By Ni Feng

Deputy Director of the CASS Institute of American Studies

Having won re-election and needing to make significant cabinet changes - including the replacement of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State - President Barack Obama will need to make significant adjustments to his foreign policy staff and certain changes to some specific policies. However, the general orientation of U.S. foreign policy development remains quite clear. Three basic judgments can be made regarding the orientation of Obama’s foreign policy during his second term:

First of all, the new administration will pay far more attention to domestic issues than they will pay to foreign affairs, mainly because most of the critical challenges facing the United States come from within, namely weak economic growth, high unemployment, a serious deficit, and general discontentment with the current state of affairs, with over 60% of the population believing that the country is on the wrong path. Domestic issues overwhelmingly dominated this year’s presidential election,and some major diplomatic issues failed to be touched upon in the debates on foreign policy between President Obama and Republican Nominee Mitt Romney. All of these developments indicate that after his re-election Obama is expected to, above all, make a difference in economic and social issues and lead the United States out of its current predicament. Besides,political polarization and partisan battles were aggravated during the election, leaving American even more divided during Obama’s second term than it was during his first term. Many Republicans and their supporters are reluctant to accept the results of the election, and Obama needs to work hard to patch up the differences between his party (the Democratic Party)and the Republican Party. One of the most urgent problems is that on January 2, 2013, before the start of Obama’s second term, America will be facing a“fiscal cliff.”O(jiān)bama needs to spend enormous amounts of time and energy communicating and coordinating with the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in order to overcome this difficulty. The Republican Party, for its part, will take advantage of this leverage to impose all kinds of constraints on the Obama administration.Simply put, the grim domestic situation, combined with fierce partisan struggles, will limit the resources, time and energy that Obama can spend on foreign relations.

Secondly, there will be more continuation than change regarding foreign policy. In retrospect, to most Americans Obama performed better in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs during his first term. Despite the relative decline of the overall strength of the United States and the increasing complexity of the global situation, Obama maintained U.S.hegemony quite effectively through the so-called“smart power”diplomacy. This has also been widely recognized in strategic circles in the United States. During the Republican primary,most of the attacks launched by Romney against Obama’s foreign policy ended up in failure; during the final debates,Romney ended up agreeing with many of Obama’s policies on many major foreign policy-related issues, showing much more common ground than difference. For example, regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, both said that they would be more stern toward the country but spoke cautiously about the immediate use of force; regarding the Syrian predicament, both said that they would oust the Assad regime but were wary of any military intervention, focusing instead on diplomacy and intelligence and allowing regional countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to play major roles; both responded to the impact of Arab Spring with a mixture of delight and misgiving;both attempted to achieve a balance between beefing up U.S.military strength and cutting back on military expenditure;both advocated trade protectionism directed against China;and both instinctively leaned toward China’s rivals regarding the territorial disputes between China and its neighboring countries. These commonalities suggest that Obama’s foreign policy has gained wide recognition in the United States, with a quite solid foundation of consensus and little likelihood for any significant change. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out that it might undergo certain specific fine-tuning, though a more clear judgment on its orientation cannot be made until the new foreign affairs staff has been formed.

Finally, policies relating to China now appear even more prominent in America’s foreign policy discussions. Chinarelated issues were a hot topic again during this election. In particular, the rise of China became a specific topic for one of the debates, marking the first time this was the case in American history. Moreover, the debate over China’s rise between the two candidates enormously increased the attention paid to China by the whole American society. That trend that China-related issues are more important than the Iranian nuclear issue is gaining more and more ground in the United States, and this trend will have a major impact on the development of Sino-U.S.relations.

Apart from these three basic judgments, during the current transition and at the beginning of the next administration, three more specific issues may stand out in American foreign policy:

The Syrian issue.According to some U.S. media reports, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may announce an attempt to reorganize the opposition forces in Syria during the upcoming Doha Conference on the Syrian issue. This can be seen as an important indicator of further U.S. intervention to come on the Syrian issue. The United States has detected the presence of a large number of al-Qaeda members among the Syrian opposition forces. Even if such forces eventually overthrow the current regime, the future situation in Syria will still be out of control for the United States and may lead to an even more serious tragedy than the one that occurred in Benghazi. As a result,before it can engage in deeper intervention, the United States must gain a more effective control over the Syrian opposition forces so as to maintain a close grip on the country after regime change. Therefore the reorganization of the opposition forces can be seen as a prelude to further U.S. intervention.

The Iranian issue.It is generally believed in strategic circles in the United States that the presidential election prevented the United States from paying more attention to the Iranian issue.Now that the election is over, America’s concerns about the Iranian nuclear issue are rising again due to a general antipathy toward Iran and due to pressure from Israel and the Gulf countries. Now the Obama administration is discussing further actions against Iran, and in the future, the new administration will launch even sterner measures and actions against Iran.The period from spring to summer of 2013 may become a crucial point where the relationship between the United States and Iran suffers further deterioration.

China-related issues.With the recent escalation of the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan, the United States is growing more attentive to and vigilant concerning this issue. It appears that the basic position of the United States is to take no clear sides in territorial disputes. However, if the crisis continues to escalate or remains highly tense in the long run, the United States will face tremendous pressure to take sides. As a result, there may arise a heated debate in America between“maintaining credibility as an ally”and“sustaining important relations with China.”This could become a thorny issue that faces the new administration at the beginning of its tenure.