As President Obama begins his second term, it’s appropriate to review America’s foreign policy challenges, and how the White House has responded to significant international events during the past four years. The NEW YORK ANALYSIS researched international perspectives, as well as American think tanks and analysts, to gain the most objective perspective.
THE WHITE HOUSE RATES ITSELF
The White House described its foreign policy accomplishments recently as the President delivered his State of the Union address:
“President Obama has pursued national security policies that keep the American people safe, while turning the page on a decade of war and restoring American leadership abroad. Since President Obama took office, the United States has devastated al Qaeda’s leadership. Now, thanks to our extraordinary servicemen and women, we have reached a pivotal moment-we definitively ended the war in Iraq and have begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we have refocused on a broader set of priorities around the globe that will allow the United States to be safe, strong, and prosperous in the 21stCentury. To advance America’s national security, the President is committed to using all elements of American power, including the strength of America’s values. The National Security Policy…lays out a strategic approach for advancing American interests, including the security of the American people, a growing U.S. economy, support for our values, and an international order that can address 21st century challenges.”
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
In 2012, the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project found that “Global approval of President Barack Obama’s policies has declined significantly since he first took office, while overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U.S have sipped modestly as a consequence. …Europeans and Japanese remain largely confident in Obama, albeit less so than in 2009, while Muslim publics remain largely critical. ..support for Obama has waned significantly in China, Since 2009, confidence in the American President has declined by 24 percentage points and approval of his policies has fallen by 3 points. Mexicans have also soured on his policies, and many fewer express confidence in him today.”
THE CHALLENGES
There has been substantial deterioration in Washington’s influence throughout the globe, both due to America’s economic troubles and the diminution of confidence in the will or capability of the United States to successfully project its military power.
The Middle East
• Washington has engaged in a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, eliminating the pro-democracy gains made during the U.S. occupation. Iran has entered the vacuum left by the United States;
• The White House refused to arm Syrian rebels against the pro-Iranian Assad regime, which has engaged in extraordinary human rights violations against its own people;
• It didn’t provide even verbal support for reformers in Iran, and has shown reluctance to take vigorous diplomatic action to dissuade the Iranian nuclear program. (See the NY Analysis study, Iranian American nuclear negotiations” 10-29-12);
• It supported a movement that led to an Islamic fundamentalist takeover of Egypt;
• It has significantly cooled down the formerly warm relations Washington had enjoyed with Israel;
• The U.S. did not respond to the assassination of its own ambassador in Benghazi. (See the NY Analysis study, “The Benghazi Report, 12/24/12)and virtually apologized for being the victim of this assault by blaming it on an American video that was subsequently shown to be irrelevant to the incident.
All this has recast the US as a far less powerful player in the region than it was over the past several decades, and has had the destabilizing effect of strengthening Tehran.
Afghanistan
By announcing a draw-down date in Afghanistan, and doing so at a time when there is less than solid confidence in that nation’s military capability to protect itself or the civilian government to rule effectively, the dangerous possibility of a return to power by the Taliban looms large.
Asia
In Asia, the lessening of American naval power, while China’s maritime prowess has increased, has led to several dire consequences. In 2012, Beijing’s navy occupied a resource-rich offshore region belonging to the Philippines. The Obama Administration failed to intervene in this most significant act of aggression in that part of the planet since the end of World War 2. Similarly, the perception of U.S. reluctance to flex its muscles in the defense of its allies has led to extremely tense showdowns between China and Japan. All this has occurred as Beijing has built its armed forces to superpower levels.
North Korea’s long-standing belligerence (See the NY Analysis study, North Korea’s dangerous threat, 2-1-13) has entered a new and more dangerous phase, with its rapidly developing nuclear and ICBM capabilities. The Pyongyang regime openly states that these dangerous technologies are aimed at the United States. There has been little effective response from Washington. Writing in the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin stated: “Unfortunately, the international community is all out of “swift and credible action,” and President Obama has sought to cut missile defense programs that are “necessary to defend ourselves and our allies.” And in touting the disastrous six-party talks that have resulted in serial cheating, the president reveals himself to be entirely feckless. (It is also a reminder that his secretary of defense nominee, who backed the Global Zero initiative, is equally clueless.) Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute wryly observes, “I think Kim Jong Eun will discover that it takes more than a nuclear test to get Barack Obama’s attention in the new age of retreat and decline.”
