PRESIDENT OBAMA 2.0

In the USA, the regular 57th presidential elections have concluded. Their follow-up that is now the 45th US President, Barack Obama, has been re-elected to his post for another four years and will lead the most powerful economic and military power in the world. This election campaign was the most expensive one in the American history. The main contenders for the presidency spent on it about $ 1 billion. With the addition of the spending of the contenders for the congressional seats, the total expenses amounted to a gigantic sum of $ 6 billion

The tension of the election campaign and the uncertainty that persisted until the last moment is reflected in the fact that voters split almost evenly. Because of the peculiarities of the US electoral system in which the winner is determined by the votes of the electors, everyone was waiting for the results of the vote in swing states. When it became apparent that Barack Obama secured the support of 303 electors (the minimum necessary to win is 270), the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, without waiting for the announcement of the final election results, conceded defeat and congratulated his rival and wished him success.

Barack Obama's victory was predicted by most analysts and was to be expected. The poor state of the economy led to some reduction in the level of support, but most people still believe that the culprit of the economic crisis was the policy of the previous administration of George W. Bush. Obama and his administration, according to their supporters, did all they could to prevent a financial meltdown and to slow down the economic decline, especially since recently a way out of the recession can be seen, and the labour and real estate markets have come to life.

Young Barack Obama, a charismatic, looked well on the background of old and boring Mitt Romney. In addition, the incumbent had the advantages of his position, which Barack Obama effectively used when he interrupted the campaign and took the lead in dealing with the consequences of a devastating hurricane that struck the east coast of the United States. According to observers, this fact played a role in the decision of voters who were undecided.

Traditionally, it is more important for American voters how contenders for the presidency look, how they appear in front of the cameras, that the platforms declared by the parties. Debates showed that opponents chose to attack each other personally, and not to discuss the positions and approaches to dealing with pressing problems the country faces. However, referring to the election platforms, it may be noted that the Democratic Party suggests increasing spending on social welfare, education, the war in Afghanistan, immigration reform and raising taxes on the rich. Republicans favour tax reductions, cuts in social spending, increase in the military budget, expulsion of illegal immigrants and a complete ban on abortion.

The Democrats in the end proved to be more convincing, and not only won the White House, but were able to keep the majority in the US Senate. They have 52 seats, while the Republicans only 45. Moreover, two independent senators usually vote with the Democrats. But Republicans retained a majority in the House. Simultaneously with the elections referendums were held in several states. Observers note taken by their results extremely liberal innovations, such as the legalization of marijuana in Colorado or the permission for the same-sex marriage in Maine and Maryland.

Unlike in previous years, the traditionally active and vociferous Armenian lobbyists did not particularly stick out in this campaign. And there is a reason. Scandals related to Armenian criminal groups who through their fraudulent operations have cost the US Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars and, what is more, financed the Armenian lobby organizations, have caused understandable caution and reluctance on the part of US politicians to be associated with them in any way. Not surprisingly, none of the candidates did respond to the call of the leaders of Armenian organizations to express their attitude to the issue of recognition by the USA of the so-called "genocide of 1915". So they did not call for the support of a candidate for the presidency, but focused on working with the candidates for election to the Congress.

The decrease in the influence of the Armenian lobby in Washington's corridors of power is due to the fact that in the current situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan the value of the support from allied Turkey and Azerbaijan outweighs the traditional responsiveness of US politicians to moaning and claims of Armenians. However it is possible that as the century of the so-called "genocide of 1915" comes closer Armenians will become more active and can be expected to attempt to revive in some shape or form the Zurich protocols at the expense of Azerbaijan. So our diplomacy and friends in Turkey should be alert.

According to the American political tradition, during the second term the president is more free in his actions, because he will not need to look at the need for re-election. Therefore we can expect from Barack Obama greater autonomy in the formation of his administration and more daring breakthroughs. In the coming weeks he must negotiate with the Congress to avoid a financial "cliff", as a number of extremely important and urgent issues have been postponed due to the elections.

