Election Day Matters Overseas

Wolfson: No Matter Who Wins, Results Will Have Effect On Administration's Foreign Policy

(CBS)  CBS News reporter Charles Wolfson is a former Tel Aviv bureau chief for CBS News. He now covers the State Department.

---

No matter which candidates win today, the results from this year's midterm elections will have an effect on foreign policy considerations in the remaining two years of the Bush presidency.

While voters across the country may be happy that Election Day has finally come because it brings an end to the barrage of political advertising, foreign leaders and their policy advisors will follow the outcome for their own purposes.

If President Bush's policies are vindicated, as seen by the Republican Party holding onto control of Congress, then friend and foe alike will know the Bush administration will close out their remaining two years in office from a position of strength.

On the other hand, if Democrats win either the House of Representatives or the Senate — or both — Mr. Bush will be weakened and foreign leaders will take note.

In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew a distinction between politics and policy. "… Don't try and look at our politics to see where our policies are going," she said. "… we're a big democracy and we're going to have these debates, but that U.S. policy is U.S. policy."

That sounds good in principle but in practice the calculus of foreign leaders everywhere will be to see weakness if the Democrats prevail and they'll act accordingly. Mr. Bush is already a lame duck. If it's a bad night for Republicans on Tuesday, his diminished political clout could lead to more difficult challenges on a host of pending foreign policy issues.

While North Korea has already agreed to come back to the negotiating table, no date has been set and Pyongyang — under threat of U.N. sanctions — has not yet made any concession except for agreeing to return to talks.

Iran is still fighting against the imposition of international sanctions from the U.N., although it has clearly defied the international community by its refusal to suspend its nuclear weapons programs. The leadership in Tehran appears to have successfully split the Russians and Chinese away from Washington and its European partners on the issue of sanctions.

At the very least, any action has been put off until after the elections. Again, how Mr. Bush and his political allies fare will dictate how his policies are viewed in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran.

Presidents Asad in Syria and Mubarak in Egypt will be watching to see whether Washington still has the clout to push its policies of democratization on the Middle East. Ditto for the ruling regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, who is due to be at the White House next week, is watching to see if his biggest ally will be in a position of strength or weakness for the next two years.

Americans obviously have the biggest stake on the election's outcome but it is of no less interest abroad. Although Mr. Bush is not on the ballot himself, polling has indicated his handling of the war in Iraq is the biggest issue for American voters this fall.

While there are other issues of importance in individual races — immigration, taxes, stem cell research — this year may prove the exception to one of the basic rules of elections. For many voters the notion that "all politics is local" may take a backseat this time around to the larger national interest.

[tipicleman]

Meet in the middle????? I just googled that and that is or has not been in the republican vocabulary for at least 12 years!

[marcodele]

I have an idea. Let's meet in the middle.

[ikez78]

Because America's enemies want Democrats to win and have admitted such. What in the world does that say about your party when the enemies of the country yearn for your victory?

[lithium_joe]

As an UK observer, I cannot help but notice that there is a peculiar absence amongst the list of named world leaders in this analysis. Missing, presumed ignored, is Tony Blair, who as a staunch ally of the U.S President has to face the near constant consternation and dismay of the majority of British people in a battle he fights with the press and popular opinion practically daily.

I find it amusing, but is Blair's support now worth so little as to be beneath consideration in the summation of possible consequences to global politics that may result from these elections?
As a principal ally in the War on terror and the miss-conceived, flawed, and frankly, unjustified invasion of Iraq, I should have expected a mention, perhaps a sentence but I am surprised to find neither. Perhaps that is fitting after all. Second fiddle. Third wheel. Insignificant and overlooked. I cannot say I am disappointed.

If the Democrats win and achieve enough of a majority in the house and the senate, they will be able to initiate congressional inquiries into the war in Iraq. I then expect the decisions taken on both sides of the Atlantic in devising the invasion of Iraq to be exploded into the public domain, and not before time.

Blair's position as PM would then quickly become untenable, forcing a change in leadership in the governing party and possibly a general election.
I find the omission of this possible consequence to tonight's voting a curious and possibly telling omission in the article.

[jimc52]

Your rhetoric is not correct. You fail to recognize that the democrats have had strong Congresses and Presidents in the past. Just being a world bully doesn't prove strength. It has been the constant hate filled rhetoric of the Republicans during the past 12 years that the democrats are weak at heart and have no leadership capabilities. I think foreign leaders everywhere will sigh with relief knowing that some common sense and moderation has come to Congress. I don't interpret that common sense and moderation as "weakness." It will only be weakness if the Republicans continue to do their hate filled antagonism, repulsive polarization and divisiveness in the next two years. I want to remind you that democrats are Americans too, something the Replicans think is exclusive to themselves. They have proved weak, ineffective, beligerant, corrupt and divisive rulers for too long. Our enemies will continue to remain enemies regardless of democrat or republican in office. The difference is, how much blood is necessary to be spilled in order to carry out policy dictates.

[marcodele]

I don't know why you think a Democratic majority would influence Bush over the next two years. He has never listened to anyone outside his inner circle of butt-kissers and Daddy's friends. He can still do as much damage as he wants in his last two years. Just look at what happened in his first year: massive intelligence failures lead to terrorist attacks, the surplus disappears and in replaced by a deficit, and we begin nation building in the middle east and ramming Cheney's oil company down muslim throats. A new Democratic majority cannot fix the damage that has been done. It will take decades.