On Election Day, United States voters decided to overturn the 12-year contiguous Republican control of Congress. Will there be any foreign policy shift now that there is a Democratic majority?
Probably, but it’s not as severe as some are predicting. The most critical and oft discussed change involves the United States’ strategy in Iraq, specifically concerning withdrawal. Several leading Democrats and a few Republicans have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, whereas others have demanded that a specific timetable be set. The White House had managed to stall the debate for the past year or so, but with the Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate the issue is probably going to be forced to a debate.
How that debate will turn out is still unknown. With a solid majority in both houses in favor of at least a specifically scheduled withdrawal, the troops are likely to be pulled out within the next two years. There is still a lot of indecision, however, especially on the question of where the deadline should fall. This could significantly delay any legislation on the matter.
Another factor in any shift of Iraq strategy is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Long criticized by members of both parties, Mr. Rumsfeld deserved a significant share of the blame for the failure of the United States’ policy in Iraq, in terms of both planning and execution. President Bush’s nominee to replace Mr. Rumsfeld is Robert Gates, a former CIA director and currently the President of Texas A&M University and a member of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel set up by Mr. Bush to review the strategy in Iraq.
Texas A&M political science professor George Edwards views the replacement as a fundamental shift away from the more combative aspects of neo-conservatism. According to Mr. Edwards, Gates is “less combative [than Mr. Rumsfeld], more civil, and someone who won’t follow the rigid neoconservative line.” The administration seems to have realized that if it is to avoid a political stalemate for the next two years, it too must change.
Officials from many countries, including most European allies, welcomed the Democratic victory, expressing hope that the new government would be more conciliatory and collaborative. European jeering aside, Mr. Bush remains the most prominent and powerful figure both at home and abroad. Given that Congress has no control over the broader goals of foreign policy and only nominal power over its execution, the diplomacy of the administration will not change much.
John Bolton, the United States’ controversial ambassador to the United Nations, is still operating under a temporary recess appointment from Mr. Bush and needs Senate confirmation to continue his job. The White House has said that it will attempt to have Mr. Bolton confirmed during the last session of the lame-duck Republican Congress. If the confirmation succeeds the incoming Congress will have no power over Mr. Bolton and his position, but Joe Biden, the incoming Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned that the bid will fail.
Overall, the administration has been chastened for its foreign policy failures, and Mr. Bush has taken the hint and signaled a shift in specific policies, such as the strategy for Iraq. But because the executive holds the power over foreign policy objectives and diplomacy, the overall goals of the administration, such as the spread of democracy and a hard diplomatic line on countries such as Iran and North Korea, remain unchanged.
The real fear is that party politics will reign over pragmatism. The right policy is independent of the party in power at the time. Cutting and running from Iraq would not only have disastrous consequences but would also stain the reputation of the new Democratic Congress. Attempting to punish the administration and make a clean break from previous policy, however tempting, would only end up punishing the people of Iraq and create even more stalemate over the next two years.
Therein lies the balancing act for the Democrats. They wish to pursue their policy objectives, and rightly so, as they represent the opinions of the majority of Americans. They are no longer an opposition party, however, and must therefore not fall into the trap of exercising retributive negative power. As hated as it may be, consensus building, both with the administration and the Republican minority, is crucial to avoiding stalemate and tit-for-tat legislation over the next two years. Similarly, the Republicans must put their defeat behind them, learn from their mistakes, and work with the Democrats to establish meaningful and effective policies.
As exciting and empowering as domestic power games may be, the United States’ sphere of influence does not end at the shoreline. Any policies or changes considered must take into account the tremendous influence and responsibility that America has towards other countries. Any capricious change merely for the sake of change has dangerous consequences. Failing the people of Iraq would be a shame for any American, regardless of political affiliation.
About the writer:
John is a first-year accounting, international studies and economics major. He can be reached at [email protected].
