The Year in Foreign Policy

by Daniel WIdome

It’s not yet 2012, and the country is already neck-deep in a presidential race. Republican candidates are jockeying for the position of most allergic to Obama’s foreign policy, while Democrats are trying to rally themselves around an incumbent who, for many, has underwhelmed. Amid the electoral scrum, foreign policy has often taken a backseat to the more pressing issues of a stagnant economy and a burgeoning debt.

Foreign policy, however, influences both of these issues, and in many cases, drives them. The election of 2012 therefore will be one in which foreign policy is extremely relevant, if not always prominent. But the campaign will not be waged in a vacuum. The past year has been dominated by sudden events that no one could have predicted, as well as the culmination of trends that many had foreseen. These events will shape the presidential election and the world through 2012.


1. The Arab Spring

What started in 2010 as an individual’s protest against petty corruption in Tunisia grew in 2011 into a region-wide revolutionary fervor that has overthrown at least four Arab leaders and threatened many more. The movements that ousted Ben Ali (in Tunisia), Mubarak (Egypt), Qaddafi (Libya), and Saleh (Yemen) were each rooted in the individual circumstances in each country. And although none of the revolutions were bloodless, they ranged from short-term protests and crackdowns (in Tunisia) to a months-long, full-fledged civil war (in Libya). But each revolution does share a common thread: popular disillusion with an autocratic, entrenched, and unrepresentative leadership.
The Arab Spring is far from over. Nascent uprisings in Jordan and Bahrain seem to have been quelled (or at least deferred), but the movement against the Assad regime in Syria continues, and bloodily so.

At the same time, these revolutions presented a unique opportunity for the United States to truly re-align its relationship with the Arab world. From cautious prodding (in Egypt) to outright belligerence (in Libya), the Obama administration can legitimately take credit for trying to foster positive change in the reason—or at least for not bungling it too greatly. The fulfillment of his promise to end the war in Iraq certainly bolsters Obama’s standing in the Arab world. But despite the great promise of the past year’s revolutions, U.S.-Arab relations will continue to be frustrated by the United States’ historical support for some of the autocrats just overthrown and some who are still in power, its unwavering support for Israel, and for a complete lack of progress toward resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

2. Bin Laden’s Downfall

Perhaps Obama’s proudest moment on the foreign stage in 2011 was his announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden. Upon taking office, he ordered the CIA to direct more resources to hunting bin Laden. And once bin Laden was found, Obama overruled the advice of many of his generals to attack bin Laden’s compound with bombs, instead calling on the U.S. Special Forces to carry out the task. This course of action was not a foregone conclusion, and Obama’s ordering of a much riskier operation is something for which he deserves great credit.

Obama’s boldness in taking out bin Laden is reflective of his broader counter-terror policy. Since taking office, Obama has significantly increased the use of drone strikes to attack al Qaeda targets in Pakistan—fulfilling one of his 2008 campaign promises. By many accounts, these strikes have been extremely successful in reducing al Qaeda’s capacity. But they only go so far. Although the killing of bin Laden was a blow against al Qaeda, it does not appear to have killed the organization itself. As has long been the case, al Qaeda has almost become more dangerous as a brand than as a functional, centralized organization. If nothing else, the killing of bin Laden represents the fulfillment of goal, but not truly the end of a struggle. And indeed, the effects of Obama’s anti-terror strategy reach far beyond al Qaeda, and not in the best (or even the most intentional) of ways. The drone strikes have greatly increased resentment in Pakistan, where civilians and soldiers too often find themselves victim to U.S. drone strikes. At some point, the returns from the aggressive use of drone strikes will be outweighed by the resentment and anger emanating from Pakistan; it is possible that such a point has already come. But it will be incumbent upon the president—Obama or a Republican successor—to determine when enough is enough.


3. The U.S. Deficit Debate

Politicians have debated government finances since politics was invented. And indeed, in the United States, it has been a traditional battleground for Democrats and Republicans. If you believe the exaggerated propaganda, Democrats want to tax-and-spend the country into oblivion, and Republicans want to slash government down to the bone. In most years, this debate is important enough on its own terms. But a stagnant economy and a decade of wars and unchecked spending have conspired to put the U.S. budget in a uniquely precarious position. Weighing the medium- and long-term solvency of the U.S. treasury against the short-term need for economic stimulus has bedeviled politicians all year. And embedded in this debate is the question of how much of this country’s resources will be dedicated to foreign policy. This includes not just the foreign aid budget (which is much smaller than many critics might assume), but also the defense budget and the operational budget of the State Department. The kinds of cuts being debated by politicians would have serious effects on how this country projects power and influence abroad—effects that many critics on both the left and the right would actually welcome.