Europe
In Europe, the Obama Administration’s inclination to seek accommodations with Moscow at the expense of NATO has greatly disturbed U.S. allies such as Poland. The still unexplained coolness the White House has demonstrated towards the United Kingdom has yet to yield any crisis-level results, but remains a worrisome factor.
Russia
Despite Washington’s attempts to strengthen ties with Russia, that nation has engaged in its greatest arms buildup since the Cold War (See the NY Analysis study, “The Cold War Returns, 8-23-12) and has once again taken to sending its nuclear-capable bombers and submarines to patrols directly off the American coastline. As this edition went to print, Russian bombers circled the major U.S. base on the Pacific island of Guam.
The Americas
In the Americas, the Cuban/Venezuelan axis continues to strengthen, and for the first time since the Cuban Revolution, Havana’s influence in Latin America and Caribbean organizations has risen substantially. China’s growing commercial interests have increased Beijing’s influence in the region significantly, and Iran’s ongoing attempts to become a player is distressing.(See the NY Analysis study, China in Latin America 8-16-12.) Cuba’s recent rise to the leadership of the CELAC organization (Communidad de estados latinoamericanos y caribenos) symbolizes Washington’s diminished clout under the Obama Administration. An Associated Press report called Obama’s re-election “a relief to leftist forces “from Caracas to Havana to La Paz.”
We continue our review of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy record by examining international views.
Newly appointed Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s first major speech was delivered last week at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. He outlined the Obama Administration’s approach to foreign policy by stating “that if we do the right things, the good things, the smart things over there, it will strengthen us here at home.”
Kerry spoke at length about a number of issues, including the environment, trade, human rights abuses, gender inequality, and corruption. His most passionate remarks were reserved for America’s foreign assistance programs, noting that: “Foreign assistance is not a giveaway. It’s not charity. It is an investment in a strong America and in a free world. Foreign assistance lifts other people up and then reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common endeavors. And when we help others crack down on corruption, that makes it easier for our own compliance against corruption, and it makes it easier for our companies to do business as well.”
The Secretary repeatedly noted that helping other nations develop strong economies will eventually benefit American businesses.
Kerry complained that his Department’s allocation “was just over one percent of our national budget.”
His sole mention of threats facing the United States came towards the end of his speech, when he noted that “When we join with other nations to reduce the nuclear threats, we build partnerships that mean we don’t have to fight those battles alone.”
Surprisingly, Kerry completely omitted any mention of the major international conflicts, threats and incidents that in the past would have headlined the start of a new Secretary of State’s tenure. These include:
• recent Russian bombers engaging in aggressive flybys of U.S. coastlines and military bases;
• China and Japan standing at the brink of armed conflict;
Adopting Innovative Therapies Although term ED was only coined relatively recently, erection issues order viagra have probably always existed. These online cheap soft viagra drugstores sold counterfeit medicines or drugs after their expiry dates. It blocks the blood flow and increases the higher chances of ED among the males. commander viagra valsonindia.com Are you feeling difficulty in enjoying your sex life to the children so that they can cipla viagra india have a satisfactory sex life again. • Beijing’s recent aggression against a resource-rich area belonging to the Philippines,
• development of nuclear ICBM technology which it openly states is directed against America;
• Iran’s atomic program, and its continuous abuses in the Middle East;
• Syrian President Assad’s attacks on his own populace;
• the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Egypt;
• the growing threat from leftist dictatorships in Latin America;
• or of the increased international attempts to extend censorship over the Internet.
Perhaps most notable by its absence was any mention of the ongoing cyber attacks by China’s People’s Liberation Army on American government, military, corporate and infrastructure computer systems.
The Secretary’s first weeks as America’s top diplomat were also marked by consternation over his travel plans. According to the State Department, Kerry’s planned trip to the Middle East includes visits to Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Notably excluded from the list is Israel, which had long been considered America’s chief ally in the region.
The snub to that nation is more keenly felt as a consequence of the President’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Hagel has a long and controversial history of anti-Israeli comments. It has been reported that up to fifteen Republican senators have requested that the White House withdraw his name. Similar to Kerry’s concentration on foreign aid as opposed to foreign conflicts and threats, Hagel is seen as opposed to the use of American force abroad.
The lack of any mention of immediate threats to U.S. safety from the exceptional arms buildups by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, even as the U.S. cuts its own military, was surprising.
