11-18-06, 9>33 am

Without a doubt the 2006 elections transformed the political landscape in the U.S. Immediately following the news that his party had been swept from power, President Bush sacked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Within days, both Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman and Republican House Speaker Rep. Dennis Hastert resigned their positions, and the Republicans’ brash posture quickly deflated into conciliatory foot scraping.

Nevertheless, the U.S. right-leaning media began immediately to spin the election results as basically 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 U.S. foreign policy.

It is universally accepted that the elections were a referendum on Bush’s Iraq war. More than 60 percent of U.S. 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 was ever 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 even the Republican Party.

With Democrats leading 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 election. This perspective bodes well for antiwar voters who want troop withdrawal and an end to the occupation of Iraq. United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of peace organizations in the U.S., has put forward a multifaceted 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 organizations. Some Democratic leaders have put forward similar proposals.

There are other signs that U.S. foreign policy will be dramatically affected by the outcome of the elections. Both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have stated their continuing opposition UN Ambassador John Bolton, appointed during congressional recess and up for confirmation in January. On the issue of the nuclear confrontation with Iran, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-WV), who will chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long called for diplomatic engagement with Iran. And 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 policy will change also. For example, 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 U.S. view of Latin America and the Caribbean is somewhat more mixed. After the election results became clear, the White House publicly changed its position toward Nicaragua’s newly elected leftist President Daniel Ortega. On Monday, November 6th, the White House announced that it might refuse to accept the outcome of Nicaragua’s elections. On the morning of November 8th, however, the U.S. 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 hard line against Latin America’s recent 'pink tide.'

It is unlikely, however, that the administration’s new posture toward Nicaragua will translate into friendlier relations towards other countries in Latin America or the Caribbean. No serious observers expect to see an end to political and military intervention in Haiti, political interference in Venezuela, military aid in Colombia and Paraguay, 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 U.S. military can continue secret training operations in favored Latin American countries.

The apparent split between a diplomatic turn in the Middle East and a hard-line 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 U.S.

On the larger scene of international relations, the election outcome may have additional impact. Military estimates, media reports, and popular opinion agree that five years of the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy culminating in a three-year occupation of Iraq have so dramatically reduced U.S. 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 like U.S. climate change policy, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, the bleak U.S. human rights record, and reductions in U.S. military presence around the world. Indeed, U.S. activists who are calling for the closure of the School of the Americas, a training facility at Ft. Benning, Georgia for some of the worst human rights abusers from Latin American militaries, say that 20 members of Congress who blocked a proposal to close the school in 2006 have been removed from office, opening 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 outcome of the elections will cause the U.S. government to reject imperialist goals and methods. More structural and long-term changes in U.S. foreign policy will have to come as progressive organizations with anti-imperialist agendas apply additional pressure on this new congressional leadership. Success in this arena depends greatly on the willingness of such groups to engage in viable electoral and legislative activities that educate and mobilize broad sections of the U.S. public and its elected representatives in a positive way. Another key component is effective international solidarity with governments, non-governmental organizations, political parties, and other groups abroad that can help clarify the international situation and outline constructive policies that might humanize U.S. methods, or even end U.S. hegemony, hostility, and/or intervention.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs magazine and can be reached at