As to the current international affairs, more decisive action is expected from the United States to address the crisis in Syria and Iran's nuclear program. American voters voted for Barack Obama and showed that they are not inclined to support the involvement of the US forces in distant conflicts. Therefore, we can assume that the dangerous plans for military intervention in Syria, or the bombing of Iranian nuclear infrastructure in the near future will not be implemented. Most likely there will be renewed efforts to address these issues through bilateral and multilateral dialogue with world and regional powers.

If not the content, then the style of the US foreign policy will be defined by the choice of Barack Obama for the head of the State Department. The incumbent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has long declared her intention to resign. Among the most likely candidates for the post US media mention the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, John Kerry, and Presidential Adviser on National Security Thomas Donilon.

Kerry was the 2004 presidential candidate of the Democrats, but was defeated by George W. Bush. As the current chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, he is well-versed in foreign policy issues, and is respected not only in the Democratic Party, but on the Capitol Hill as well. The bad news is that Senator Kerry is heavily influenced by Armenian lobbyists. It was during his chairmanship in the Senate committee that it rejected the endorsement of Matthew Bryza as ambassador to Azerbaijan. Susan Rice is also well known. She was pretty tough in her opposition to Moscow's position on Syria and Iran. During Azerbaijan's membership in the UN Security Council we had to form a working relationship with her. As a woman Susan Rice has certain advantages, as recently female politicians (Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton) have often been appointed as Secretary of State. As for Thomas Donilon, he is less known to the general public, but it is possible that Obama will select him as a close associate.

But no matter how important is the part played by a state secretary, it is the head of the White House who directly determines the position on the most important international policy matters and relations with key international partners, after consultation and discussion with the heads of the relevant ministries and agencies, and key employees. President Obama in his first four-year term showed that he is not inclined to act unilaterally in the international arena, and gives preference to diplomatic action. He established personal contacts with the leaders of many countries, is predictable and so his re-election was well received internationally.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev warmly congratulated Barack Obama with his victory in the elections. He said in the letter: "I believe that during your next presidency, based on mutual interests and common values, the strategic partnership between Azerbaijan and the United States will further expand and strengthen, our countries will together successfully continue the thriving cooperation in the field of international security, economic and democratic reforms. Azerbaijan also has high hopes for the efforts of the United States as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, and personally, your efforts to achieve a peaceful and just solution to the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, which has been ongoing for more than twenty years, within the framework of international law".

The words of the Azerbaijani leader along with an expression of hope also contain calls for the US president to pay more attention to the Karabakh conflict. Indeed, in recent years the United States has provided the role of the main moderator in this issue to Russia, which has not acted impartially. Moscow's desire to push a peace deal which is more in keeping with the aspirations of its Armenian ally, has brought negotiations to a standstill. However, according to respected analysts, Politico editor Bill Nichols and editor for National Public Radio (NPR) Ron Elwing, we should not expect major changes in the US policy toward the region. As American expert on post-Soviet countries Sigov Yuri noted in an interview with Day.Az, the South Caucasus is on the periphery of the attention of Washington and "they only just need one thing - the stability, predictability, and respect for American interests... that new military action does not begin, that American companies feel comfortable here and that those pipeline routes that have been here in place for more than a year remain untouched. The rest will continue to be addressed by the newly appointed special representatives, the mid-ranking State Department officials and the Pentagon, and also prominent American businesses. The situation may be changed by developments around Iran, especially if at least partially, the neighbouring countries of the former Soviet Union will be involved in the conflict."

Military scenarios, whether in Iran or in Karabakh, are not a good premise for greater attention from Washington to the situation in the region and the unresolved conflicts that exist here. Azerbaijan, which is an important partner of the USA on Afghan transit and the implementation of major energy projects, is one of the few Muslim countries that chose the model of the modern secular state and accelerated the process of modernizing. It is entitled to a greater understanding and support from the White House and the State Department. For its part, the Azerbaijani leadership and diplomacy demonstrate a willingness to develop and strengthen Azerbaijani-American relations.