Syria, Iran, Israel please form an orderly queue. The United States is out for lunch, closed for refurbishment, putting you on hold. OK, OK I’ll stop with the metaphors. Reading through any world news of late, be it conflict in Syria or the ongoing face off between Iran and Israel, one cannot deny that the U.S is considerably vacant. It must be election time!
Presidential elections in the US are naturally more often fought and won over domestic issues- prosperity, economic growth and employment to name just a few, than that of international politics. Such issues are of course in the current economic climate, of great prevalence to the U.S electorate. However, it does baffle me how American foreign policy lurks in the shadows, not just in the current presidential election campaigns, but during American presidential elections in general. My puzzlement is threefold:
Firstly, although the President is in general terms outweighed by Congress in the realm of foreign policy, the man that the United States places in the White House is often regarded as the most important individual in deciding America’s external relations. True, the title of Commander and Chief of the Military holds little weight outside of wartime but on an everyday level the President is Chief Diplomat, appointee of executive officials and a figure who many Americans appear to trust above all others in foreign affairs.
Secondly, yes the balance of global power is shifting, America may not command the same authority it did in 1945, yet American foreign policy choices can and will have direct consequences in the Middle East, Asia and Eurasia to name a few. While Americans may quite rightly cast their vote based on domestic considerations, the world holds it breath in anticipation for the crucial foreign policy decisions made after the election.
And finally, if it is the case (which I highly doubt) that voters are just simply not interested in foreign policy in the slightest, the world is now so interconnected and interdependent that America’s recovery and future prosperity rests heavily on the relationships it has with those outside its borders. Improving unemployment, lack of market confidence and America’s considerable balance deficit rests just as much on establishing and maintain a good working relationship with the likes of Brazil and China as it does on effective policy at home.
This year the world has watched while the US does little on many major issues, often if not openly then tacitly justified by the spectre of the November Presidential Elections. Obama, as early as March of this year has candidly, but unintentionally, expressed this during talks with Russia regarding the next step in missile defence talks and the New Start treaty. This from a president who set forth an ambitious target of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, with what appeared a dogged like determination to take every opportunity to drive this agenda forward. By sweeping important foreign policy decisions under the rug as soon as electioneering looms, it’s no wonder the American public are less probing in this policy area. It is unrealistic to expect foreign policy to be as eventful during the year of presidential elections as it is in others. However, by facing up to decisions regarding international challenges, Obama would not only make his views clear, but force the Republicans to put forward their own stance, resulting in the American public making a more informed and considered vote come election day.
It may be a fundamental reality that the American political system doesn’t lend itself to visionary or distinct foreign policy. Some may put this down to a broad bipartisan consensus, or a realist, practical approach to external events. However, I believe it is a product of a short, fixed Presidential term where the window of opportunity between the task of setting up house, and preparing to once again face the electorate is a slight one indeed. If however, the American electorate demanded more from their President and potential President when it comes to the biggest foreign policy questions of the day, the election year need not be period of foreign policy hiatus.
