There is a need for a break from the nauseating Presidential Primaries which will drag on forever on the Republican side as Donald tries to reach the magic number of delegates and millions are spent to deny him. On the Democratic side Bernie has endless funds to carry on with his message till past June. Notwithstanding the fact that mathematically he cannot win the nomination he will receive partial reinforcement as he wins caucuses and the occasional open State.
So onto Obama and his brave new world.
A fascinating, if rambled, review of Obama’s foreign policy has appeared in the prestigious Atlantic magazine. It is unique in that one rarely gets such insights into the workings of a Presidential mind while he is still in office. It is fair to say that he has broken from the well worn US pattern of foreign relations. Obama is unapologetic as to his approach which on its face is concentrated on the Middle East, (Blog: Obama and the Middle East Mess), but in truth Obama has all but given up hope of resolving that region’s chaos which has worsened exponentially since he made his famed Cairo speech in 2008. He still maintains some priorities in that cauldron including Israel’s safety, Iran’s denuclearization and of course ISIS. He believes that America’s future lies more in Asia, specifically China, and Latin America than it does in the Middle East and Europe.
In general his approach was epitomized by the following declaration “I want a president who has the sense that you can’t fix everything. But on the other hand, if we don’t set the agenda, it doesn’t happen.” So America has to take the lead otherwise nothing gets done. The POTUS’s gripe was that other nations should be involved in taking action in their own interest especially the Muslim countries. He maintained “For all of our warts, the United States has clearly been a force for good in the world.”
ISRAEL IRAN NETANYAHU AND OBAMA
He has made clear in private and public that he has Israel’s back and considers it his moral duty to defend Israel which bearing in mind the public perception of his position should reassure the doubtful. (Even Netanyahu grudgingly thanks him from time to time for defense help including the dome). The major problem seems to be the personal animosity that exits between him and the Israeli Premier. The most recent incident in this ongoing saga is Bibi’s inexplicable snub to an invitation to the WhiteHouse.
This vendetta dates back to the very beginning of his presidency, in 2008, when after the Cairo speech the POTUS did not include Israel in his agenda. Of course this had been preceded by extensive reports from Bill Clinton and his people that Netanyahu believes he can dictate American foreign policy. Even so David Axelrod, Obama’s chief advisor, recognized that not including Israel was a mistake. From then on it has been downhill. On one occasion Obama complained to Bibi alleging that Bibi was lecturing him that he didn’t understand. He countered, “Bibi, you have to understand something,” he said. “I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house. I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.” What had to be the last straw was when Netanyahu maneuvered with the GOP against Obama’s Iranian deal attacking it in the US Congress.
Obama believes, mistakenly Jay H. Ell opines, that Bibi could have effected a two state deal. While it can be argued that Bibi didn’t even bother to go through the motions and persisted with settlements which at the very least gave the Palestinians the high ground in the propaganda war - Hamas and an impotent Abbas have given no indication that they are ready for a meaningful solution to the decades long impasse.
The POTUS further links the Iran deal with the security of Israel and maintains that he was ready to take out Iran if they would have continued on a nuclear path. He argues that he had Israel uppermost in his mind with the Iranian deal and that its conclusion is of great benefit to the Jewish State . Incidentally this is the conclusion of a large number of the Israeli security establishment.
Now there is not too much new in the revelations as to Israel but he his feelings towards the Muslim states is another matter.
OBAMA AND THE MIDDLE EAST MUSLIM STATES
In general Obama claimed, “That he was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries and the USA carrying the can”. Obama was particularly critical of Saudi Arabia, America’s longstanding traditional ally. According to the piece's author Goldberg, he is clearly irritated that foreign-policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally. “The Saudis and other Gulf Arabs have funneled money, and large numbers of imams and teachers, into Indonesia. In the 1990s, the Saudis heavily funded Wahhabist madrassas, seminaries that teach the fundamentalist version of Islam favored by the Saudi ruling family”. He also is highly dismissive of that Arab State as a result of its policy on women.Obama has the advantage of the USA becoming energy independent and therefore is able to tell it as it is.
