(note: this post dealt with the challenges of transatlantic relations under a Democratic President of the United States of America, for either Clinton, Edwards or Obama, just after Obama had won the Iowa Caucuses. Current posts can be found under the United States or International Relations label)
Some thoughts on the US Presidential Elections:
Let's start by noting that the next US President is going to be a huge improvement for relations between the US and Europe. If, as likely, it's going to be a Democrat.
If we focus on the relations of the EU and of our individual countries with the US, there are substantial differences between the three Democrats who could still win the Democratic nomination: Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Those differences are nowhere near as big as the differences between these three and any Republican, but they're important. We are still going to have challenges to work out with all three candidates. All three are still firm believers in American exceptionalism, but express it in different ways.
Hillary Clinton, on the face of it, is the most hawkish of the three candidates. If she becomes President, her current foreign policy advisor Richard Holbrooke will likely become Secretary of State. Both Clinton and Holbrooke have a tough, hard-nosed approach to politics and negotiations. On the other hand, Clinton is also a cautious operator. She should be expected to take a hard line in a confrontation, but not to embark on any adventures without careful planning.
John Edwards is probably the most dovish. The EU will run into issues with Edwards over trade policy, not foreign policy.
The core constituency for the Edwards campaign is the working class, and he will move to protect the interests of that constituency by taking protectionist measures. As Edwards' main campaign theme is fighting for the people, he may be all too happy to get into a brawl.
Another campaign theme of Edwards is fighting the (corporate/lobbying) system in Washington. The EU should expect him to take that fight further to the international institutions dealing with trade. Edwards will challenge the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the G8, and so on. However, this also provides an opportunity for the EU to re-order these institutions together with the US. France and the Mediterranean countries would be very interested in that, the UK and other trading countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, not so much.
However, if Edwards becomes President it is vital for the EU to engage him immediately and constructively on trade issues, otherwise a confrontation will be nigh-inevitable.
Barack Obama, who now seems the favourite to win the elections, is both the best, the most challenging and the most dangerous candidate for the EU. To start with the danger, Obama is not a dove. Despite being the only one of these three to oppose the war in Iraq from the start, he is as likely to start a military confrontation as Clinton is, perhaps even more so.
The reason is that Barack Obama, even more than Clinton, believes in the moral duty of the US to lead the world. David Vickrey called this expression of exceptionalism 'exemplarism' in a recent editorial on the Atlantic Review.
The interventionist reflex this leads to in humanitarian crises will be reinforced by Obama's foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, who should go on to become National Security Advisor under an Obama presidency. Power near-literally wrote the book on military interventions in humanitarian crises.
On the other hand, a main theme of Obama's campaign and his wider political career has been reaching across the aisle to 'get work done'. This bipartisanship can be frowned upon in the current context of American politics, but extended to international relations, it would be of great use. In terms of style, then, Obama is the least confrontational of the three candidates and the one most likely to find common ground with the EU.
This will also become a challenge, as Obama is the candidate likely to ask for the most, and at the same time does not seem to have all too much interest of his own in Europe.
Update: A longer version of this argument is now available on The European Tribune. The comments are worth reading.
Posts
6 comments:
nanne,
It may be true that Senator Obama has a more natural affinity with the Third World and more a strategic focus on the Middle East than with Europe, but he has assembled an interesting group of advisors in international policy, including Samantha Powers, who is an original thinker and prize winning author.
Besides, I think Europeans would be very open to changing their views on America if Obama does achieve the presidency.
Can you imagine the crowds and interest if President Obama visted Berlin?
Yes, I can. I hope Obama will have the opportunity to stop by shortly after the primary season winds down. Whether he wins or not. If he wins, the symbolism of Berlin should be a good backdrop for him.
If he doesn't, he's still going to be on the Senate subcommittee on European Affairs and should travel around it a bit more.
The European population will change its views on the US if Obama wins, and probably a few leaders will as well. But we're still going to have differences. Don't expect European governments to automatically line up just because Obama is an inspiring leader.
nanne,
Interesting post. I think that the big sadness is that if European leaders were themselves braver on foreign policy issues, this would bring Obama further out of his shell (as he tries to create a compromise.)
Since they seem to all be rather cravenly happy to cave to the Bush consensus on a lot of issues, there doesn't look like there will be much pressure existing to pull Obama away from the "exceptionalist" stance.
I think the impact of Obama on relations with Europe will be minimal. Even if he wanted to, current affairs (based on technological and geopolitical (resources, military) facts) will require the US to look at the Islamic world, Asia and Russia. His charisma provokes a lot of wishful thinking, but this will not change the Realpolitik of our time. For race relations in the US Obama might matter (can the white man who elects a black president hold down a black nation?), but he's not gonna be the medicin man of foreign affairs.
It looks to me like all the media want Obama to win. Mrs Clinton spent sooo much (more) on her campaign, but all that really matters now, according to the media, is Obama. He's new, she's old. He hasn't even won yet but all I'm reading is that it's practically over. And all this attention will make him more popular. So unfair. You as well, you give attention to all of them, but what's the title of this post?
The reasons for the title, alas, are such that they can only be revealed in private conversation. But hey, my longer post on Eurotrib has all three in the title!
You are right that Obama is a media darling and Clinton is not. But Obama is also a popular darling.
Being a media and popular darling is a major part of what is going to make Obama win big in November, if he gets the nomination.
So, look at the bright side!
Post a Comment