With leaders from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, and now Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein looking to talk with Obama, and Obama, for the most part, willing to talk back, US foreign policy seems to be taking off in a decidedly different direction from at least the last eight years. And it's not only talk, changes to US policy in Afhanistan and Somalia also point to a new approach to foreign policy.This hasn't gone unnoticed within the US on the left or the right alike. Nile Gardner, Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom wrote in an article for the British newspaper, the Telegraph entitled "The UN Loves Barack Obama Because He Is Weak," "His appeasement of Iran, his bullying of Israel, his surrender to Moscow, his call for a nuclear free world, his siding with Marxists in Honduras, his talk of a climate change deal, have all won him plaudits in the large number of UN member states where US foreign policy has traditionally been viewed with contempt. Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack."
Others commend the move towards multilateralism, with Jacob Heilbrunn of the Huffington Post writing "instead of standing aloof and sulking in the corner, as the U.S. has for years, it's starting to wield its influence. For too long, Bush allowed America's foes to dictate events by refusing to engage them. Obama is taking the opposite approach. Just as the economy needs to be jump-started, so does foreign policy. Obama has recognized that. The revitalization of American diplomacy and power has begun."
But what does this actually mean for US relations with the rest of the world and is the Obama doctrine one of "weak[ness]" or a "revitalization of American diplomacy and power"? It rather depends on how one understands the dynamics of global power play. In a model in which US power is maintained by force and the fear of the use of it, Gardiner's comments make a great deal of sense and Obama's attempts at multilateralism seem like clear expressions of weakness. In one in which US power is both restrained by and most effective in cooperation with other states, Heilbrunn's argument is more persuasive. In reality, there is probably a certain degree of both present in global politics. Consequently, both sides will likely find fodder for challenging and applauding Obama's foreign policy. What will be most telling are the material ramifications in key areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
By Noquel
ReplyDeleteI believe Obama has not demonstrated weakness on his Foreign policy but common sense. Our present century does not call for power politics where countries just push their way through obtaining their interests. This strategy it is costly and inefficient as the War in Iraq evidences.
On this new century with a different structure of global power cooperation and mutual indispensability are needed tools for global engagement. The United States remains being the most powerful country in the world however, it shall not dictate but lead.
Obama has come to understand this and he is applying it to his foreign policy agenda. In a new world based on interdependence cooperation is needed. Unilateralism should only come forward as a defense of the most vital national interests and President Obama has not forgotten this. His tone is neither apologetic or weak, but sympathetic without compromising America's interests.
Noquel,
ReplyDeleteI would tend to lean towards this view of global politics also. However, we must realize that, in some choices made by some countries, fear of the use of force by the US may play a significant role in the decision making process. Consequently, any action by the US President that might (no matter how innaccurately) be viewed as "weak" can have negative consequences in global politics. I tend to feel that this is a risk which is worth taking in the case of bolstering international institutions and multilateral approaches to foreign policy as I am of the impression that the power gained by working in cooperation with other states and through international institutions far outweighs the possible negative consequences. However, I do appreciate that there is another side to the coin and was attempting to give it some space in the above post.
By Noquel
ReplyDeleteI couldn't disagree with you, Fae, sometimes the fear of force is the only way to get other nations to act in your interest. Senior member of the Council of Foreign Relations Lesli Gelb expressed similar views in his book Power Rules when he states that one of the biggest problem with the Clinton administration when it came to foreign policy was that it was more liked than fear; Rarely charms by themselves change other leaders politics.
However, that is in regards to making other nations conform to your particular interests as a nation. When the interests in play are just as crucial for everyone in the global sphere to address, such as protecting the planet from global warming, or more controversially underminding nuclear profileration, America does need to soften its tone to ease the mood for global cooperation.
Things have to put within their context. America cannot afford to risk the nation's fate because it wants to appear tough. It has done enough of that already. Some would even argue that that is why it has gotten the nation in some of its previous and current problems, the nations overall strategy of putting the fear of god in other nations.
America's change of tone, opting for global cooperation does not make America appear weak, but open and approachable. It does not undermine America's power in the world, no matter if there is fools that want to take it the wrong way.
Obama's America has shown its friends the carrots and its enemies the stick. It also has done what any noble leader would do if it sees something wrong, he has right. The closing of Guatanamo Bay needed to be done, the attack on Somalia needed to be done, the calls for global cooperation to end the economic recession and underming nuclear proliferation needed to be done. Those who like to judge American foreign policy need to look at the bigger picture before they judge the president actions and always ask themselves before formulating their opinion, was that the best for America now? Then there shall come to a fair judgement of the President's action because it will undoubtaly conform to the premise he departed to make the decision.