The Realist

What do we know so far about how Barack Obama plans to run foreign policy?  A few points.

1) An Obama foreign policy is largely about talk.  So far, his main effort has been a PR offensive to try and repair the damage to America’s image that was done by President Bush.  He has gone to enormous lengths while in Europe to tell anyone who will listen that he represents “change” and that they can stop hating America now that the nasty cowboy has gone.  So far, this has resulted in few concrete achievements in return.  The strategy of basing a foreign policy on talk is modelled on Clinton – after all, talk is cheap, and neither of these Democrats want to be expending much else when they have their domestic programmes to focus on.  The difference is that under Clinton, the Europeans wanted things from America – Kyoto, ICC, leadership in the Balkans – whereas under Obama, America wants things from the Europeans, especially vis-a-vis Russia and South Asia.  Is his playing nice going to mean more help from the other side of the Atlantic?  Don’t hold your breath.

2) And Obama is taking the same approach to non-proliferation with regards to Iran and North Korea, even though this is apparently a major foreign policy goal which he dedicated a whole speech to in Prague.  This highlights how a lot of his talk is often going off at tangents from the real issue.  Yes, America  might not be at war with Islam – but Islamists are sure at war with america.  Yes, non-proliferation might be a worthy goal – but how on earth is he going to achieve it?  As Bret Stephens wrote after Obama responded to North Korea’s missile test by calling for another UN Security Council Resolution:

But the greatest prize for Mr. Kim [from the North Korea missile test] was the reaction from President Obama. “Rules must be binding,” the president told his audience in Prague on Sunday. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” But how are words supposed to mean anything if all the administration proposes to do is offer up yet another resolution — which is to say, more words?

And what’s his strategy for Iran?  Talk, talk talk.  Which is basically just temporizing as events march on, as it is clear to anyone that talk isn’t going to stop the mullahs from developing their bomb.  No-one can seriously believe that the United Nations Security Council is an institution that is going to maintain international peace and security – so why is Obama still making it a centrepiece of his foreign policy?  Are he or his advisors really so steeped in the anti-Bush rhetoric of the last few years, to the extent they’ll accept anything he rejected?  Do they really buy it?

3) This leads us to a deeper level of analysis – Obama’s foreign policy is realist.  Faced with declining means and a desire not to go looking for trouble, Obama is radically reorienting the proposed ends of American foreign policy – he wants to “reset” relations with Russia despite its authoritarian backsliding, Hillary Clinton publicly said she isn’t going to pressure China on human rights, Obama has said his interest in Afghan democracy is only secondary, and Obama doesn’t intend to do anything about the Iranian nuke or its repressive political system.  In fact, he has repeatedly and sickeningly reached out to the tyrants of Tehran despite the fact they continue to humiliate him and the United States through public rejections.

4) He insists on blaming things on his predecessor, which is all very well but hardly a substitute for future policy.  When discussing Iraq and Afghanistan, he managed to get jabs at Bush’s past policies into every speech, without once acknowledging American successes there.  In Europe, he keeps telling everyone how different he is and how America is changing thanks to him, although once it becomes apparent that this change consists of withdrawing from the world and letting aggressive countries do what they want, everyone might rethink their jubilation.  We need some clue that he doesn’t buy into his own rhetoric or see foreign policy mainly as an extension of politics – his political advisor, David Axelrod, is the first political advisor to ever attend National Security Council meetings.

5) By acting in this way, he is letting others dictate the movement of the international environment.  Iran is busy reshaping the Middle East, Russia has increased latitude in Eastern and Central Europe, and North Korea is busy stamping its feet in East Asia.  Many of these trends date back to Bush’s focus on Iraq – “no country can act wisely simultaneously in every part of the globe at every moment of time” – but Obama’s tenure should have been an opportunity to reverse some – even one – of these trends.  We’ve heard nothing but excorciating criticism about Bush’s foreign policy for eight years.  Where are the alternatives?  Is the alternative in fact just to let things continue while talking nicely?

6) By acting in this way, he seems to be accepting the judgement – popular in Europe – that it is the United States that is the main source of tension and trouble in the world, not aggressive countries like Iran and North Korea.  By simply backing off and spreading good vibes with his rhetoric, he is trying to show the rest of the world that the sort of activism which characterized the Bush presidency is gone, and a new era of chilled-out co-operation is here.  This strategy is comforting exactly to the people who don’t matter because they’re not a threat anyway, but gives a green light to everyone who wants to take actions opposed to America’s interests.  Not everyone in the world is dedicated to international co-operation as much as Barack Obama.

7) The one major strategic initiative he has committed to, in Afghanistan, is ill-defined and half-hearted.  That might not necessarily be a problem – at least it’s a start – but points one to five tend to suggest it might be abandoned or scaled back further when things get tough.  Obama didn’t spell out its necessity or generational significance – to do so might have sounded too much like Bush, I suppose – and Americans are not that interested or convinced about the war.  Obama’s incrementalism will hardly have helped turn them around.  He might pay a significant political price for it – will he stick it out, like Bush bravely did?