Rebuilding Alliances and Managing Expectations in a Post-Bush World
DEVELOPMENTS
The next U.S. President will inherit a complex and dangerous set of foreign policy challenges: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a global financial crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, instability in Pakistan, and competition from emerging powers like China, India, and a resurgent Russia. In its special coverage of the U.S. presidential election, The Economist describes the foreign policy environment as “the most difficult international situation since 1968.” Moreover, the next President will have to manage these issues at a time when America's economic power is in decline, its military resources are overstretched, and its ability to win sympathy or support from allies has been severely diminished. The American public is also likely to be preoccupied with the economic crisis and related troubles at home, making it even more difficult for the next President to pursue an internationalist agenda.
Despite these pressures, the campaigns of both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have continued to emphasize the need for robust defense and national security policies. But they are likely to need all the help they can get. Material and political support from allies will be essential for pursuing solutions to global problems like climate change or nuclear proliferation, for supporting the spread of freedom and prosperity in the world, and for credibly projecting strength in the face of dangerous threats. Europe's common values and shared interests – not to mention its economic clout and, in some places, political influence – make it a natural ally and invaluable partner to the U.S.
BACKGROUND
The transatlantic partnership has been strained under the Bush Administration, primarily by disagreement over the Iraq war, but also by broader perceptions of the Administration's contempt for international institutions and flaunting of international law. Like much of the world, Europe has been following the 2008 presidential election with great interest. Opinion polls consistently show that if Europeans could vote in American elections, the outcome would favor Senator Obama by a wide margin. Yet, whether it is Senator McCain or Senator Obama who wins the White House, the next President will benefit from at least a degree of European goodwill simply because he is not George W. Bush. According to the German Marshall Fund of the United States' annual Transatlantic Trends survey, expectations are much higher that relations will improve under a President Obama, whereas a McCain Administration would likely represent a continuation of the status quo. Ironically, however, Senator McCain has a long history of pro-Atlanticism, and as a candidate he has supported several of the changes to U.S. policy that Europeans are most eager to see, including closing Guantanamo Bay and embracing climate change as a priority. For either candidate, but particularly for Obama, the greatest challenge will be to find a way to signal a desire to renew the transatlantic relationship while at the same time managing Europe's very high expectations.
ANALYSIS
Given the conflicts and threats the next President will inherit, relations with Europe do not top either candidate's foreign policy agenda. Yet both platforms do state a commitment to repairing the alliance and, more generally, to restoring America's standing in the world. As President, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama can be expected to seek improved relations with Europe, and both can do so fairly credibly. They both support a cap-and-trade system to address carbon emissions, and both would ban torture and close Guantanamo Bay. There are also a few policy areas on which the Republican and Democratic candidates agree, but diverge from European opinion. Both candidates will want Europe to step up its military and financial contributions to shared security goals, particularly the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Like most American politicians, Senators McCain and Obama are both viewed by Europe as being biased in their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There are important differences between the candidates as well, and these were made clear by their respective responses to the August 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia. These responses were indicative of broader differences in the candidates' approaches to foreign policy, with Obama’s calls for restraint by both sides and advocacy of a negotiated outcome contrasting with McCain's immediate condemnation of Russia and calls for its isolation by the international community. Obama later also sharpened his tone, judging the scope of Russian's military action a clear encroachment on Georgia's sovereignty, though he continued to advocate a multilateral mediation effort. McCain has called for Russia's expulsion from the G-8 group of industrialized nations; he also responded to the recent conflict by underscoring his support for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. By contrast, Obama prefers missile defenses that are developed through multilateral consultation and takes the official position that he would support them if “based on sound technology that works […] rather than rushing unilaterally to deploy an unproven system. It should also be noted that Europe itself was divided on its response to the Russia-Georgia conflict, with the former Warsaw Pact countries rushing to display solidarity with Georgia and countries like Germany and Italy that are dependent on Russian energy supplies showing much more caution.
Transatlantic relations will also be shaped by U.S. actions in other parts of the world. Just as the Iraq war soured relations under President Bush, perceptions of unilateralism or bellicosity toward Iran or Russia, for example, will discourage Europeans from cooperating on these and other issues. Here, McCain's hawkishness stands in stark contrast to Obama's expressed support for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months and his willingness to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran.
Overall, taking into account the similarities and differences between two candidates, it is not only the policy details that matter. The risk of disappointment may run higher, but Obama's immense popularity with European publics will make it that much easier for their governments to be seen cooperating with the United States. Given Obama's more measured responses to international conflict and the multilateralist tendencies expressed in his worldview, Europe is simply likely to be more sympathetic – and more responsive to – a President Obama.
---
Annie Verderosa is Foreign Policy Digest's Regional Editor for Europe/Russia.