John McCain and Barack Obama: Choices on Shaping American Internationalism during the new Presidency

The policy through which the United States chooses to interact with the world decisively impacts the general course of international politics. From the decision to make the world safe for democracy by participating in the First World War to the campaign for promoting liberal democracy by containing communism; from building regional coalitions through economic and strategic pacts to pre-empting security threats to world peace, the internationalism pursued by the U.S. has been distinct and pioneering. With the inauguration of the new Presidency due in January 2009, the world eagerly awaits the new principles through which the U.S. would seek to define its interactions with the rest of the world. The eight years of Bush Administration and the imminent challenges facing the nation have created a necessity for re-defining American internationalism. The Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates have elaborated upon their respective principles to engage with other countries, which appears to cut across party lines to represent the unwavering American dream to be a world leader.

John McCain’s Address at the Hoover Institution on American Foreign Policy in May 2007 was replete with reference about ‘America as a nation endowed with a purpose’. He referred to the inadvertent U.S. mission of fighting the terrorist networks and emerging autocracies around the globe. The policies of China and Russia were criticized and Iran and North Korea were cited as countries threatening a peaceful order of democratic nations. In order to meet these challenges McCain has suggested overhauling the nation’s foreign policy, defense and intelligence agencies. The basic tenet of this transformation is building partnerships among the democratic nations. McCain does not rule out the military option for meeting prospective challenges, but refers to widening the military capabilities to meet these challenges more effectively. In his words, “We must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable, and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win.”

In the name of reviving the vital democratic solidarity John McCain simply seeks to shift the burden of American foreign policy adventures onto other democratic nations. He seeks to further refine the strategies of George W. Bush by institutionalizing such a partnership so that other member states come to shoulder an automatic obligation for the decisions taken by the U.S. The obstacles encountered by the U.S. in undertaking such missions through the U.N. are tactfully addressed by disqualifying China and Russia from such a grouping. His expectation that the new alliance would act where the U.N. has failed clearly demonstrates his design to insulate the U.S. policies from the control and scrutiny of the world body. McCain’s rhetoric appears impressive when he states that “To be a good leader, America must be a good ally.” But the purpose of his rhetoric gains clarity when he demands that America’s partners to be good allies too and accept an equal responsibility to build peace and freedom in the world. McCain has christened his new venture as ‘The League of Democracies’ and promises to call a Summit of world democracies during his first year as the U.S. President.

The foreign policy advisers of Barack Obama happen to be pioneers and supporters of the concept of ‘Concert of Democracies” fashioned on lines similar to McCain’s League of Democracies. Ivo Daalder and Anthony Lake, who happen to be Obama’s advisers of foreign policy, have written extensively on forging an Anglo-American Democratic Alliance to meet emerging challenges. Ivo Daalder has co-authored an article, “Democracies of World Unite” published in American Interest, where he emphasizes the value of institution based multilateralism instead of the ad hoc problem oriented multilateralism of the Bush Administration. In his view a Concert that brings established democracies together into a single institution would be best suited for countering the new global challenges. In referring to the obstacles of the U.N., exclusion of Russia and China and espousal of the objectives of the Concert, Ivo Daalder’s vision is a replica of McCain’s League of Democracies.

Anthony Lake has been the Co-Chair of the Princeton Project on National Security, the final report of which favors the idea of a Concert of Democracies for carrying out military interventions around the world, outside the framework of the UN Security Council. In an article in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, Barak Obama stated that America cannot met this century’s challenges alone; and the world cannot meet them without America. He further emphasizes on the need for strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships to meeting the global threats; perhaps an indirect recognition of the Concert of Democracies. He seeks to build an America that fights immediate evil, promotes an ultimate good and leads the world.

The world is eagerly awaiting the end of the Bush Presidency in anticipation that the new administration, equipped with better policies and intelligent realizations from past mistakes will re-fashion America’s interactions with the world. It is widely expected that the American internationalism will be characterized more by dialogue and less by confrontation; more by cooperation and less by intimidation; more by justice and less by double-standards. The early signs of the foreign policy orientations of John McCain and Barak Obama have bellied such hopes. Nature of partnership with allies might change, warning signals to rogue state might undergo transformation and justifications for bypassing the UN might become more refined; in short the nature of American internationalism could change in form, but little is expected to change in substance. Irrespective of their party affiliations, both Presidential candidates view the status of America among the community of nations as “First Among Equals”. Hence with either a Democratic or Republican President at the helm of affairs, the U.S. is expected to continue a policy of ‘aggressive internationalism’.