Nov. 7, 2004, La Opinion. Commentary by Senior Fellow George A. Lopez.

By bundling the war on terror with the war in Iraq as a single package of uncertainty and fear, George W. Bush has won a second term as President. Just over half of the voting US adults have bet that Bush is more likely to succeed in those major foreign policy crises than John Kerry.

However serious these wars, the future of American security now depends as much on how the next version of the Bush presidency handles our friends as it does on how he chooses to fight our foes.

The administration needs to revitalize US policy towards our two continental allies and large trading markets: Europe and Latin America. In each case the re-elected president must bring an active agenda, combined with a commitment to open dialogue. The first, most crucial step in that approach should be a willingness to listen to these allies. Based on first term behavior, this style of basic foreign affairs may be difficult for the President.

Critical to the prospect for new dialogue with each continent will be whether the neo-conservative agenda and staff that has dominated the first Bush term retains its hold or gives way to the more moderate forces in the Republican party. If Secretary of State Powell resigns, as is anticipated, the widely respected chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) would be a logical choice if repproachment with Europe were Bush’s goal. Naming a less abrasive Secretary of Defense to replace Mr. Rumsfeld could also be used to build new bridges to Europe. A new head of Defense would also have a substantial impact on US policy in the expanding Colombian quagmire.

The divide between the US and Europe – especially with France and Germany - is deeper than ever. Post-election pundits claim that European leaders will be sobered by Mr. Bush’s re-election and will simply have to deal with his positions on shared issues. This may be true. But the first overture to create such engagement needs to come from Mr. Bush. With Presidents Chirac and Schroeder, Bush has pushed the political to become personal, and those leaders have responded in-kind. De-escalating the heat of our disagreements is the goal.

Bush’s core differences with Europe are in the meaning of war and alliances in a post-9-11 world. Mr. Bush and his aides have led a national chorus that misinterprets Europe’s aversion to war - in Iraq or elsewhere - as either selfish attempts to protect the interests of their companies, or a weak-kneed understanding of the utility of war. Mr. Bush needs to more fully grasp the European view that the power of economic exchange, rather than war, is the more effective tool in resolving differences among states. Nowhere is this more evident than in US and European differences in how to deal with Iran.

Moreover, our NATO and EU friends simply do not share the US view that 9-11 so changed the world that long-standing alliances are now less relevant. The Bush Administration’s claim that collective action in a newly dangerous world should emerge from ‘coalitions of the willing’ – a temporary alliance of like-minded states – is rejected outright. Only astute re-engagement of the allies on core concerns – like the Balkans or Afghanistan - can repair this.

On the Latin American side, Mr. Bush’s first term was marked by a quiet militarization of a few issues and benign neglect of others. Not mentioned in the war on terror rhetoric of the US presidential campaign was the substantial and growing US involvement in Colombia. Now the fourth leading national recipient of US military aid, Colombia is the Pentagon’s point country in the war on narco-terror. US aid hovers at around $ 500. million dollars annually. A growing number of US military personnel operate in the country. And Colombia is the only nation in the world with three different militant groups listed on the US-UN terror group list. These escalating forces have fallen below the radar screen of the US public.

Of course, neither counter-terror policies nor serious drug interdiction policy can achieve success without strong relations with the larger Andean region. But such policy initiatives also involve the confluence of a number of sensitive topics linked together: drugs, guns, money, terror techniques, oil and political corruption. The White House must exercise leadership in convening regional and hemispheric summits to address these issues in their complicated reality.

One of the most sensitive issues for Mr. Bush is US relations with Mexico. In fact, the downward spiral of bilateral relations parallels that of France and the US. Just the opposite was predicted four years ago. President Fox of Mexico and Bush of the US had built a strong working and personal relationship when each was governor of their respective states. To the dismay of Mexico, after 9-11 US perspectives on the perennial and complex issue of migration have been redefined as US border security issues in an age of terror. Mexico’s staunch opposition in the UN Security Council to the US march to war with Iraq deepened the divide. Despite the many economic and social issues that need to be dealt with by continued bi-lateral dialogue, Mr. Bush mistakenly manifests no visible drive to repair the damaged relationship.

Beyond these major problems also lie other pesky hemispheric puzzles which will demand more careful attention and nuance by the Bush Administration. Argentina continues to sit at the edge of financial collapse. The President may want to rethink whether strategies of constructive engagement should replace punishment and isolation of those engaged with Cuba in light of visible signs of Castro’s frailty. And how to avoid a war of rhetoric with President Chavez in Venezuela in favor of more normal relations will require extraordinary diplomatic skill.

It may be that Colombia or Cuba tempts the US to employ old style Yankee muscle. Or a crisis needing NATO’s attention might arise. But more likely Mr. Bush will face a litany of foreign policy tasks that require basic ‘roll-up-your-sleeves’ diplomacy. The challenge is to listen to old friends, however contentious their voice, and to hear their perspective on our shared, current problems.

A brighter future of US relations with Europe and Latin America demands that President Bush labor in a more dedicated and focused way with long time friends. It is a back to the basics foreign policy. No crusades lie ahead. Nor do brutal enemies lurk behind every corner. Maybe this is why it could be so difficult for the new Bush Administration to get it right.

George A. Lopez is Senior Fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Top of Page

Home > In the News > Kroc faculty current events commentaries > Politica Exterior