Ruminations, August 30, 2009

Foreign policy: Obama I or Bush III?

A president’s foreign policy starts with his predecessor’s foreign policy as a base line and, given the fact that policy is based on national interests in interaction with other countries’ national interests, is more a continuation than it is a radical change. “Radical change” is, for the most part, rhetorical change.

Bill Clinton’s foreign policy was mostly a continuation of George Bush 41’s foreign policy. George Bush 43 of necessity (due to the September 11 attacks) represented a significant shift. So, is Barack Obama’s foreign policy significantly different than that of George W. Bush? Has the reset button been pushed? Is America back?

There is change but it is more of a continuing arc.

Recall, in January 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred to Old Europe as those nations of Western Europe who did not participate in the Iraq invasion. He said that the center of gravity was “shifting to the east.” This was not merely rhetoric but, although many didn’t realize it at the time, a new and continuing divergence from Western Europe. During the Cold War, there was a mutual dependency between Western Europe and the United States, both of whom required a united front facing the challenge from the communist Soviet Union. With the demise of the Soviet Union, unity is no longer a requirement. Even as Western Europe cooperates through NATO in sending troops to Afghanistan, their numbers are small and, in many cases, the troops are garrisoned troops. So, in summary, Western Europe will be playing a more minor role in the United States foreign policy.

Eastern Europe, on the other hand, has been a more loyal supporter of the United States. Having been occupied by the Soviet Union and seeing the United States as the bulwark against communism, they looked to the United States as a protector and contributed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Poland and the Czech Republic have shown their willingness to partner with the United States and to stand up to Russia by deploying an anti-missile system in their countries; but after much vacillation, it now appears that Obama will abandon the missile system and Eastern Europe. So, in summary, Old Europe is now coupled with New Europe and the change is that Obama will relegate Eastern Europe to a very minor role.

And then there is Great Britain. Here there does seem to be a change. From World War I through the War on Terror, Great Britain and the United States have been strong allies. Britain’s MI6 and America’s CIA have worked almost as sister organizations in foreign intelligence. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Great Britain has contributed more troops and suffered more casualties than any other ally. Yet when Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to Washington, President Obama gave him a second class welcome. Much has been made over the exchange of gifts – thoughtful unique gifts from the Brown to Obama and Wal-Mart specials from Obama to Brown (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html for a detailed description). It’s hard to believe that, with a White House professional protocol staff, Obama’s gifts to Brown were not an intentional snub. Add to that Scotland’s release of terrorist Megrahi against the expressed wishes of the United States and the rift between the two countries widens. So, in summary, beginning with the Obama Administration the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States is ending.

With Iran, Obama had hoped to forge a new foreign policy but that hope seems to be diminishing and his only palatable option may be to adopt George Bush’s policy. When Obama offered to meet with meet with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without pre-condition, Ahmadinejad set some pre-conditions of his own. But the biggest issue thwarting Obama’s approach is the turmoil surrounding the recent Iranian election and the present government’s reaction to it. In the eyes of both the Bush and Obama Administrations (and Americans in general), Ahmadinejad is a bad guy and the only reason you negotiate with a bad guy is that he controls his country. It’s not clear that Ahmadinejad does control Iran and, furthermore, negotiating with him will strengthen his grip on power. So, in summary, Obama will follow Bush’s Iran policy for the immediate future.

In Pakistan, Bush was successful in turning that country into an ally in the War on Terror. This was done without alienating India, Pakistan’s rival. Undoubtedly, Pakistan is home to al Qaeda sympathizers and it has nuclear weapons; having Pakistan as an ally is clearly in the United States’ interest. So, in summary, Obama’s relations with Pakistan will build on Bush’s successes.

The emphasis on new alliances was stressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. She said, "We will put special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda." Is this new? In part it is. We have been Euro-centric for the most part and this shift is new – but at the same time it is built on the shift from “old Europe” begun in under Bush 43. Seemingly a continuation, this could also be an intensification of the shift.

With regard to Latin America, there does indeed seem to be a shift that seems to favor leftist governments. In the case of Colombia, the United States during the Bush Administration, presented Colombia with the good-cop bad-cop scenario – with Bush the good cop by approving Colombia’s steps toward liberalization and expressing a desire to increase trade while Congress acted as the bad cop remaining critical of Colombia’s policies and opposing more open trade. Under Obama it seems to be bad-cop bad-cop scenario although the two governments are still working together to combat illicit drug trafficking and the leftist FARC rebels. Maybe the Obama harder line pose will stimulate greater liberalization and maybe not.

In Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya broke the law by attempting to force a vote that would allow him to create a new constitution and perhaps serve as president indefinitely. While Zelaya has concluded personal relationships with other leftist governments in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Argentina, his domestic agenda has been largely a failure resulting in an approval rating of somewhere around 25%. It was the attempt to remake the state in the image of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela that  caused the Honduran Supreme Court to react, voting 15-0 (including eight members of Zelaya’s own party) to order the army to remove him from office. The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly to support the removal of Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti, next in the presidential succession line, took office. The United States joined with other members of the Organization of American states in unanimously condemning Zelaya’s removal. At the same time, American trade sanctions have not been introduced. It looks as if Obama’s playing two ways; supporting the consensus led by left leaning governments and supporting the Micheletti Administration by avoiding economic sanctions. Is this smart? Maybe. Would Bush have done better? It’s hard to know.

It would be nice to think that all foreign policy initiatives originate in Washington, D.C. However, sometimes they originate in other locales and Washington must react and improvise. In Japan, this week’s election gave a new party a commanding majority. One plank of their platform is to re-evaluate their relations with the United States. How they “re-evaluate” could have a significant effect on the United States’ foreign policy in Asia. Then, too, North Korea, which has been dealt with ineffectively by the last few administrations, could have a dramatic impact on our policies with Asia and the rest of the world.

Foreign policy is complicated. Obama’s seems more like all those of new administrations: more evolutionary than revolutionary. So, is our current foreign policy really Obama I or is it Bush III? Yes.

Looking for a hero

If we were all heroic, there would be no heroes to discuss. What makes a hero is a unique set of circumstances in which uncommon actions create nonpareil results.

It is sad commentary on the American political system to hear Republicans call for another Reagan. Although in the eyes of most objective observers Ronald Reagan was one of our better presidents, his time is past. There will never be another Reagan. To keep calling for another Reagan makes the Republican cause look hopeless.

But there is a glimmer of hope for Republicans – actually, it’s more schadenfreude than hope. Liberal columnist Thomas Frank writing in the Wall Street Journal calls on Barack Obama to become another Harry Truman. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574373000964995482.html.)

Frank sees the health care debate being lost by Democrats: Democrats are too responsive to criticism from the right and would do well “to channel Harry Truman and say what needs to be said.” What Thomas seems to be saying is that Obama has lost his hero’s mantle and that the Democrats need another Harry Truman.

That seems to put both the Republicans and the Democrats in the same position: looking for the return of an old hero to replace the current group of undistinguished leaders. That’s not good for them and not good for us.

Ted Kennedy and the work ethic

Washingtonian magazine polls congressional staffers every two years for the best and worst in congress. Sometimes the poll is political, as when Hillary Clinton in 2002 was named both the best newcomer and the worst newcomer. Other polls are probably accurate especially when a member is continuously named for a position as Representative Barney Frank (D, MA) was frequently named funniest and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D, MD) was named meanest.

Winner of the “work horse” award in the Senate in poll after poll was the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D, MA). Kennedy had many admirers and detractors as to his policies. But the consensus is that he was one of the hardest working senators that we have had. We would all do well to follow that example.