From hawk to dove, an evolution of US foreign policy?

While many of Obama’s speeches have been characterised by soaring rhetoric, his discourse on foreign relations has been shot through with a strong dose of pragmatism. Bush declared the goal of “ending tyranny in our world” and offered us a utopian vision of a democratic Middle East. Barack Obama and his secretary of state Hilary Clinton have declared a three pronged approach driven by defence, diplomacy and development. The conspicuous absence of democratisation embodies an evolution from grandiose idealism to the realm of the achievable.

Today, Vice-president Joe Biden gave a speech at a security conference in Munich, Germany, in his words - “on behalf of a new administration determined to set a new tone in Washington, and in America's relations around the world". I wrote here about how the new administration had the potential to carve a new role for the US on the world stage. Since then the true extent of the economic crisis has began to unveil itself, there has been a war in Gaza, and Iran launched a rocket into space. These and other events have further complicated the task facing the highly capable foreign policy team Barack Obama has assembled in the White House and the state department.

American foreign policy is undergoing a thorough recalibration. The most obvious casualty of this re-orientation is the “War on Terror”. Indeed the closure of Guantanamo bay illustrates the realisation that the struggle with terrorism is more about the underlying ideologies than military force. This greater focus on “soft power” does not dictate a rejection of “hard power” but rather a more pragmatic approach to foreign relations which blends several strands of realism. The US seems determined to invoke what Joseph Nye termed “smart power”.

Mr Biden’s speech encapsulated this balance. He declared that while America will listen to the world, it will also demand that other countries play a greater role in world affairs. The allocation of a greater number of troops to Afghanistan, and the acceptance of ex-Guantanamo detainees are concrete examples of areas in which the Obama administration expects greater cooperation. This demand for greater support reflects the growing clamour that the US is playing the role of the world’s policeman, and in doing so exhausting itself, both militarily and financially. Other nations who are more than capable of playing a role are content to sit back and enjoy the benefits of the US enforced global order.

Biden’s speech also conveyed the fact that a return to multi-lateralism is on the cards with an emphasis placed on renewing the role of the UN, and the US’s relationship with both Russia and the EU. The UN has a key role to play in any world order, and any move to reform its cumbersome and often inefficient mechanisms would be an integral step to the formulation of a new world order. However, the idealism of these goals was tempered by the fact that the US plans for a missile defence shield in Europe will continue. This announcement, and the continuity of other policies enacted under the Bush regime, is a sign that the new regime is determined not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Each case will be evaluated on its merits rather than declaring a de facto tabula rasa.

Thus far the Obama administration has succeeded in fostering the possibility of progress through dialogue, while avoiding appearing to be weak. With economic nationalism rearing its ugly head, Iranian and Israeli elections looming, and weak commodity prices destabilising several already unstable states the optimum equilibrium between the carrot and the stick may become increasingly elusive. What is certain is that any state who reads the new regime as a pure bred dove will soon find itself confronted by the reality of American force. As Biden declared today “The force of arms won our independence, and throughout our history, the force of arms has protected our freedom. That will not change”.