But the recent deficit debate has exposed something far more troubling than simply the differing governing philosophies of Democrats and Republicans. This summer’s tussle over raising the U.S. debt ceiling was, in many ways, a capstone of this debate. Instead of hashing out a solution that both parties grudgingly accepted, the outcome was not a solution at all, resulting in a downgrading of U.S. debt and a “super-committee” that failed to produce meaningful plans for revenue enhancement or spending cuts. Perhaps more so than any other point in recent memory, the debate exposed the vast polarization of U.S. politics and the fundamental inability of government to address major policy challenges. This structural dysfunction is not something that can be resolved in a single election, and it will haunt this country in 2012, and beyond.


4. The European Debt Crisis

Although the United States faces serious fiscal difficulties, the situation in Europe is in many ways worse. The fundamental problem is the same: European governments have spent and borrowed too much, they can’t pay their debts, and the repercussions have rippled across the continent. And much like the fiscal challenges here, the European debt crisis has exposed serious structural deficiencies. But Europe’s challenge is arguably far greater than ours. Euro members are bound together in a nearly untenable system whereby monetary policy is centralized, but fiscal policy isn’t. Beyond that, the political and economic diversity of the Euro-zone makes any common solution difficult to conceive, and the EU’s reliance on unanimity and super-majorities makes any such solution nearly impossible to implement. Resentment among the rich countries (such as Germany) over their bailouts of poorer countries (like Greece) threatens the continued existence of the common currency.

In the United States, we can be grateful that our republic has had several hundred years to work out the kinks. The EU, in comparison, is still a wobbly toddler. But the European response highlights the pitfalls of how the developed world responds to economic calamity. The austerity imposed by many European governments has awoken barely-dormant social fissures and resulted in strikes, riots, and protests across the EU. There is little that the United States can do to help the EU resolve the crisis. This is due, in part, to our own fiscal troubles. But it’s also a reflection of the fact Europe is no longer as important as it once was for U.S. policymakers. Obama has been explicit about his intention to shift the long-term focus of U.S. foreign policy toward Asia—a shift that even Republicans have trouble condemning. Europe will remain a vital ally and trading partner for the United States. But it will no longer be as indispensible as it once was.


5. The rise of emerging powers

Throughout 2011, the United States maintained its position as the pre-eminent global power. This was demonstrated not only through overt displays of U.S. strength (such as the killing of bin Laden and the ongoing operations against al Qaeda) but also through displays of weakness (a global economic recovery is not possible without the United States). For good or ill, the United States remains the indispensible country.

But there may come a time when this is no longer true, and in the past year, emerging powers are increasingly making their influence felt. The growth of China has long been noted, and this year, it surpassed Japan as the second largest economy in the world. It also continues to modernize its military and exert its influence both locally (in the South China Sea) and further afield (through anti-piracy missions off Somalia). Indeed, China is the big reason behind Obama’s strategic shift towards the Pacific. He hopes to reassure U.S. allies along the Pacific Rim that China’s growing influence will be monitored closely, if not checked outright. But China is not the only country making its presence felt. If one country has unambiguously benefitted from the Arab Spring, it is Turkey, which is seen as a democratic model in the Muslim world. It’s rapidly growing economy and confident government has given Turkey much greater influence in the region—which stands in stark contrast to the troubles facing the EU and Greece, a historic rival. This year, Turkey joined Brazil (another emerging power) to present an alternative resolution to the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Their proposal was met with disapproval from the United States, which still has great veto power (both formally an informally) on the world stage. But the fact that two emerging powers would be so open in challenging the U.S. position is remarkable, and it is a harbinger of things to come.

The Year Ahead

The issues that policy makers have grappled with in 2011 will continue to vex them in the coming year, in addition to the new challenges and crises that we cannot predict but which will surely emerge. For the United States, 2011 has been a year of challenges on the global stage. But these challenges have only confirmed that the United States remains the indispensible country, and that it will remain so for many years to come.

As the presidential election passes from the rhetoric of 2011 to the voting of 2012, it is important to remember that the heated language coming from both parties can be heard around the world. The seemingly irrational ramblings of a fringe candidate may be laughed off by commentators in this country, but our allies and adversaries don’t have the luxury of laughing off such rhetoric. For them, it may appear to be a genuine reflection of how Americans want their country to behave on the world stage. It is up to voters, then, to cut through the heated rhetoric and remember that what the candidates say and do continues to matter a great deal, not just here at home, but for billions of people around the world.

Daniel Widome is a San Francisco –based writer and foreign policy analyst.

Prepare for 2012 with the Great Decisions Briefing Book and DVD.