Unchartered Waters
By Scott Crichlow
It is
possible to overstate the influence of the results of November's
presidential election on American foreign policy. After all,
priorities such as maintaining a close friendship with Israel,
sanctioning Castro's Cuba, and fighting for the interests of
U.S. corporations abroad would have remained constant in 2005
no matter who had won. Economic interests and deeply ingrained
cultural ties constantly shape our choices in foreign affairs,
and there is more agreement among Americans on the appropriate
goals of U.S. foreign policy than you would usually think after
watching the divisive evening programming on CNN, MSNBC, and
FOX.
Although there are constants in U.S. foreign policy, presidential elections matter. This is true in a host of substantial ways. In the 2004 campaign, perhaps the starkest foreign policy choice laid out by the candidates themselves dealt with the Bush administration's commitment to an unusual level of unilateralism in its relationships with the rest of the world.
The president believes that it is through acting in an unhindered manner that the U.S. will be able to maximize its interests. He values the freedom of movement that this allows, and the ability to maintain ideologically pure postures free from compromise. This approach may be most obvious in his Iraq policies. Other countries support the U.S. effort in Iraq, but the vast majority of the burdens are carried by Americans. These burdens are substantial. But the behavior of the Bush administration has shown that it prefers bearing those costs to relinquishing a fraction of its operational control to others.
This strong tactical inclination has shaped the president's responses to other international problems as well. Probably the most striking example of its effects is the Bush team's remarkable disinterest in codifying major international agreements. For decades, presidents have approved detailed treaties aimed at locking in treaty partners in ways that force them to comply with a treaty's terms. But if your preference is unilateral action, locking yourself into an agreement is not appealing. This has resulted in such unexpected events as the Bush administration fighting to weaken the verification requirements of treaties that seek to limit the spread of nuclear-weapons material. This orientation has affected not only what we do, but also what we choose not to do. Some problems defy easy unilateral responses, and there has been much criticism that the president has simply ignored problems, for example North Korea's nuclear-weapons program, that lack an appealing unilateral solution.
Senator Kerry criticized this change in U.S. foreign policy vociferously. He noted that if we expect others to work with us, be it through opening their markets, sharing information on international terrorists, or getting others to share the burdens of international operations, we must be more willing to listen to the world, especially our longtime allies. A Kerry presidency might have pushed the tactics of foreign policy closer to the style that dominated U.S. foreign policy under presidents of both parties for decades following World War II. Those policies played a role in fundamental changes in world politics that greatly furthered U.S. interests: the collapse of the Soviet Union; curtailing several economic powers from becoming major military powers; limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, etc. But Kerry's critique was not enough for him to win the White House.
The president's reelection means that the U.S. will likely slip further away from old allies, permanent alliances, and international organizations we founded. The president remains firm in his belief that we are now in a new era that requires fundamentally different strategies and tactics. Where his unilateralism will take us, and how others will respond to it, remains to be seen. But by electing a candidate committed to four more years of this approach one thing is clear: the American electorate has thrown off the traditional moorings of U.S. foreign policy, and the president is leading us into uncharted waters.