POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made two statements last week: 1) she is not interested in running for President, and ; 2) the last elections won't affect foreign policy; politics stops at the water's edge. The first we have to take her word ; on the second we should be more skeptical. The fact is that our domestic politics is a major influence on foreign policy and, what is more, it is often at the heart of foreign policy problems, or at least the ability to pursue a policy. Put another way, the basic policy goal may remain the same, but significant changes in domestic politics may force significant adjustments in pursuit of those goals.

Consider just one example which is the influence that the sizeable Cuban-American community in Florida has had and continues to have on our relations with Cuba. We fought a long and costly war in Vietnam which in reality we lost. Not only have we since made peace with Hanoi, but we also now seek to strengthen our ties with Vietnam as part of our larger efforts to maintain our strategic dominance in the Asia/Pacific region vis a vis China. We have not been able to come to a similar accommodation with Cuba, primarily because of our domestic politics. With Rep. Ros-Lethinen, a Cuban-American from Florida, likely to take over the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, easing of travel restrictions to Cuba is unlikely. Obama would like to ease restrictions and may now have to see what executive power he can use to do it. But given the painful,excessive importance of Florida's presidential electoral vote, Obama isn't likely to take the chance on his own. If you have any doubt about the importance of the Florida electoral vote, ask former Vice President Al Gore.

Then there is the never ending problem of Mideast policy. Obama has been perceived as being less supportive of Israel than his predecessors, meaning that in order to improve our relations with the Muslim world in general, Obama is seen as leaning hard on Israel to make concessions to get the so-called "peace process" restarted. Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the highest priority of this administration's Mideast policy. The election of a more conservative, Republican Congress may force Obama and Secretary Clinton to at least downplay the importance of a settlement in judging their foreign policy success or failure. In the process, Obama may have to be seen as being more supportive of the Israeli point of view. Reason: a key part of the expanded right wing base of the GOP is the religious right which has been most supportive of Israel on a wide range of Mideast policy issues, including taking a more aggressive stand/war to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama has been pursuing a "separate track" approach on dealing with Iran, meaning a willingness to talk with Tehran on mutual problems in Afghanistan while maintaining a hardline on economic sanctions on the nuclear weapons issue. "Separate track" may now draw increased criticism from the right and work its way into the broader body politic.

There is also the problem of relations with Russia. The Obama administration has been seeking improved relations with Moscow on a wide range of issues. Getting Russian support on further U.N. economic sanctions on Iran gave some evidence of progress. But the center piece of improved relations was the agreement on a new treaty to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons possessed by the two countries. However, final agreement requires that it be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes. Senate consideration of the treaty was sidetracked in part by the press of domestic legislation before the Senate, but also because of resistance by a number of Republican senators who have a general distrust of Russia when it comes to nuclear disarmament, as well as some specific concerns such as the treaty's impact on development of future U. S. anti-missile weapons systems. With the increase of Republican strength in the Senate, the future of the treaty is even less clear and with it the course of further improvement of U.S.-Russian relations.

These are just a few areas where one can be skeptical of Secretary Clinton's "no change" in foreign policy statement. There are other problems: issues such as the rate of troop drawdown in Afghanistan where Republicans are in no hurry, and China and trade/currency issues on which members of both parties have a similar view about a hardline on China. There are also less obvious problem areas such as relations with Turkey, South America (particularly Brazil), and trade policy in general and its relation to loss of U.S. jobs overseas. It is difficult to see how the latest domestic political battle, translated into major Democratic losses, will not blowback on these issues and how the Obama administration may be forced to re-tune or re-structure its foreign policy. Finally, all of this will have to be done in a world where Obama's election "shellacking" now means the overall perception of him as "a" or "the" world leader is weakened.