Democracy & Society Vol. 7 Iss. 1 Winter 2010

Barak Hoffman

The Obama administration inherited a number of foreign policy crises. In the near term, the administration must address the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran’s determination to develop nuclear power, and a global recession. Beyond these exigent concerns, the administration faces a diverse range of foreign policy challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, and settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of this is taking place in a context where U.S. power is in relative decline and other powers, primarily China, are rising. While the administration may have been looking forward to developing a new foreign policy vision, the urgent issues the administration must address are likely to constrain these ambitions.

We have thus devoted this issue of Democracy and Society to foreign policy in the Obama administration. We have two thematic articles advocating that the Obama administration redesign democracy assistance strategies and two papers that urge changes to the U.S.’s bilateral relationship with Egypt and Mexico. We also review six new books on foreign policy suggestions for the Obama administration. The range of the policies they advocate reflects the number of challenges the administration faces, their diversity, and disagreements over the sources of the problem and solutions to them.

Our two papers on democracy assistance strategies encourage the Obama administration to redesign these programs. Each paper starts with the same premise, that the Bush administration’s militarization of democracy assistance programs was counterproductive, but they reach different conclusions. Michael Signer of the New America Foundation argues that the U.S. Must ground democracy assistance programs with the idea that the people are the guardians of democracy. Signer maintains that programs focus too much on building institutions and too little on cultivating democratic values. Jack Santucci, alum of the MA in Democracy and Governance Program and currently at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, believes the problem lies elsewhere and thus derives a different conclusion. Santucci argues that current democracy assistance programs developed during the peak of U.S. power and programs reflect that assumption. Santucci argues that U.S. strategies need to adapt to a world where the U.S. will face challenges to its global dominance and where political instability is likely to rise, in part, because of it. Santucci argues that the U.S. must change its democracy assistance policies to reflect its diminished capacity as a global power and greater need for allies.

The two country analyses focus on how the Obama administration can improve its bilateral relationship with two strategically important countries, Egypt and Mexico. Dina Guirguis, Executive Director of Voices for a Democratic Egypt, is dismayed that the Obama administration has decided to listen to the Government of Egypt, and not the people. She argues this is a short-sighted strategy because while the Egyptian Government may have succeeded in stamping out democratic opposition, support for democracy in Egypt is strong, but currently silent. Guirguis worries that if the Obama administration sides with the Government of Egypt, not the people, it risks alienating the Egyptian people from the U.S. and squandering an opportunity to catalyze democratic reform in the Middle East. Brandon Valeriano of the University of Illinois at Chicago urges the Obama administration to reengage with Mexico. Despite sharing a long border and being the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, the Bush administration neglected the country’s importance to the U.S. Since Mexico and the U.S. Currently have similar positions on a number of issues of mutual importance, primarily drugs, immigration, and terrorism, Valeriano argues now is an opportune time for the Obama administration to solidify its policies with Mexico on these vital issues.

Broadly speaking, five of the six books we review argue that the Obama administration ought to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, but differ, to varying degrees, on the nature of the problem as well as the solution. The varied responses reflect the complex world the administration faces. Andrew Bacevich, David Calleo, and Paul Musgrave argue that the U.S. Global military presence is unsustainable. Bacevich suggests the nature of the problem lies in demands for high levels of economic consumption. Calleo indentifies the U.S. desire to be a global super-power as the source of the problem and Musgrave argues it derives from the increasing cost of war. All three believe the U.S. can no longer sustain its aspirations for global military dominance. Rajan Menon contends that U.S. military alliances, such as NATO, are obsolete relics of the Cold War, and maintains the U.S. should pursue flexible alliances derived from the nature of the problem it is trying to solve. Finally, America and the World is a set of discussions between two former National Security Advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scrowcroft, moderated by the Washington Posts’s David Ignatius. Although Brzezinski and Scrowcroft disagree on much, they agree on the importance of bi-partisanship in U.S. foreign policy, that too many policy makers still see the world through a Cold War mentality, and that the U.S. has become excessively frightened by terrorism.

Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh are contrarians to the above analyses. They see far more continuity than change in George W. Bush’s foreign policy, arguing that unilateral military action, regime change, and inconsistent commitment to multilateralism has been typical U.S. foreign policy for decades.

I want to thank my able editors, John Morrill and Lindsay Robinson. John and Lindsay will be graduating the MA program at the end of the spring semester. I wish them the best of luck and am certain they will have promising careers.