On Tuesday, November 2nd 2010 Americans voted and citizens of the world were affected. Republicans gained sixty seats and control in the House of Representatives; Democrats lost six seats in the Senate, but maintained a majority.
While the bulk of Americans vote on domestic issues – jobs, the economy, health care, etc., our elections have vast worldwide implications. The 2010 Midterm election results primarily raise two questions: Can a government that is divided – with a Democratic President and Senate and a Republican House – be as effective internationally? How will this change in U.S. leadership affect the world at large?
Can a government that is divided be as effective internationally?
In the past two years, President Obama has made great strides in foreign relations. He has made nuclear nonproliferation a priority with Russia, reached out to the Middle East, and employed strategic diplomacy. However, the president does not act unilaterally in foreign affairs. With the opposition party controlling the House, many of the key international policies Obama has put forth may now be out of his control. For example: many Republicans opposed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, as they do not want to limit U.S. defense. With their gain in the Senate, they have more power to block ratification of such a treaty. As a reaction to our elections, the Russian international committee of State Duma withdrew it recommendation to ratify the Treaty.
How will this change in U.S. leadership affect the world at large?
In terms of the Middle East, many predict that settlement between Israelis and Palestinians will prove more elusive. Danny Danon, a legislator from the right wing Likud party of Israel stated, “The huge influx of newly elected representatives and senators to Washington includes dozens of strong friends of Israel who will put the brakes on the consistently dubious, sometimes dangerous policies of President Obama […]” Conversely, a senior Palestinian official stated that Palestinians, “are not affected by the results of the election.”
As a result of President Obama’s fresh opposition in Congress, I believe he can employ one of two tactics. He can either turn inward, dedicating more of his time and attention toward domestic issues, as they will require more careful maneuvering and politicking to advance legislation in an unfriendly Congress. Or, he will devote more effort to international affairs, because, despite limits Congress may now place on him, he still holds more efficacy abroad than domestically. I believe the latter of the two options will ensue. President Obama has largely accomplished his intended domestic agenda: Health Care reform, Stimulus Package, Wall Street Reform, Credit Card Bill of Rights, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act Reauthorization Act, and provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans. With opposition in the House, Obama has a convenient (or legitimate, depending on the scenario) excuse not produce results domestically – leaving him with more time to accomplish his international objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment