affairs > tag this
Echoes of the American ballot Dr John Hudak, a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute in Washington,DC , gave an engaging talk at Qatar University on how the presidential elections in the United States in 2016, and some of the prospective candidates, could impact the Middle East.
62 > QATAR TODAY >JULY 2015
The foreign policy platform And 2016 is a good example of another such election. Not only do Americans want to hear talk around foreign policy but also the candidates themselves are eager to talk about it because it is being considered a “winning issue” on both sides of the political divide. “Clinton has a profound foreign policy background thanks to her former position as the Secretary of State. It’s a big part of her resume and she is not afraid to talk about foreign policy issues and defend her position on these. It also serves to break the bias against women (and sometimes even Democrats) that they are very domestic-oriented. On the other side of the spectrum, foreign policy has always been the bread and butter of Republican politics. They see Obama’s foreign policy record as weak and Clinton’s vulnerable on issues regarding Russia, Libya, etc.” So instead of being a single party’s domain or no one’s agenda, this time foreign policy is going to be everyone’s pet topic. And foreign policy’s high priority on the electoral issues is a real opportunity for the region to understand and appreciate the candidates’ positions on the various burning issues of the Middle East, says Dr Hudak. Often it’s difficult to anticipate
"Clinton is, by all accounts, more interventionist than Obama; she isn’t going to be a dovetype Democrat but she’ll certainly be more moderate than many, many of the Republicans."
AFP PHOTO/PAUL J. RICHARDS
B
etween Iran, Israel and ISIS (and the list is incomplete), the United States is completely and inextricably embroiled in the geopolitics of the region, a situation that has no parallel in our current times. Ironically, the fate of some people in the Middle East is indirectly but undeniably dependent on the policies and actions of the US President in a way that isn’t even true for many American citizens. And with the election action well under way, the Brookings Doha Center hosted a colleague from Washington, DC, Governance Studies Fellow and Managing Editor of their popular FixGov blog, Dr John Hudak, to discuss the implications that this process and the players might have for the region. After giving a brief overview of the complex, and often difficult to understand, electoral system in the United States, Dr Hudak goes on to remark that the upcoming presidential election is bound to be unique for several reasons. First, this is shaping up to become the most expensive election in US history (and probably the world), with anywhere between $6-8 billion to be raised and spent between now and polling day. With the primaries underway, there is currently one close-to-certain Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton) and more than a dozen candidates vying for the Republican seat, and 17 months to thresh out the issues. And that’s another thing that is unique, obvious and relevant to the region in regards to the upcoming vote – the issues. “A lot of the elections tend to focus on the economy,” says Dr Hudak. “In this election too, economic issues will matter. But now foreign policy is going to matter in a way it often doesn’t. The election in 2004 was one such ‘foreign policy election’; it was shortly after the American interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on the heels of 9/11, and so security, defense, military and foreign policy were uppermost in the minds of American voters. George Bush ran an effective campaign that put these issues and his positions on them at the forefront,” he says.
QATAR TODAY > JULY 2015 > 63
affairs > tag this
“ISIL, Yemen, Israel and Iran are going to be a big part of the candidates' conversations, so there won’t be much of a guessing game about the views of the next American president.” DR JOHN HUDAK Fellow, Governance Studies Brookings Institute
what an individual will be like on the world stage but this will not be one of those times. “Now that every candidate wants to talk about these issues, you’ll have a good idea what their thoughts are on ISIL, Yemen, Israel and Iran. These are going to be a big part of the conversation, so there won’t be much of a guessing game about the views of the next American president.” And it’s not just the conflict and diplomacy aspects of American foreign policy that would be important; dialogue and leanings on trade, energy policy and climate change will also be closely watched. “Trade and economic activity are going to be big drivers for both sides. Clinton was known for her approach to diplomacy in which economics played 64 > QATAR TODAY >JULY 2015
a central role in terms of opening up relations and addressing other issues close to her heart like human rights. That’s not going to change. Republicans too, driven by capitalism and free market ideas, are traditionally big supporters of open and free trade. So these aspects too will impact the region’s perspective on American policy. And these perceptions are sometimes as important as actions themselves,” he says. And while the American public in general might not understand the complexities of the region’s geopolitics, they certainly appreciate it and they expect the candidates to do so as well. “So they want someone who can take the stage and show, in a very clear way, their policy view, how they see the state of the world and how they will fix some of the problems. Someone who paints it in broad brush strokes and oversimplifies the complexities of foreign policy will not play well in the American electorate,” says Dr Hudak. He indicates that some of the Republican candidates who have absolutely no experience in dealing with foreign affairs in any context will have a much tougher time in actually getting the nomination. “They are going to have to take a stand on these issues unless they wish to look weak in the eyes of the