The Secretary’s reign at the State Department began with Moscow’s humiliating refusal to return his phone call for six days, perhaps a reflection of America’s shrunken international status in the eyes of powerful nations.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
In 2012, the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project found that “Global approval of President Barack Obama’s policies has declined significantly since he first took office, while overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U.S have slipped modestly as a consequence. …Europeans and Japanese remain largely confident in Obama, albeit less so than in 2009, while Muslim publics remain largely critical. ..support for Obama has waned significantly in China, Since 2009, confidence in the American President has declined by 24 percentage points and approval of his policies has fallen by 3 points. Mexicans have also soured on his policies, and many fewer express confidence in him today.”
The Voice of Russia:
“One should mention that during his election campaign President Barack Obama promised to focus more on the missile issue in relations with Russia. Now that he has been re-elected the question is whether he will keep his promise? … The same one may expect from the talks between President Vladimir Putin and the US National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon scheduled for late February-early March. Some sources say that Mr. Donilon will hand over a special message from Mr. Obama to Mr. Putin concerning the future of the US-Russian relations, including in the sphere of disarmament and arms control. Certainly, no details have been disclosed so far. In his recent TV interview Mr. Donilon said that “due to a chill in US-Russia relations and now that election campaigns are over in both countries the White House is ready to discuss steps to make the bilateral relations more productive. Meanwhile, the new US Secretary of State John Kerry is likely to visit Moscow in late February, Mr. Lavrov said after the International Security Conference in Munich. There Mr. Lavrov had talks with the U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and discussed the prospects for the development of the Russian-US relations. I think we should be cautiously optimistic about these prospects.”
European Council on Foreign Relations:
“Europeans did not always get what they wanted from their relationship with Washington in 2012. The euro crisis continued to cast a long shadow on transatlantic relations and in particular generated tensions between the US and Germany, with Obama supporting calls by France, Italy, and Spain for a growth strategy. The lack of full visa reciprocity is also still a sore point, especially for Poland. The Israel-Palestine issue also remains a point of contention, with Europeans able to resist diplomatic US demarches but still too divided to influence US policy in any meaningful way, as the vote on the non-member state status for Palestine illustrated. Obama also allowed his Secretary of Transportation to exempt US airlines from complying with the EU Emissions Trading System in spite of European gestures of goodwill. In the longer term, as the US energy revolution locks it into dependence on fossil fuels (shale gas and tight oil), transatlantic tensions over climate change could increase.”
Germany’s Speigel online describes Obama’s foreign policy as “not working,” and provides examples. “the White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference … at which questions were forbidden…Obama’s new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere…”
The United Kingdom’s Telegraph describes the President’s foreign policy as being “in tatters,” and questions the President’s commitment to the principles of freedom, and ponders whether in his second term how committed he would be to “the basic principle that every American schoolchild is taught: that his country not only believes in freedom for its own citizens, but that it has a moral mission to support and defend those who seek liberty everywhere in the world. Its people are instructed by their founding documents not to think of themselves merely as the fortunate residents of a lucky country but as bearers of an eternal truth-the universal human rights to which all peoples can and should aspire…He told Eastern Europe that it should now be expected to look after itself, as he withdrew American missile cover. He retreated dramatically from confrontation in the middle east.”
The Jerusalem Post notes that “Obama’s foreign policies in country after country and region after region indicates that his policies have been more damaging to US national interest than those of any president since Jimmy Carter. And unlike Obama, Americans widely recognized that Carters foreign policies were failed and dangerous.”
Indo-Asian News Services writes that “[I]t is felt that the Obama Administration has failed to develop a sustained policy helping India achieve its economic and security goals…”
East Asia Forum
(China): “The gap between Chinese and American power has been reduced, providing the material preconditions for a more equal bilateral exchange. Especially after the Olympic Games, the success of China’s model of development is increasingly apparent. Comprehensive national power is on the rise and China’s growing military and defence capabilities were showcased by the national day military parade in October 2009.”
We began our Foreign Policy Scorecard by reviewing the numerous challenges facing the United States, and continued by discussing international perspectives. This week, we examine American viewpoints.
AMERICAN VIEWPOINTS
Bloomberg news service decries the lack of “spine” in the Administration’s policies, and notes that “compared with a decade ago, the landscape for democracy promotion is less favorable. U.S. and European models for governance are tarnished, “authoritarian capitalism” a la China and Russia is on the rise, and governments indicate that his policies have been more damaging to US national interests than those of any president since Jimmy Carter. And unlike Obama, Americans widely recognized that Carter’s foreign policies were failed and dangerous. Governments from Venezuela to Egypt are blocking traditional methods of spreading democratic values and institutions.” The article noted that the Obama Administration undermined U.S. credibility by choosing not to vigorously support Iranians who risked their lives to protest suspected election results.
