What does Obama’s victory mean for the world?

I do not agree with the BBC on quite a few things.

However their billing of last night’s election as the ‘vote which affects the world’ (despite our inability to cast a vote for either candidate) was spot on.

Affect the world it will do. But to what extent?

Latin America

One of the many foreign policy errors of Bush’s presidency is that the relationship between North and South was not developed further.

This was undoubtedly, partly due to the ideological distance between Bush and his Latin American counterparts. But 9/11 also played a significant part in the US’s disengagement from the region (albeit arguably enforced disengagement).

With the ideological distance between Obama and those same counterparts greatly reduced and a focus on tackling ‘the causes of terrorism’ as much as terrorism there is hope that the Obama Presidency will have more success in this sphere.

Europe

Who could forget the ‘Non et France’ attitude which erupted in 2003 and continued for a period afterwards? We are not likely to see a repeat of this. Obama’s whirlwind tour to Berlin and Paris highlights this key difference and it is to be hoped that this was not mere electioneering but a serious attempt to re-engage with Europe.

Africa

With his African heritage it would be easy to assume that this part of the world would receive more attention than it has done under previous presidents. But this assumption would be misplaced.

We are likely to see continuity on issues such as Darfur and Zimbabwe for example. Obama has also signalled that in the current economic climate, foreign assistance programmes are likely to be affected. This will of course significantly affect Africa’s development and stability.

The Middle East

Just as the Middle East dominated George W Bush’s foreign policy, so it will Obama’s. There may be an incremental withdrawal of forces from Iraq. But there will not be the full scale withdrawal that so many are hoping for.

Obama will also have to resuscitate the comatose peace process. The signs are that he is more willing to get engaged in this than his predecessor was (or could afford to be). But here again there is no ‘Obama wand’.

One thing we can be sure of is that Obama will rightly continue to support Israel.

As far as Iran is concerned, Obama has advocated an approach based on dialogue rather than monologue. How much success this yields is far from clear.

Terrorism (both non-state and state sponsored) is a significant problem in the region and Obama will need to tackle this in the same way as he tackles terrorism in other corners of the world.

Asia

Alongside having to continue to engage North Korea in the six-party talks and fight for victory in Afghanistan, there are a host of other issues that Obama will need to address.

The first is the Pakistani timebomb. Obama has advocated attacking rogue elements in that country if necessary. That has proved to be one of the more unpopular Obamaisms. But it is absolutely right. You cannot adopt a pick and mix approach to the war on terror. If a nation cannot, or more importantly will not tackle home grown terrorism, the world cannot stand by.

The second is the rising ascendancy of China. As we saw in 2001 there is the potential for tension between the two countries. China may not be the global power come 2010, or 2012. But that does not mean opportunities should be ignored. Nor does it mean that challenges should be overamplified.

Linked into this second issue are of course the Taiwanese and Japanese questions. In terms of the latter, as China continues to develop, there is the potential for Japan’s caution to turn into increasingly vocal criticism (and potentially military were the constitution to be changed or challenged).

Taiwan still has the potential to be the 21st century Cuba. The sovereignty of that nation must not be brow beaten, or otherwise undermined, by China.

Where it is, the US must stand up and defend Taiwan, by military engagement if necessary.

The third is the question of Burma. The military junta cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged by the US. It is to be hoped that Obama will turn up the volume on the Asian democracy channel and that this will have the ‘Serbia effect’.

The fourth and final is the Russian question. As the world saw (as recently as August) this is a country which still has a hangover from 1990. I do not pretend to know how Obama should deal with the Russian bear but it is clear that the ‘live and let live’ era cannot continue.

For all these challenges, on the balance of probabilities, Obama is likely to deliver the world the same message but with a softer voice.