Should Bush be re-elected solely to ensure stable foreign policy?

I'm bringing this up now for two reasons:

1. It's a long-time before the next election so people may not be quite so emotionally committed to certain candidates, so we can all view this with more abstraction

2. I've been doing some reading lately that makes me take this seriously.

America has a huge disadvantage in negotiating with most foreign powers: our Presidents are vulnerable to elections. They're incapable of asserting the longevity of their policies and US commitment to staying the course.

This really hurt the US, for example in our negotiations with China. Nixon was willing to exchange diplomatic recognition in exchange for security guarantees against the Soviet Union, but was constrained by domestic politicals from the right and left, who favored a hard-line on ALL communists or rapproachment with the Soviet Union, respectively. His policy, while it did achieve some success, was unable to attain specific policy goals such as a treaty ensuring a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem and Chinese concessions on human rights because of his inability to guarantee his promises. The ambiguity also rendered our security relationship more tenuous.

It wasn't until Carter's presidency that the US officially carried through with its promise to recognize the PRC.

There are numerous other examples of this... and if anyone wants to argue about the principle, we can. But until then, I ask the question.

If the situation regarding Afghanistan and terrorism in general is not resolved by the next election cycle, would you vote for Bush simply to ensure a stable, committed US policy that can be relied upon by our friends and enemies?

It's a tough question for me, since I really, really dislike Bush's domestic policies (and am pretty dubious about his international ones as well), but I acknowledge the need for continuity in a time of diplomatic crisis.

Anybody else worried about this? In the end, I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Bush... but I'd be more likely to vote for a Green Party candidate, or something, as a form of protest.

 

Mrs. JB = Mrs. Jeff Balke?

I'm not thinking of terrorism, per se, so much as nation-building. If you really want to ensure stability in Afghanistan, the US, via the UN, is going to have to play an active role. That's not going to be finished by 2004.

Incidentally, the election of Eisenhower fundamentally changed the course of Japanese politics during our experiment in nation-building, there. Before Eisenhower made some fundamental decisions about Japan, it appeared that we were going to completely break up the "old power fixtures."

Eisenhower decided that this could undermine Japan as a bastion against the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and undertook the "Reverse Course" (it could be argued that Truman intitiated it, but it was certainly exacerbated by Eisenhower's election). The Reverse Course preserved the existing elites in Japanese politics and set up the LDP, a monolithic, culturally conservative party that didn't lose power even once until the 1990's... when they were ousted for a grand total of 6 months. Japan has turned out fine... but it's probably still less democratic than it would have been had the administration not changed hands. A lot of fledgling Japanese pro-Democracy forces resented us for quite a while because of that.

Regime stability is most essential for diplomacy in times of conflict, whether you're protecting a country or attempting to exert leverage. With Russia, for example, there aren't any true prominent strategic issues besides NMD, and that's an issue of tertiary, rather than primary, significance.

Our policies towards most democracies are unlikely to change as a result of change of President. We like GB, France, Germany, etc. Nothing is going to waver regardless of who is elected.

That's not true for a nation-building project in Afghanistan. A liberal President would be far more likely to emphasize 1. regionalism and 2. democracy and human rights. Republican Presidents are usually more concerned with 1. stability and 2. the national interest.

By switching administrations, you make it difficult to achieve either of these goals, since the locals learn to "wait out the President" and policy is never completely, persistently, and effectively implemented.

Of course not. However, we've had an era in which domestic concerns overwhelmingly trumped foreign policy, simply because we were so powerful there was no reason to be concerned. Now that we may have increased interest in diplomacy, our stability and efficacy in foreign diplomacy becomes more important. hence the question.

 

I don't want to get into the Clinton/China crap again, but let me suffice it to say: the highest ranking naval commander in the Pacific has gone on the record as saying that even if any technology was transferred, which is uncertain, it was not militarily significant.

Besides, you can certainly level accusations at conservatives that their foreign policy is driven at the beck and call of US business interests... regardless of the implications to normal citizens. However, I don't want to have this out right now .

I'm willing to say this: almost every US politician, regardless of party affiliation, wants the most for our nation. And in foreign diplomacy, the desires of both sides are laudable (I mentioned the primary interest by party in the above response to Mrs. JB). It's a matter of prioritizing, not wanting one and not the other.

So if I had to choose between Bush's goals being realized which I value less than, say, Gore's likely goals in Afghanistan... I'd choose Gore's.

But what if it were a situation in which electing Gore would ruin progress made towards Bush's objectives? And that there wouldn't be any guarantee that Gore would be able to complete his objectives before being replaced himself?

Know something sort of sad? Almost all dynamic foreign policy measures take place in the 2nd or 3rd year of office. Read: after he can be easily accused of "sneaking" in issues that he didn't campaign on, and before they'll still be fresh for the election. This is a HUGE problem for American Presidents even compared to some of their counterparts who have longer tenures.


It's a problem of continuity. It's existed in the past and it's existed in the future. This isn't to say that Presidents should always be re-elected to preserve consistency, but that we should take it into account.

 

1. Regionalism requires that the US promote structures that accord a multinational institution quasi-"great power" status. Merely incorporating different Afghan groups does not accomplish this.

2. We have yet to see if the US will insist on a democracy. Personally, I think Bush will probably select the "path of least resistance" insofar as creating a new government.

No, I simply distinguish between rhetoric and substantive beliefs . Granted, that's a bit of a liberty on my part, but it's very doubtful that ANY US politician could utterly forsake nation-building. After all, if we don't like a regime... we often topple it. And vaccuum's are never in the interest of a superpower, much less anybody else.

What Bush REALLY meant is that he didn't like excessive US commitments abroad and US troops guaranteeing security in non-strategic regions like Bosnia. Read between the lines .

Generally, if you want to know what Bush thinks... read some of Condaleeza Rice's articles. I'm not bush-Bashing: the same thing applied to Clinton. Unfortunately, our last two Presidents haven't known crap about foreign policy.





Report

 

Ugh. I really, really meant to drop this one, but I couldn't let this go!

I liked most of Clinton's domestic foreign policy, but he was a real moron about his foreign policy. He let congress hold his foreign policy completely hostage to his domestic priorities, since he simply didn't care. Remember? "It's the economy, stupid!"

Merely on the Chinese issue, Clinton single-handledly managed to provoke the 95-96 Taiwan Straits crisis. Our policy for the past 15 years had been: Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Then suddenly, he lets congress bully him into giving their President-elect a visa and the guy is treated as an official diplomatic guest. THEN the guy delivers an inflammatory speech at Cornell. BAD IDEA!

All the while China was saying, don't do this, we'll have to react, this threatens our sovereignty. Clinton said his hands were tied.

So China starts lobbing missiles within 12.1 miles of Taiwanese territory... exactly at the limits of sea-rights designated by international law. China was deliberately issuing a warning that "Taiwan is important to us" while at the same time "we're not going to violate the Shanghai Communique by attacking."

At this point, Clinton actually did relatively well by sending two carriers two reciprocate the symbol, while not provoking a crisis by letting the Chinese know where they were and not sailing up the strait.

But the entire thing was unnecessary, and happened because Clinton was willing to sacrifice foreign policy to domestic objectives.

Earlier, Clinton caved by delinking MFN from human rights and failed to send a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia (despite campaigning on both these issues)!