-
30
Nov
Politco’s Ben Smith has a good article on why Obama’s foreign policy of engagement lacks substance. The money quote is from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch:
Engagement is one of the most bloodless, uninspiring, and virtually meaningless concepts in American foreign policy. It’s just a process…you need both means and ends, and the means are often uninspiring and boring and plodding and bureaucratic, but the ends have to be inspiring to capture people’s imagination and win their support.
Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has more.
- Published by Barak in: Blog
8 Responses to “Obama needs a vision check”
Could it be that this early process of engagement is being done in an off election year so that it won’t have the electoral consequences in 2012? Set the tone for international dialogue now, in an off year, because it is unpopular, then have the payoffs of these discussions and behind-the-scenes negotiations pay off in 2011 and 2012, thus creating the political space for electoral gains? We can see the heavy lifting of these domestically unpopular foreign policies starting to take shape; supporting Karzai, taking out the missile defense shield in Europe, meeting with Chinese leaders and hailing the U.S. as a “Pacific nation”, etc. I think the Obama administration is doing the unpopular things first so as to not let them have such negative electoral consequences.
This would take a lot of strategic deft, most of which he can’t control, such as getting China and Russia to agree to put sanctions on Iran. Politics is rarely that neat and there is a high risk the administration will get nothing from those efforts. Moreover, few outside the US are going to think that the administration is committed to peace as it escalates the war in Afghanistan.
Barak,
Russia has agreed to join the international consensus on Iran:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSGEE5B023C20091201.
And it seems that China is at least willing to express its dissatisfaction with Iran’s uranium enrichment as they voted in favor of UN Resolution 1737 in 2006. It is possible if not likely that China will actually support sanctions if Iran does not outsource its enrichment process or of it does open up ten more plants. I also think that China now has the stature and heft to not automatically give into U.S. demands on Iran and might want to wait a month or two to support the sanctions and thus make it appear as though they made the decision solely on their own.
And to speak of strategic deft – let us not underestimate the individual (Obama) and his inner circle that created a strategy to overcome one of the biggest electoral leads, beating Hilary Clinton, and achieving one the most stunning political upsets in American history.
Also, do you not find it odd that withdrawal in Afghanistan is set for 2011, a ful year before the election? This seems like strategic deft in its highest form. If the troop increase is successful it will shut off Republicans from criticizing the Democrats on security and foreign affairs. If the troop increase does not have its desired ends the Obama administration will have a full year to change the debate or create a domestic legislative achievement that will alter the public discourse.
Best Regards,
Visitor of the first post
I agree about our relations with China, but nothing is new with our relationship with them. Bill Clinton, for example, lobbied Congress hard to get Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China Reaching out to Iran has yielded nothing from the Iranians is my point.
I agree that Obama ran a masterful campaign, but his foreign policy team is full of former Clinton appointees, like Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, and Leon Panetta, so I fail to see your point on this.
I agree with you about withdrawing in 2011. However, wars are far easier to start than to end. I am certain Obama shares your thoughts. He, however, has less than full control over the outcome of the escalation.
Nothing is new with our relationship with China? What about Obama hailing the U.S. as a “Pacific nation”, going to China himself while making Prime Minister Singh come to the U.S., not meeting with the Dalai Lama – basically rebuffing the importance of human rights and falling into trap of Chinese Politburo assertions that “human rights” and “humanitarian interventions” are uniquely American adventures, Army Chief of Staff George Casey stating that the Chinese middle class “worries him”, essentially pointing to an inevitable conflict over resources?
And as for the U.S. relationship with China the coming diplomatic awkwardness that will be created by China’s growing navy (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19623/chinas_naval_nationalism.html?breadcrumb=%2Fproject%2F58%2Fquarterly_journal%3Fpage_id%3D149%26parent_id%3D46) and air force modernization cannot be ignored. Naval expansion between great powers has historically led to increased tensions.
I would argue that reaching out to Iran was nothing more than a formal process. The U.S.knew they had to reach out, Iran would ignore or defy any type of reasonable engagement, thus the U.S. would be able to rally international consensus and make the case for increased pressure and possibly sanctions. The expected negative response to attempts by the U.S. to reach out has created the diplomatic and political space to make the argument for more drastic measures to be taken against Iran.
And for every Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, or Leon Panetta in the administration there is a Karl Eichenberry, Susan Rice, Anne-Marie Slaughter, or Denis McDonough, or even holdovers like Douglas Lute. And let us realize that foreign policy decisions have centralized within the NSC, allowing presidents to have great oversight of their international affairs. Foggy Bottom has seemingly become an enforcer of policies, not an innovator of them.
Best Regards,
Visitor of the first post
I agree that what not meeting with the Dali Lama sent a terrible signal (as I stated in a recent post). What I meant is that diplomatic relations between China and the US are not new. I did not like Obama’s obsequious behavior toward the Chinese.
Perhaps you are correct about Iran, but if that is the case, why is Obama standing on the sidelines as the regime cracks down on (and cracks the skulls of) democratic reformers? We have engaged the regime we claim to deplore more than those who want to replace it with a democracy.
Obama is “standing on the sidelines” because he has to let the true intentions of the current regime be revealed to the international community. The U.S. cannot meddle in the domestic affairs of Iran without appearing to overtly and annoyingly pressure other states to act behalf of U.S. intentions and wishes.
Once, and it will happen soon enough, Iran either goes through with their nuclear program (for which Mousavi, with the backing of many of these democratic reformers, supported) or nears completion of it the international community will act. But the U.S. cannot look like it is tinkering with the situation as it will appear disdainful to the international community.
And why are we to assume that these democratic reformers in Iran would back down from its current nuclear program? Mousavi supported it, as did many of his supporters. We could support these democratic reformers in Iran but even that would not necessarily stop the diplomatic crisis that would occur if Iran gets the bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, under Ahmadinejad or Mousavi, Israel will have the same reaction, which would spur an international crisis.
Best Regards,
Visitor of the first post
I think the intentions of the regime are clear. For the administration to at least rhetorically be on the side of the protestors risks nothing and lays the foundation for cooperation if they do get power. The US engaged with reformers in the Soviet Union and put direct pressure on the regime. We can do both.
Leave a Reply