Amid all the furor in Washington about the looming government shutdown, almost no attention has been paid to the international consequences of a failure to reach a deal. And no one has talked about a crucial foreign policy decision it would force President Obama to make in the next seven days. Republicans who are hell-bent on forcing a shutdown have been silent on the impact it would have on America’s standing abroad. But Obama, fresh off meetings with other world leaders at the United Nations and set to meet 23 more heads of state next week, has no choice but to confront the fallout.
That’s why the decision he may have to make in the coming days is so tough. The president has to decide whether to go ahead with a long-planned week of Asian summitry, flying 2,400 miles to meet with the leaders of 23 countries, including seven of the United States’ largest trading partners. The current itinerary has Obama on the road from Oct. 5 to 12, with stops in Bali, Indonesia, for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit; Brunei for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and Manila, the Philippines.
The administration sees this trip as crucial to the president’s announced “pivot to Asia,” a needed reassurance to the region that the United States will not surrender the Pacific to China’s growing influence. Perhaps most important, it’s an opportunity to give a badly needed personal push to the critical final talks on the nine-nation trade negotiations known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, something American businesses have long desired. The trip is also part of the president’s desire to do big things in foreign policy in his second term, an aim that was evident in his speech this week to the U.N.
But because of the continued dysfunction in Washington, Obama faces long-term obstacles in achieving that goal. If the government shutters and he still goes ahead with the trip, he risks stinging criticism back home and face-to-face scoldings from other world leaders horrified that the world’s superpower would risk upsetting a fragile global recovery with such irresponsible governance. But if he cancels, he risks snubbing key allies and trading partners, losing face internationally, and giving a propaganda gift to the Chinese.
The only way Obama, and U.S. prestige, can win is if Congress and the White House avert a shutdown or, at the least, postpone the face-off until after he returns to American soil. On that slight hope, administration planners are delaying a go/no-go decision. But, privately, aides acknowledge that scrubbing the trip is a distinct possibility. If that happens, it will be but the latest sign of how much things have shifted in Washington in the two decades since George H.W. Bush’s presidency. “It is mind-boggling how much it has changed in the 20 years since he left,” says Roman Popadiuk, the career Foreign Service officer who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations before becoming ambassador to Ukraine. Back then, he said, the president could talk with congressional leaders of the other party and ask them to delay any showdown until after such important international summits were concluded. But not today. “It’s a whole different environment now, and that’s sad, because it really undermines us overseas.”
Popadiuk was there when Democrats attacked Bush for paying too much attention to foreign policy at a time of domestic economic distress. He shudders at the attacks that will come if the president goes overseas during a shutdown. “If he arrives at the meeting and the government is shut down, he is going to look silly. What kind of pivot to Asia is it when you can’t control your own government?” Showing up at a summit at such a time also “sends a wrong signal to those countries,” Popadiuk says. “And the Chinese will look at this and say, “˜Well, talk about a giant with weak knees.’ “
Obama’s dilemma has a precedent, but it came at a decidedly less critical time in U.S.-Asian relations. In November 1995, a government shutdown forced President Clinton to cancel his trip to an APEC summit in Tokyo. The Japanese felt snubbed. But the biggest consequence of that impasse turned out to be Clinton’s first encounter with Monica Lewinsky, whom he would not have met had he been in Tokyo.
Popadiuk believes strongly in the importance of these summits. But he said the president just cannot afford to be seen spending three or four days at a posh oceanfront resort in Bali. “He is going to have to stay home and show that he is in charge.”
Similar advice comes from P.J. Crowley, who had Popadiuk’s job at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration and was State Department spokesman for the first two years of the Obama presidency. “The optics would be devastating,” he told National Journal. He sees the president losing face no matter where he is during a shutdown. “The United States is hemorrhaging political credibility whether the president shows up in Bali or not,” Crowley says. “In this case, most major world leaders will actually prefer the president solve the problem sooner rather than later because in any government shutdown or government default, the ripple effects on the global economy are potentially profound.”
For that reason, Crowley joked, the Chinese may be more interested in Obama finding a way out of the current mess than in taking advantage of his perceived weakness. “Their reaction might be, “˜What the hell are you doing here? Go home and protect the value of my T-bills that I bought from you!’ “
What is missing is the realization in Congress that embarrassing Obama on the eve of two important summits — or forcing him to keep Air Force One in the hangar — hurts the global economy and weakens American prestige. It is why the president this week may face a decision he really does not want to make.
What We're Following See More »
The Las Vegas Review-Journal, owned by casino magnate and GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, became the first major city newspaper to endorse Donald Trump over the weekend.“Mr. Trump represents neither the danger his critics claim nor the magic elixir many of his supporters crave,” the editorial read, acknowledging concerns about Trump’s temperament. “But neither candidate will ever be called to the dais to accept an award for moral probity and character,” the paper said. “And we are already distressingly familiar with the Clinton way, which involves turning public service into an orgy of influence peddling and entitlement designed to line their own pockets — precisely what a disgruntled electorate now rises up to protest.”
Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 12 percentage points among likely voters, 50 to 38 percent, in a new ABC News tracking poll, "her highest support and his lowest to date in ABC News and ABC News/Washington Post polls. Gary Johnson has 5 percent support, Jill Stein 2 percent. Clinton led by only four points in the last ABC/Post poll on Oct. 13.
President Obama "will make a late splash into races for state senate and assembly over the next week, endorsing roughly 150 candidates across 20 states. He’ll also back a candidate for the North Carolina Supreme Court. The endorsements — which will come along with a variety of robocalls, social media posts, mailers, photos of Obama with the candidates taken as he’s been traveling to campaign in recent weeks, and even a few radio ads — are Obama’s biggest investment in state races ever by far."
If you need a marker for how confident Hillary Clinton is at this point of the race, here's one: CNN's Jeff Zeleny reports "she's been talking to Republican senators, old allies and new, saying that she is willing to work with them and govern."
"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."