public.” Israel, intervention and inconsistencies Dr Hudak immediately gets to addressing the perennial thorn in the side of US relations with the Middle East – Israel. “Both parties face serious challenges in negotiating the Israel-Palestine issue. Republicans are overly wedded to the alliance with Israel in a way that suggests a naiveté when it comes to appreciating the conflict and can jeopardise the quality of talks and progress on the ground,” he says. Meanwhile, Democrats (read: Obama’s administration) have their problems with the state of Israel, mostly over procedure and proprieties. Can a Democratic president put away these resentments and come to the table cleanly? “Fortunately Clinton has a magnificent ability to compartmentalise and it will be important for her to reboot the relationship with Israel (with an equal effort from the other side) in a positive way because the general public considers Israel an important ally in an important region and any breakdown worries them,” he says. While its relationship with Israel has formed American foreign policy for decades, Dr Hudak says that over the years, and particularly over the last few months, the American government and
people are starting to separate Israel from its leadership. “There is skepticism about Netanyahu that I never expected to see, even among American Jews. This suggests that there is an understanding of this relationship on more dynamic terms.” Maybe this would even translate into focusing on achieving regional stability, which is good for all countries, instead of commitment to individual alliances. The other big topic of contention that demands a stand is intervention – namely how far is America prepared to go regarding Syria and ISIL. “Republicans’ penchant for intervention spans the continuum,” Dr Hudak points out. From isolationists to militarists. “Clinton is, by all accounts, more interventionist than Obama; she isn’t going to be a dove-type Democrat but she’ll certainly be more moderate than many, many of the Republicans,” he says. And while it’s important to hold Clinton to account for the actions (or inactions) of Obama’s administration, there have been well-documented differences between the two and at end of the day it is the president’s call, says Dr Hudak. Notably, candidates this time will also be careful about using the "War on Terror" narrative because Americans are weary of it and aware that it has been hyper-politicised and abused in the past and so tend to see through it. However, Obama’s second term has shown us that what the president wants or says is not often what the president gets or does. “What we hear in the coming months about candidates’ positions will not always match up with the actions they take as president. Obama is a perfect example; the candidate he ran as in 2008 is not the president he became. The argument is that you have these ideas but when you take the job you are handed the intelligence reports about the world. It changes your perspective, your understanding of what’s truly going on, and that informs the policy you pursue. Foreign policy is very much the arena of the president; it’s where the strongest presidential powers lie. But there are instances where the Congress can play a role and in these cases, it can change their rhetoric or action. New information or changing dynamics (sometimes very rapidly in the situation of war) will alter the way in which they administer foreign policy. That is often the explanation for why they change their mind. And it’s much more obvious in foreign policy than domestic policy where the environment doesn’t change that much or that fast. So what the president promises domestically is usually
what he delivers, but because foreign policy is so interconnected and dynamic it’s hard to commit to a promise and always deliver on it,” Dr Hudak says. The new perspective “Already the changing demographics of the United States is rapidly transforming policy perspectives of Americans and these are seen in areas of social policy that are no longer as controversial as they were a few years ago,” Dr Hudak says on how young voters are starting to affect change on all levels. “Younger Americans are less interventionist, less positively disposed to military spending and more inclined to diplomatic means. And these will be more obvious once people of this generation get into positions of leadership with a lot of the ideas changing with regards to the US relationship with partners on the ground.” A lot of the public opinion around foreign policy is obviously being shaped by social media. “The dynamic role that social media plays is apparent in the way stories and images from Palestine and Syria are being communicated in real time to the American public. And public opinion plays an important role in foreign policy; it’s one of the reasons we withdrew from Afghanistan and Iran. So it can motivate or retract from interventions and can inform how leadership deals with trouble spots in the world. While there are legitimate arguments that American intervention in foreign conflicts is driven by economic issues, for the average American it’s the humanitarian or security issues that drive their opinion about a conflict. And so in places like Palestine, we can see an American tone around the conflict change and an understanding of the plight of Palestine has played an important role in that,” he says. But no matter what, there is a certain expectation that citizens have of their country and its role in the world. The question of taking a back seat doesn’t arise, at least not in the way we expect. “There are ways in which American citizens want America to take a back seat – they don’t want to go to war, spend so much on foreign aid and be the world’s policeman. But at the same time, they expect American greatness, shows of strength and dominance. These are two distinct things and you can’t be both a non-interventionist and the world’s problem solver. But Americans want both and they can’t have it. So usually they want America to stay home until they no longer want America to stay home,” he smiles QATAR TODAY > JULY 2015 > 65