As we continue to discuss the Midterm Elections and their affect on the United States, it proves interesting to see how the elections will influence foreign relations. Returned guest blogger, Heather Edwards, will provide insight into foreign policy and where America stands as we move into a new year. Enjoy!
Mrs. Edwards Bio
Heather Edwards is currently finishing her MA in International Politics at Regent University and will graduate May 2011. In the meantime, she has worked for an NGO in the former Soviet Satellite countries for the past nine years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Heather Edwards
December 3, 2010
The 2010 U.S. elections have come and gone, leaving a Republican majority in the House and only a small margin for Democrats in the Senate; ultimately allowing Republicans to block Obama’s initiatives in both Houses of Congress, yet leaving them unable to legislate due to the Presidential veto. Obama no doubt intends to use legislative gridlock to his advantage in 2012 by shoring up the perception that Republicans are forever the “party of no.” In the meantime, while further expansion of the domestic liberal agenda is bound, he will assuredly seek to distinguish his presidential legacy by turning his attention to an area in which he still has control: foreign policy.
If the past two years are any indication, Obama’s foreign policy initiatives will not prove to be a success. His campaign promises for a radically different Middle East strategy have not materialized. Although he campaigned heavily against Bush’s Iraq policy, in reality his rhetoric has only yielded a slight change in timing on troop withdrawal. And, his pledge to deal with the “real war” in Afghanistan has merely resulted in slightly increased troop levels. Additionally, the administration’s policy toward Iran has to date not been significantly different than Bush’s sanctions, and has not produced any noteworthy change.
Although many of the world’s leaders were jubilant at his election, they have become disenchanted with Obama, also realizing that his policies are not radically different from his predecessor’s. George Friedman writes that over the first two years, he seemed to think that better relationships could be cultivated and the global neighborhood persuaded to fall into step with American objectives simply by reaching out with softened rhetoric and better, more rational explanations of American positions. However, Obama has gained a reputation for naivete in Europe for his belief that a less unilateral approach would be the determining factor in their level of troop provision, financial assistance and overall cooperation. In reality, Europe desired greater control over America’s foreign policy choices. Likewise in the Muslim world as in Europe, Obama has disappointed in that his friendly tone has not yielded an overall policy that is different.
Even the Russian “reset,” which one would expect to have been largely unproblematic, has produced more negativity than it has positive outcomes. Much of Eastern Europe is overlooked and consequently cynical about its relationship with its ally, the U.S., in the face of a resurgent, albeit not very strong, Russia that seeks to dominate its “near abroad” and reintegrate surrounding countries back into a system similar to the one it presided over prior to 1991. As liberal and democratic freedoms steadily decline throughout Russia, Ukraine and other countries in the region, the Obama administration says and does very little, if anything, to counteract this regression.
Obama should begin to address the real issues at hand by first abandoning the position that America’s primary problem is arrogance. The reality is that nations act and are expected to act upon their interests, and the U.S. is expected to take its central place on the stage of world affairs. Contrary to what they say, world leaders expect the U.S. to be a forceful presence in the world.
Obama needs to act decisively, attending to significant issues not only in the Middle East, but other parts of the world, dealing with the U.S.’s worsening relationship with China, Eastern Europe’s cynicism and the power vacuum that Russia is seeking to fill in the former Soviet satellite countries. If he does not, events will assuredly begin to unfold that are not to America’s benefit, and the U.S. will have lost its opportunity to influence and carve out its own interests. Presently, the U.S. has the ability to act as a strong player in world affairs. This matters, not only for the U.S. but for the world. Obama would have no one to blame but himself for failing to capitalize on such an obvious advantage.
