WASHINGTON, 6 November 2004 — Republicans say Tuesday’s elections proved Americans want gutsy, unwavering leadership on the war on terrorism, judges who won’t make laws, energy independence and a government that cuts taxes and spends less of their money.
And, above all, they want a president and a Congress that will lead the world and not be led by world opinion.
But what does this mean for the rest of the world?
Six analysts on Thursday explored how election results could affect geopolitics and global perceptions in US foreign policy.
Speaking at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, the analysts all spoke about Bush’s need to reassert international leadership, one that is not a continuation of the “you’re either with us, or against us” mentality.
“The Bush team is extraordinarily close due to 9/11 and subsequent events, and the election is seen by this administration as reinforcing their deep psychological belief that they are right and on the right track,” said Kurt Campbell, director of CSIS’s International Security Program and former special counselor for NAFTA.
The Bush administration also believes “the persistence of anti-American feelings throughout the world is not a consequence of its actions, but their fault — and we have to help them change,” said Jon Alterman, director of the CSIS Middle East Program, formerly with the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department.
“This administration wants to use the example of a new Europe in their plans for a transfiguration in the Middle East,” said Alterman, adding he was unsure who in the Middle East would want to work with US.
“I think some Middle East governments will be willing to work with Bush, but not the Arab public. And the problem is that the Bush administration wants to empower the people at the expense of Arab governments.”
Nor is such disappointment limited to the Middle East.
Many in Europe are disappointed that Bush won on a faith-based ticket “that focused partly on a moral dimension that perpetuates the feeling throughout the rest of the world of not being able to understand America and thus how to work with it,” said Robin Niblett, director of the CSIS European Program.
Campbell confirmed this fear, predicting: “Countries will be wary of a highly religious foreign policy, and there is a real risk this will cause strategic tensions between the US and its allies throughout the world.”
Campbell forecast American would see “a period of real anxiety and uncertainly as initial hints are revealed as to what is in store for us.”
And, due to the success of their re-election, the experts said the administration would believe there was “little reason to change anything regarding their foreign policy,” said Teresita Schaffer, director of CSIS’s South Asia Program, and former US ambassador to Sri Lanka.
She accused the Bush administration of an “inability” to broaden their focus on international issues.
“Their main focus is Iraq, and everything else is outside their peripheral vision, which means we will not do well on ending the nuclear bazaar, the risk of war between Pakistan and India, Pakistan’s internal problems, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
“The administration deals well with crisis, but not with strategic diplomatic efforts to prevent a future crisis.”
“The worry is that the administration has not shown willingness to make needed policy shifts,” said Bathsheba Crocker, co director of the CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, and former attorney-adviser at the US State Department.
Although “the election allows us an opportunity to send a fresh signal as to where we’re going in Iraq,” she said the administration now needs to explain the “real” problem of Iraq to the American people.
“We also need to show our interest is Iraq’s interest, and that we will worker harder to help them in the reconstruction of their country, and show that we are not there to create permanent military bases on their land,” said Crocker.
