Repairing a damaged image

In his address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, former U.S. President Bill Clinton argued that two questions will have to be answered by voters when deciding whom to elect: who can restore confidence in the attainability of the American dream at home and who can restore America's world leadership.

Whether the response of the American electorate is Barack Obama or John McCain, one thing is certain: the demise of the Bush administration will entail an opportunity for the United States to repair its damaged international relations and improve the bargaining position of that country in the world arena.

The unilateral decision to invade Iraq as part of a strategy to win the war on terrorism was met in the rest of the world with positions ranging from criticism to outright rejection. Some of the governments, like Spain and Great Britain, that initially joined the coalition of the willing were later forced by the pressure of their internal electorates to reconsider their full support to the Bush strategy.

Most Latin American countries were not sold on the Bush doctrine. Mexico and Chile, members of the UN Security Council, chose not to support the United States representation in its demand for a UN sanctioned intervention on Iraq. In Mexico, the decision was not made by President Vicente Fox but by public opinion. Although Fox himself might have been willing to disregard Mexico's own historical experience as an invaded country in exchange for Bush's support to his plan on a bilateral immigration agreement, Mexican voters overwhelmingly condemned the Iraq war. In the midst of midterm elections, Fox was forced to go against his own inclinations to increase his party's chances at winning a majority.

The weak Latin American representation in the coalition of the willing gave the Bush administration enough of a reason to continue ignoring the region. That is, if any reason was needed to justify the non-strategy towards Latin America. Regional issues such as drug trafficking, immigration and economic development were to be addressed unilaterally by the United States or not at all.

Latin America's views on the United States can be divided between aspirational and resentful. On the one hand, Latin American societies admire American democracy, economic might and the rights and opportunities enjoyed by United States citizens. On the other, many Latin Americans resent the intermitent drive of United States administrations to push other countries around in order to further their interests, while making a mockery of the values and principles they uphold at home.

As Bill Clinton stated at Denver, the United States position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation and by a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy. In regards to the hemisphere's shared challenges, the end of the Bush administration will represent a unique opportunity for the United States to repair its relations with Latin American countries. A cooperative approach will resonate with Latin American societies and directly promote the aspirational view of the United States. This in turn will surely foster Latin American countries willingness to share responsibilities and efforts with the United States in providing solution to regional and world problems.

Newsflash: Alaska is next to Russia!

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Americans favor governors over senators when picking their presidents even though the latter tend to have much more foreign policy experience. Nevertheless, it is important for all presidential and vice presidential candidates to affirm their knowledge of and interest in foreign policy to the American public.

Sometimes, valiant efforts to do so backfire. Back in 1999, George W. Bush infamously flunked a quiz on foreign affairs when he was asked to name the leaders of such exotic hot spots as Chechnya and Taiwan. Clearly, such things don't really matter in determining the outcome of elections, but I doubt that any other candidate will concede to answering similarly brazen questions ever again. Pity.

One of the biggest criticisms of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain's recently-picked running mate, is her lack of foreign policy experience. Steve Doocy, of Fox News, was trying really hard to find something,anything, to refute the claim and came up with: "[T]he other thing about her, she does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to Russia." Who knows, perhaps you do get a better view into Putin's soul from Juneau than Washington.

Republicans are somewhat undercutting their own argument about the importance of foreign policy experience by picking her. However, I doubt that Democrats will gain many points on this one since, ultimately, Barack Obama is still at the top of the ticket and his foreign policy experience is minimal. Obama's best bet is to argue, as he has been doing, that he knows enough to do better than the current mess. It is a very, very low bar to cross but John Kerry, a person infinitely more experienced, failed, and I am not sure if Obama will be any different.