Global Power in Decline Debate Reveals Outdated US Foreign Policy

The US faces many pressing issues in the near future. But none of them got much air time on Monday night in the debate between President Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney. Instead, the two candidates appear stuck in the Bush worldview, and reveal a global power on the decline.


A Commentary by in Boca Raton, Florida

Ed Luce, the sage Financial Times columnist, knows from his country's own history all about the decline of global powers. A Briton who loves America, Luce has sought to provide the United States with well-meaning counsel, most recently in the form of a book with the whimsical title "Time to Start Thinking." The tome is nothing less than a 320-page appeal to the US to finally face up to future strategic challenges inherent in a rapidly changing world order -- so that America's decline might remain but a horror scenario.

After the 90-minute-long foreign policy debate on Monday night between US President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, several questions remain unanswered. One, however, has been cleared up: Neither Obama nor Romney have read Luce's book.

The two contenders for what is likely the world's most powerful office left little time for thinking -- either for themselves or for the television audience. And they failed to adequately address the new challenges facing the wobbly global power America -- climate change, for example, which was left unmentioned in presidential debates for the first time since 1984. Or the rise of Asia. Or even the lack of domestic investment in infrastructure and education.

Most of all, however, in the debate in Boca Raton they declined to discuss how they intend to address the country's central foreign policy conundrum: Americans no longer want their country to be a global police force, but they still want to continue believing in American exceptionalism.

Trapped in Bush's World

Instead, viewers were witness to a phenomenon that Luce had likewise predicted: Romney and Obama exchanged carefully prepared platitudes as though they were trapped in a world order created for them by White House predecessor George W. Bush.

The two adversaries talked about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and the broader Middle East. And they of course also engaged in the petty discussion as to who visited Israel or American troops abroad sooner.

If Obama had ever hoped to leave these issues of yesteryear behind and devote himself to new challenges brewing elsewhere, most prominently in Asia, it is a hope that was dashed in recent weeks. Since the death of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in a suspected terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Romney has been on the attack, saying that while much of Obama's foreign policy is correct in principal, its results are a failure. The most significant example according to Romney: The al-Qaida terrorist network has in no way been weakened, but remains dangerous.

Indeed, it appears as though Stevens' death in election year 2012 has been enough to overshadow the killing of Osama bin Laden and several other top terrorists from al-Qaida and other networks. It has been enough to keep America fixated on the war on terror and preoccupied with the Middle East.

The paradox of this fixation shown by both candidates is that neither Obama nor Romney have shown a real interest in the Muslim world. Despite overtures early in his term, the president did little thereafter to ensure that progress was made. The only regional issue that appears to be high on his priority list is Iran's nuclear program. Romney's plan for the region appears to consist almost entirely of unconditional support for Israel. Both candidates want to continue using drones unhindered.

The Cosmopolitan 1980s

More than anything, however, both Obama on the left and Romney on the right are focused on winning the support of a public that is tired of war, a public that is largely united in the wish to reconstruct their own country rather than nations abroad. That is understandable for a country in crisis. But it is also a crisis for a great nation.

In the Monday evening debate, it took almost 80 minutes before Obama, during the discussion on China's growing global influence, noted that America too must invest more in its future, rather than becoming bogged down -- at great expense -- in the Middle East.

By then, though, most viewers had likely ceased paying close attention. That, too, is part of the current American dilemma. The US media, fixated as it is on Twitter and the back-and-forth of the long campaign, quickly becomes bored with the big picture. And viewers do too -- this author included. "If Americans weren't bored by foreign policy before this debate, they will be after," foreign policy pundit Peter Beinart tweeted during the broadcast.

Romney's advisors are fully aware of the mood in the country. They counselled their candidate to avoid aggressive attacks and detailed discussions. More important, they said, was to appear harmless and folksy. And he did his best. Instead of repeating his infamous line that Russia is "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe," Romney simply smiled when Obama accused him of wanting "to import the foreign policies of the 1980s."

The president meant the line as a sardonic reproach and it likely helped him win the Monday night debate in the eyes of its viewers. But it leaves behind a stale aftertaste. After all, following the 90 minutes of debate in Boca Raton, 1980s US foreign policy seems modern and cosmopolitan by comparison.

Discuss this issue with other readers!
10 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
SHBasse 10/23/2012
1. Misses the point
Zitat von sysopThe US faces many pressing issues in the near future. But none of them got much air time on Tuesday night in the debate between President Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney. Instead, the two candidates appear stuck in the Bush worldview, and reveal a global power on the decline.
The refference to a better undrstanding of the challenges today is fine, but the rest of the article misses the real point - those debates are amed at a small domestic segment of the population. The real understanding and handeling of foreign policy issues is taking place behind closed dores!
retarded-freak 10/23/2012
That statement describes me as an American: not interested in being the global-police, and also not interested in dealing with or submitting to foreigners, who I see as vaguely criminal, devious, and hypocritical. And I have never liked the military engagements made by the US government, which seem whimsical, egocentric, elitist, and greed-oriented, like ignoring the genocide in Rwanda and then dropping depleted Uranium on Serbian civilians by the same president, who apparently had some loyalty/elitist ties to Northern Europe. Though my ancestors were all from Northern Europe, I cannot stand this form of elitism. Also, I hate in when foreign nations like Israel beg the USA for military assistance to their pointless and useless nationalist cause. Apparently it only takes a nation having an anti-Semite leader to drag the entire US military into war, as if every square inch of the world would bow to this political-correctness.
nevermind 10/23/2012
3. The end is nigh'
The CIA is 'investing' 87 million in trying to get president Correa deposed, just after failing to oust Hugo Chavez who got re-elected with a bigger majority. And all because they were slapped awake with a video showing planned and will full murder of 2 Reuter Journalists and two children, by Julian Assange and they don't like it up them. As long as Wikileaks were reporting China's censorship they were OK, but when it decided to inform us of US double standards and split tongue speak in the west, they turned on Julian with trumped up charges. China's investment of 47 billion in Venezuela, some of it might end up cancelling out the CIA pennies, will ensure that venezuela stays on its own course. US power is waning and sending armed carrier groups into the South China sea will not change the equasion.
Kofi 10/23/2012
4. Confrontation
The United States picked the wrong enemies. It wasn't necessary to ceize control of the former pieces of the Russian empire and encircle Russia. It was not necessary to antagonize the muslims. And it was a substantial mistake to withdraw from Europe. The United States are not the defining nation anymore. Their overstreching military spending is going to destroy their economy.
longknife 10/24/2012
This article, to me, was no more than yet another line of "let's all get together and be one world under the United Nations." No thank you. I have absolutely no desire to have another nation tell me how the USA should run. I also detest this inane attempt by the UN to "monitor" the upcoming election. If it weren't for the USA, Europe would still be struggling to recover from WWII. You've been able to build up your socialist "government-give-me" governments as you did not need to spend extensive amounts of money on national defense. What I want my government to do is whatever is necessary to protect me from terrorists and to fix our economic problems by getting out of our way. You socialist hate Gov [soon to be Pres] Romney because he wants to do just that - and not pander to the EU or UN.
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.