Brooking: In a “Memo to The President,” Brooking’s Mark Indyk and Robert Kagan write: “It is a time of uncertainty and instability for the world, and for the United States; but it is also a moment of opportunity. Almost a century ago, when the United States entered the First World War, the philosopher John Dewey observed that the world was at a “plastic juncture.” He and many other progressives believed that the unsettled world of their day offered the United States and the other democratic powers a chance to remold the international system into something better. Americans walked away from that challenge and would embrace it only after a second catastrophic breakdown of world order. Today, we are at another “plastic juncture.” Will America turn inward and away from an increasingly messy world? Or will we launch a new effort to strengthen and extend, both geographically and temporally, the liberal world order from which Americans and so many others around the world have benefited?
“The answer depends very much on how you choose to make use of your next four years in office. Unfortunately, there is not a lot to show for your first four years. In many respects, this is understandable. The economic crisis that you inherited made steady concentration on foreign policy more challenging. The two wars you inherited in the Greater Middle East had been bungled by your predecessor and cost the United States dearly, both materially and in terms of reputation. You began to restore that reputation through your own global appeal and the efforts of your Secretary of State.
You have done especially well in raising America’s profile and deepening our engagement in East Asia. However, so far it is hard to list many durable accomplishments. Most of the major challenges are much as you found them when you took office, or worse: from the stalled Middle East peace process and turmoil in the Arab world to Iran’s continuing march toward a nuclear weapons capability to China’s increasing assertiveness in East Asia. Your understandable preoccupation with reelection has left much of the world wondering: Where is the United States?”
The Hudson Institute noted that “For years, Obama and his national security team argued that, by and large, America’s problems in the world resulted not from aggression or the ideological extremism of hostile actors abroad, but were the bitter fruit of America’s history of bullying, selfishness and militarism, especially during the George W. Bush administration. They complained that America had long been acting like a rogue nation, arrogant in defying the rights of others, self-serving in defining its interests in national rather than global terms, and unilateralist in refusing to constrain itself to actions approved by multilateral institutions or endorsed by progressive commentators …
The Obama administration has had plenty of time to test its diplomatic theories. …Obama first spoke of “reset” less than 12 months after Russia invaded Georgia, a U.S. friend and partner. Soon after that, the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran began operations. As rebels tried to bring down the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in early 2011, Russia supplied the Syrian dictator with military equipment by sea. Reuters reports that Moscow sold Damascus $1 billion dollars of military hardware since the uprising began. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Russia in June 2012 against sending helicopters to assist the Syrian regime in its attacks against civilians and rebels. In August 2011, Putin, then the prime minister, accused the United States of living “like a parasite” on the world economy. At a May 2012 international missile defense conference in Moscow, Russia’s top military officer Gen. Nikolai Makaro denounced U.S-NATO plans to build defenses against ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East. Referring to potential Eastern European sites for such defenses, General Makarov made a remarkable threat: “A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens.”
In short, in the 39 months since Obama announced that great powers do “not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries,” Russia has exerted itself to defy the United States and NATO and increase its political investment in rogue regimes — in particular in Syria and Iran. In the three-and-a-half years since the policy’s inception, the Obama reset has been a head-shaking disappointment.”
Heritage Foundation:”Libya. Egypt. Syria. Iran, Russia. China. America’s relations with the world aren’t looking too good…[Preident Obama’s] political approach to foreign policy-making decisions that appeal to a political base rather than making military sense-is putting American lives and American interests in danger. All the while, he is gutting the defense budget, supposedly to free up money for his domestic agenda. This is weakening defense and military readiness, which is a perilous strategy.” Heritage’s Helle C. Dale writes that “president Obama has been mugged by reality in three key areas: Iran, Russia, and counterterrorism.”
The Hoover Institution, discussing the Middle East, notes that “Hatred of America has increased over the last four years even as our influence has diminished, and the region is heading toward more violence and more assaults on human rights.”
CONCLUSION
There is a significant disconnect between the Obama Administration’s view of its own foreign policy achievements and that of both U.S. and International observers and governments. While the President clearly seeks to concentrate on America’s weak economy and a broad social change agenda, it will be impossible to either ignore the deteriorating international condition or to continue on the same course he has pursued during his first term.