First year of new term crucial to foreign policy

To Talk of Many Things

As George W. Bush’s second term begins, a host of foreign policy challenges awaits the reelected president. Over the next four years, the Bush administration will face a daunting number of problems in foreign affairs that could profoundly affect American interests in the world. What will be most interesting to observe is how the first year of the president’s second term will shape the direction of American foreign policy.

The first year of a reelected president’s new tenure is especially significant when it comes to foreign policy because it marks a cusp in the presidential learning curve in world affairs, and the commander-in-chief possesses invigorated political capital. Historically, a president entering the first year of his second term already has acquired a thorough knowledge of foreign affairs during the previous four years of his first term. All of the president’s experiences during his first term have informed him of the opportunities, risks, tools and limitations associated with the country’s international challenges. Thus, by the time a reelected president begins his second term, he knows exactly what he wants his agenda to be for American foreign policy.

The first year of a second presidential term, therefore, is usually the best year for foreign policy. In contrast, the first year of a president’s first term is usually the worst. A fledgling administration, freshly elected to office, is prone to making rash decisions in foreign affairs, as it is overcome with the euphoria of its electoral mandate and its overconfidence. Bush’s most substantial foreign policy errors during his first year as president involved alienating American allies with rapid rejections of several treaties. In 2001, the Bush administration opposed agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the International Criminal Court.

Some would argue that the Bush administration was right to oppose these treaties because they were seriously flawed, and this may well be correct. But there was no need for the administration to spurn the accords so quickly or cavalierly, without even consulting with allies before doing so. This antagonized allies unnecessarily, making it more difficult to obtain allied help for future foreign policy goals.

This first year of a second term gives a president the opportunity to amend past mistakes and set a decisive direction for the nation in foreign affairs. History shows that many presidents have made defining steps in foreign policy during the start of their second terms. In 1793, George Washington proclaimed American neutrality for the duration of his presidency during the wars in Europe. In 1805, Thomas Jefferson saw an end to the conflict in Tripoli with the pirates of the Barbary coast. The pattern has been true of more recent presidents as well. Ronald Reagan held his first summit in Geneva with the Soviet Union in 1985, and Bill Clinton devoted much energy to facilitating peace mediation in Northern Ireland and the Middle East during 1997.

Presidents entering their second term also have political prestige gained from their reelection, which assists them in making foreign policy initiatives. In the later years of their last tenure, presidents’ political capital tends to diminish as attention turns first to the midterm congressional election, then to the presidential nomination process and — finally — to the next presidential election.

President Bush will be challenged by developments in Iraq, Iran, South Asia, Israel/Palestine, North Korea and many more. The year ahead will offer him the best opportunity to ameliorate past missteps and forge accomplishments in foreign policy.

Jonathan Kelly is a senior political science major.