US/INTERNATIONAL: How Obama can restore US influence

Analysis

Barack Obama's victory in the November 4 presidential election generated considerable global satisfaction within many governments and among the wider public. This international reaction was attributable, in part, to the perception that US voters had repudiated the policies of his predecessor, President George Bush (see UNITED STATES: Obama wins, as Democrats cement control - November 5, 2008). Yet these expectations will certainly be disappointed. Even if the president-elect had the desire to wipe the slate clean in foreign affairs -- and he does not -- there are significant institutional, political and fiscal barriers to wholesale change. Nevertheless, Obama's unusual ability to understand how many non-US citizens view the United States, and considerable rhetorical skill, may give him the tools he needs to restore US prestige overseas.

Obama's agenda abroad. Barring the intervention of unexpected events, such as the political earthquake created by the September 11, 2001 attacks, modern presidents usually devote their first term in office primarily to domestic policy. The president's formal constitutional authority, and ability to take the initiative without reference to Congress, is much greater in foreign affairs. Therefore, US chief executives usually prefer to leverage their transient informal power and influence over domestic policy as quickly as possible, before their post-election 'honeymoon period' ends. This dynamic is apparent in the ambitious early domestic policy initiatives launched by former presidents, including:

• Bill Clinton (failed healthcare reform);
• the elder George Bush (budget reform and curbing deficit spending); and
• Ronald Reagan (significant tax cuts and entitlement reform).

The current economic crisis is likely to reinforce the Obama administration's initial focus on domestic policy. Nevertheless, due to his campaign promises, and the US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the president-elect is likely to devote a significant amount of political capital to affairs abroad. His main first-term priorities should focus on three key areas:

1. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. These three areas are closely connected, due to the fact that demands for personnel and material in Afghanistan will have an effect on the pace of withdrawal from Iraq. Moreover, establishing a joint counter-insurgency and negotiation strategy with Islamabad is necessary to divide, defeat or disarm the Taliban. Obama appears to understand these connections (see UNITED STATES: 'War on terror' will persist after Bush - August 1, 2008). However, his 18-24 month timetable for withdrawing the bulk of US forces from Iraq may be unrealistically rapid.
2. Climate change. Obama will sign the post-Kyoto (post-2012) international accord to reduce global carbon emissions that emerges ahead of the December 2009 UN Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. He will also initiate a cap-and-trade carbon reduction regime domestically -- although initial 'pollution credits' will be given away, rather than auctioned, limiting the cost to industry. Despite global expectations to the contrary, Obama will not back climate change legislation that appears to impair US growth and development.
3. Rapprochement with allies. Ties with Japan remained strong under Bush, but the public in Europe views the current administration so negatively that it has inhibited the post-2003 rapprochement with Washington. With Obama in the White House, there is an opportunity to rebuild bridges. The president-elect will seek to leverage his personal popularity to bolster the NATO commitment to Afghanistan -- but may have only limited success.

Continuity with Bush. Obama has other objectives abroad, including progress towards restarting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, cordial relations with China and curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, barring unexpected crises, he will not commit significant political capital to them. What is most striking about his probable first-term priorities is how they are likely to extend, rather than reverse, the approach to diplomacy that Bush adopted after 2005. The incumbent president is already reducing troop levels in Iraq and boosting the US contingent in Afghanistan, has accepted that action on climate change is apposite, and has made efforts to mend fences with allies. The significant continuity of Obama's approach may be a recipe for disappointed expectations abroad.

The global audience. Yet Obama still has the tools to repair the image of the United States on the international stage substantially (see UNITED STATES: Obama faces difficult pivot to centre - May 30, 2008). In terms of formal, constitutional power, the presidency is a relatively weak office. However, a president's ability to command attention -- at home and abroad -- is perhaps unmatched. If a president has sufficient prestige, political capital and rhetorical skill, this translates into influence (or 'soft power') that makes it easier for the United States to pursue its agenda overseas.

Leveraging this potential influence over world opinion is a key factor in effective US foreign policy. However, it requires a delicate balancing act:

1. Multiple audiences.Political scientist Richard Neustadt of Harvard emphasised in his work (and to the presidents he advised, particularly John F. Kennedy) that while a president's global audience cannot vote, it still has a substantial impact on his ability to achieve US objectives overseas. However, Neustadt observed that presidents face a major challenge in that their public comments and addresses must be designed simultaneously to rally and appeal to domestic and international audiences -- which often have very different expectations.
2. Bush's mistakes. Contrary to widespread perceptions, many of Bush's addresses have been well constructed and included moving, eloquent language. However, he has often spectacularly failed to consider how his words will be perceived abroad. Terms such as "crusade", "evildoers", and "dead-or-alive" may be neutral or very appealing in the United States, but are deemed malign or flippant overseas.
3. Obama's universalism. The most successful presidential rhetoric ties the fortunes of the audience abroad and the US public together by creating a common sense of values and destiny. Kennedy's 1963 speech in Berlin is an outstanding example, which Obama sought (unsuccessfully) to emulate this summer. The president-elect is always alert to the effect of his words abroad; indeed, he often deliberately seeks to involve foreign listeners, even when addressing a purely US audience. Thus, in his November 4 victory speech he assured those watching "from beyond our shores" that the United States would return to its traditional ideals abroad, that "America can change".

Rhetoric and substance. Obama's profession of what Thomas Jefferson called a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" may seem insubstantial relative to the real differences that will persist between the United States and the rest of the world. Yet this is one of the keys to restoring US prestige. The naked exercise of military might is less conducive to expanding Washington's influence abroad, over the long term, than a perception that, for all its power, US policymakers will act with deliberation and restraint.

A demonstrated respect for shared global norms is essential. Although Clinton did nothing much to reduce the growth of US greenhouse gas emissions, he acknowledged international concerns by signing the Kyoto protocol. Bush also failed to act on the issue. However, it was his perceived contempt for the Kyoto process, rather than the content of his policy, that aroused global ire. Obama is unlikely to make the same mistake.