His overall critique continued, “There is also the need for Islam as a whole to challenge that interpretation of Islam, to isolate it, and to undergo a vigorous discussion within their community about how Islam works as part of a peaceful, modern society,” he said. But he added, “I do not persuade peaceful, tolerant Muslims to engage in that debate if I’m not sensitive to their concern that they are being tagged with a broad brush.”
SYRIA
Obama feels that not getting involved in Syria’s civil war is one of his crowning achievements. While many advocated, particularly in the early days, that he support and arm the “reliable” rebels he was not going there to any meaningful extent. While one will never know who is right and who is wrong on that score the flood of criticism was reserved for his failure to live up to his line in the sand threat when Assad used chemical weapons. Goldberg outlines many reasons for his refusal to act upon his threat. Jay H. Ell has criticized this behavior of Obama before, particularly in relation to his 2008 Cairo address. He maintained that the POTUS should follow the Ted Roosevelt dictum - don’t preach unless you are able to follow through. Obama broke away from tradition by not delivering on his threat. The reasons for failing to do so included the impracticability of hitting the chemical weapons target and the carnage that would follow bombing chemical weapons. He unlike Hillary Clinton and the rest did not believe that just because he had threatened he needed to go ahead to show that you don’t mess with America.
Obama points to the diplomatic efforts that lead the Syrian dictator to disassemble his chemical arsenal under the direction of Putin. According to Goldberg, “The arrangement won the president praise from, of all people, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. The removal of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpiles represented ‘the one ray of light in a very dark region,’ Netanyahu told me not long after the deal was announced”. The current position of Syria is that peace could be breaking out. Putin has removed most of his air force that bolstered Assad’s hold of Syria. All this in the wake of millions of refugees, hundred of thousands of deaths and ISIS still occupying a large chunk of Syria.
Only history has a chance to sort out the merits of the Obama Doctrine in Syria.
MORE OF THE DOCTRINE IN ACTION
Obama besides breaking with the conventional foreign policy establishment has dumped American’s usual obsession with the Middle East and gone for broke on Iran. Not that he is starry eyed on internal policy changes as a result of the nuclear accords in fact he initiated sanctions when Iran sent off missiles. He is prepared to do America’s bit on ISIS in the Middle East but there is not even a whisper of sending ground troops. He again defies popular convention that blowing out ISIS in the Middle East will make the fatherland safer. In fact he does not regard the Islamic terrorist fundamentalist group as an internal existential threat. He scoffs at the suggestion having been quoted in the past as arguing that a few terrorists in a pick up truck are not going to take over the country. To the chagrin of the hawks he rates climate change a far greater threat.
What has passed unnoticed is his escalation of drones as an effective method to wage war against the terrorists. America’s armed forces have developed a coherent policy to weigh the risk of collateral damage versus the benefit of the attacks. He has risked plenty when the highest political and collateral risk is left up to him to make the decision. Again knocking out Osama was a gutsy ploy for which history will give him a lot more credit than he is receiving now. Al Qaeda has never been the same since.
He has not hesitated to break with closest of traditional ties telling David Cameron that he needs to increase his defense spending to at least two percent of the U. K.’s budget as America expected its NATO allies to do their bit.
Then, out of the blue, came the rapprochement with Cuba. Reading that the political hysteria, that the anti Castro lobby normally generated, was subsiding he made moves to normalization. A grand gesture that fitted in with his ranking Latin America a higher priority than it has been afforded in recent history. His landmark trade deal with the Pacific rim, the Trans Pacific Partnership, highlights his focus on that area. He regards it as the most progressive trade deal in history and makes America a key player in the region to China’s chagrin.
AT THE END OF THE DAY
Obama has quietly succeeded to break from the stereotypes of American foreign policy. It remains to be seen whether the next American President will continue the thrust or return to the Washington establishment’s perception of how America should run world affairs. Much is also dependent on factors outside the President’s control such as an attack on Israel by Iran. That would return the spotlight on the issue most Americans regard as their number one international priority. Putin too is a variable that can change the landscape. Although Obama has labelled Russia a regional power its Premier is determined to make his country relevant and a key player in the world scene. What happens if he has yet one more Eastern European territorial ambition?
G-D help us if it is unpredictable Trump at the helm. This alone should sway the election in favor of dull Hillary. But a flood of water is yet to flow under that bridge before a new President is inaugurated.
No comments:
Post a Comment