Joel Wendland* extrapolates on how the Congressional elections, virtually a referendum on Bush's Iraq war, will influence US foreign policy Without a doubt the 2006 elections transformed the political landscape in the United States. Immediately following the news that his party had been swept from power, US President George W Bush sacked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Within days, both Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman and Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert resigned their positions, and the Republicans' brash posture quickly deflated into conciliatory foot scraping. Nevertheless, the US right-leaning media began immediately to spin the election results as basically being an acceptance of right-wing policies. The election was no repudiation of Republican ideology, and the results, it was claimed, show that voters are simply disenchanted with the actions of a few individuals and with setbacks in some ill-fated policies. These arguments are unsupported, however, by an already apparent new direction in US foreign policy. It is universally accepted that the elections were a referendum on Bush's Iraq war. More than 60 per cent of US voters said the war strongly influenced their vote, and the vast majority of those people expressed disapproval of the war, Bush's handling of it and wanted, at least, some troop withdrawal. Prior to the election, President Bush attempted to influence the outcome by pretending that he had always wanted a flexible approach to the war, and even denied that his policy had ever been the oft-repeated slogan of "staying the course". Republican candidates ran from the president on the war issue in droves. Many refused to identify with the president or the Republican Party. Some even ran as anti-war candidates. With Democrats in power in both houses of Congress, there is an expectation that while the president oversees foreign policy, the Democrats own the direction of the war. Democratic Party strategists and leaders strongly desire to have the issue off the political agenda before the 2008 presidential elections. This perspective bodes well for anti-war voters who want troop withdrawal and an end to the occupation of Iraq. United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of peace organisations in the US, has put forward for an immediate multi- faceted withdrawal plan that would provide real economic reconstruction in Iraq, engage the regional powers in diplomacy, begin a phased withdrawal of US troops, and turn security operations over to international organisations. Some Democratic leaders, such as the number three ranking Democrat in the House Representative John Murtha, who is campaigning for the House Majority Leader position on a troop withdrawal platform, have put forward similar proposals. (Congressional leadership positions will be finalised at the beginning of the January session of Congress). There are other signs that US foreign policy will be dramatically affected by the outcome of the elections. UN Ambassador John Bolton will not be confirmed in January, as both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which is mandated to confirm or reject Bolton's appointment, continue to express opposition. On the issue of the nuclear confrontation with Iran, Senator Joseph Biden (D-WV), who will chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long called for diplomatic engagement with Iran. Also, early indications from the White House are that it is not ready to jump into a new military engagement. It is possible that other Middle East foreign policies will change as well. Newly elected members of Congress and other current congressional leaders may be more amenable to finding constructive political solutions to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. The US view of Latin America and the Caribbean is somewhat more mixed. After the election results became clear, the White House publicly changed its position towards Nicaragua's newly elected leftist President Daniel Ortega. On 6 November, the White House announced that it might refuse to accept the outcome of Nicaragua's elections. On the morning of 8 November, however, the US State Department expressed that it was looking forward to working with President Ortega. This view of Ortega is a radical departure from the administration's hardline against Latin America's recent "pink tide". It is unlikely, however, that the administration's new posture towards Nicaragua will translate into friendlier relations towards other countries in Latin America or the Caribbean. Few people expect to see an end to political and military intervention in Haiti, political interference in Venezuela, and military aid in Colombia and Paraguay. Nor is it expected that there will, at any time soon, be any relaxing of onerous trade and travel restrictions on Cuba, and economically preferential treatment for countries that adopt Bush- friendly policies. In fact, Bush quietly announced this past week that the US military can continue secret training operations in favoured Latin American countries. The apparent split between a turn to diplomacy in the Middle East, and a hardline status quo in Latin America is exemplified by Bush's appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld. While Gates disagrees with the neo- conservative school of "constructive destruction" in the Middle East that motivated the war on Iraq, his sordid past does include participation in the Reagan administration's anti- Communist Contra War in Nicaragua in the 1980s, denounced by most of the international community for acts of terrorism committed by the US. On the larger scene of international relations, the election outcome may have additional impact. Military estimates, media reports and popular opinion all agree that five years of the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy, culminating in a three-year occupation of Iraq, have so dramatically reduced US military readiness, morale and power that it has been forced into returning to diplomacy and the multilateral framework to resolve conflict. This situation and the outcome of the elections may have opened up new space for constructively addressing important issues. These include US climate change policy, nuclear non- proliferation and disarmament. On the table as well is the question of the US's bleak human rights record, and reductions in US military presence around the world. Indeed, US activists are calling for the closure of the School of the Americas, a training facility at Fort Benning, Georgia, which allegedly has offered training to some of the worst human rights abusers from Latin American militaries. These activists say that 20 members of Congress who blocked a proposal to close the school in 2006 have been removed from office. Such charges open the possibility for renewed pressure to close the school. The Bush administration's refusal to pursue serious diplomatic solutions during its confrontation with North Korea may also fall victim to the elections. While the changes briefly sketched here are dramatic, there is little reason to believe that the elections will cause the US government to reject blatant imperialist goals and methods. More structural and long-term changes in US foreign policy will have to be undertaken. This can be effected through additional pressure applied on this new congressional leadership by progressive organisations with anti-imperialist agendas. Success in this arena will greatly depend on the willingness of these groups to engage a viable electoral strategy and legislative agenda that educates and mobilises broad sections of the US public and its elected representatives, in a positive way. Another key component to moving in a positive direction is effective international solidarity with governments, non- governmental organisations, political parties and other groups abroad. Such solidarity can help clarify the international situation and what policies might humanise US methods or, even, end US hegemony, hostility and intervention. * The writer is managing editor of Political Affairs magazine.
