The world financial crisis is going to have a major impact on the
foreign policy of the incoming Democrat Administration — and not
for the first time. Thirty years ago in a different but not
dissimilar economic crisis, with the powerful Democrat Speaker
Tip O’Neill pressing him at every step (just as Speaker Pelosi is
doing to today’s president-elect) Jimmy Carter sought to cut back
in foreign and defense spending in a post-Vietnam War catharsis.
The ambitious claims of the Obama election campaign in regard to
foreign aid and cooperative international programs will have to
be revised substantially. Developing countries looking toward the
U.S. for assistance will find the Democrat-controlled Congress
not eager to share America’s reduced wealth. European aid
activities will be similarly constrained.
Perhaps even more important is the possible impact on American
military commitments. No administration likes to admit it, but
the cost of military operations abroad is enormously expensive
and has a direct political impact on funds available for domestic
spending. With the Democratic Party liberal mindset, military
expenditure has to be one of the first areas of cutback reviewed
by the Obama Administration. Even the suggestion of such a
reduction of financial commitment will have a strong effect on an
Obama foreign policy.
It is possible that the already planned withdrawal of U.S.
military in Iraq will be accelerated in the Obama first term just
because of the financial burden. In the same fashion, American
efforts to “internationalize” the battle against the Taliban in
Afghanistan will face increasing excuses from already
recalcitrant NATO countries that are facing their own economic
problems. Even the U.K. that has been such a stalwart ally, along
with the Canadians, Australians, Dutch, Danes and Poles, will
find it financially difficult to justify their continued
expenditures in pursuing the Afghan war.
Interestingly, Moscow finds itself in somewhat the same position.
President Medvedev has just completed his highly publicized tour
of Latin America, with special emphasis on Venezuela and Cuba.
When the high-flown rhetoric is stripped away, what is left is
the usual desire by these left-wing governments for economic and
military assistance from Russia.
They will soon find out in Caracas and Havana that some
obsolescent weaponry is available, but serious economic aid is
just not in the cards in times of a world recession and severe
reduction of oil income. The display of Russian naval power
currently under way with the Venezuelans may be the last in a
long while. It costs a great deal of money to steam around the
globe puffing out Moscow’s aging naval chest.
On the other hand, Chinese military involvement around the world
has always been of limited nature. The Chinese have specialized
in offering basic military assistance in the form of training and
non-sophisticated conventional equipment and weaponry. This has
been an extremely economic way to use military aid to gain
eventual economic and political entrée. The Chinese will be quick
to take advantage of openings created by withdrawal of Western
military assistance in the developing world.
The administration of Barack Obama will be placed in the position
of having to consider altering U.S. military commitments for
economic reasons rather than the political justifications made
during the election. This is where General Jim Jones, USMC Ret.
as National Security Advisor will have a major role — and
influence. It can be foreseen that the position he will hold will
return once again as a principal operational factor in White
House decision-making rather than the strictly advisory character
of recent years.
It is hard to overlook the conflict of President-elect Obama’s
desire to sharply increase spending on various social programs,
most particularly in health services, and his oft-stated ambition
to reduce poverty and disease among the world’s less developed
nations. From a political as well as practical standpoint,
domestic needs must be the first addressed. The Speaker of the
House, among others, will make sure that point is pressed home.
It is hard to underestimate the pressure from American
organizations that expect an Obama White House to take the lead
in providing the broad-based health care on which the Democratic
Party has so fervently campaigned and Barack Obama has
emphasized. In these difficult economic times foreign aid that is
seen as detracting from increased social programs at home will
certainly come under severe political pressure from the new
administration’s own supporters.
Barack Obama has a great number of surprises awaiting him as he
takes office in these perilous economic times. His personal
ambitions as an anointed world leader, so obviously implied
during the election campaign, may be considerably financially
constrained.
