the ability to deter a U.S. attack on their country, and we can’t have that.

My question then is: Is the U.S. creating the world it is reacting against, a world in which nuclear proliferation and anti-Americanism are the primary choices left to rising regional powers? Are we creating the threats, or are we prudently anticipating and reacting to threats that would exist regardless of the path the U.S. takes?