During the Presidential campaign and even during the primaries, Obama’s opponents were swift to underline his relative lack of foreign policy experience and question his ability to make tough decisions. Following his election, his subsequent commitment to dialogue and the abandonment of the Bush era Manichean rhetoric these voices began to decry the Carter-esque weakness of President Obama. To critics such as Rush Limbaugh he is too soft on America’s enemies and too quick to talk where only force will be understood. To what extent, if any, are these criticisms valid?
President Obama has made it clear that he views the world through a prism almost diametrically opposed to that which coloured the thoughts of George Bush. Where Bush saw the need to assert US hegemony through overwhelming force, a fact succinctly illustrated by the label applied to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Operation Shock and Awe), Obama seems more motivated by the pressing need to counter the anti-American sentiment which has blossomed in many parts of the world during the past decade with dialogue and engagement. Take Iran for example, where Bush seemed only to threaten a metal fist Obama has extended an outstretched hand- albeit one that has yet to be accepted.
While dialogue and engagement were also employed during the Bush era, the six party talks involving N Korea being one such example, they seemed to take a back seat to a more abrasive approach. Following the recent N Korean nuclear test Obama has increasingly come under fire for not knowing when to change track from soft to hard power. Obama’s capacity to at once empathise and reason, lecture and enquire, reassure and challenge would seem to be of little use when confronted by the intransigence of the isolated dictator. Words carry very little, and probably no, influence at the court of Kim Jong-il. Elsewhere, Benjamin Netanyahu’s unwillingness to bend to President Obama’s will with regard to the halting of the expansion of Israeli settlements seems to be another failure of soft power when faced with a refusal to compromise.
Yet this reading of both the North Korean and Israeli case are somewhat misleading. By engaging the other four members of the six party talks the “soft” approach can still exert pressure on Kim Jong-il’s regime through the tightening of closely targeted financial sanctions and reassure its neighbours through the formulation of a cohesive contingency plan. Similarly while Mr Netanyahu may seem closed Obama’s suggestions, Obama’s speech in Cairo may well have laid the groundwork for a fundamental rethink of US policy which would force Netanyahu into making the decision between compromise and profound damage to the US-Israeli relationships. Similarly, critics of Obama’s supposed reticence to respond decisively to pressing foreign policy concerns often overlook the fact that he is sending 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan and that drone attacks on targets in the AfPak area have increased since he came to power.
The much needed paradigm shift from the ineffective and ultimately self defeating world view of Bush should be welcomed by Americans as a valuable opportunity to reverse the decline of Amerian power and influence in face of what is increasingly being called the “Asian century”. The attempt to tar Obama with the label of an overly soft President is a reduction a more complex reality. The desire to engage with countries of great importance for global stability is both laudatory and necessary. The real danger, as Gideon Rachman so astutely pointed out in a recent article in the Financial Times, is that expectations for soft power surpass realistic barometers, for as Obama himself pointed out in his speech in Cairo - words alone are not enough.
However, Obama is aware that a successful combination of both soft and hard power is integral to the formulation of the “smart power” America must exude if it is to consolidate or even maintain its influence on a rapidly evolving world stage. Thus, Obama’s efforts to reinvigorate US soft power should be welcomed and not scorned. President Obama’s foreign policy does not rest purely on eloquent speeches and empathetic sentiment but rather on a pragmatic blend of both his and America’s strengths.
If this approach is deserving of criticism, I must be missing something?
9 comments on "Going Soft. Does Barack Obama need to start flexing his muscles?"
While Obama’s new tactics in the use of hard and soft power are refreshing both for a large part of the American population as well as what seems to be a large part of the international community. The shift in balancing “method” is the result not only of the change in the presidency, but also fundamental changes in the balance of power as well as new economic incentives that influence the United States, and the rest of the world, more than they did half a century ago.
Fareed Zakariah not too long ago that was based on the term “the rise of the rest” (The Post-American World). While one can argue that American hegemony is weakening, Zakariah supports the view that the rest of the world is catching up. The United State of 50 years ago, right or wrong, was able to put in place its international policies using its “big stick.” The only possible threat (which in turn arguably necessitated hard balancing) was the USSR. With the fall of the USSR the world suddenly transformed from a bipolar system to a unipolar system. Unchallenged, the United States eventually let this newfound power get to its head, resulting in the diplomatic, (and humanitarian) fiasco that was the invasion of Iraq.
Furthermore, every act of hard blanching, every whiff of war, has economic repercussions. The invasion of Georgia by Russia resulted in a $700 billion loss of wealth of Russian investors as the result of a huge drop in Russian stocks. For economies to flourish there must be peace (again one can make a comparison to the state of the world 50 years ago, when war could revitalize industry.) Acts of military aggression are frowned on by global investors. Faced with a struggling economy, President Obama must do everything he can to promote confidence, in peace, security, etc…
Obama’s use of what you intelligently term “smart balancing” is thus the result not only of his good judgment, but also as a result of economic and diplomatic pressures.
What Obama must be wary of is appearing too weak. Soft balancing is absolutely necessary, but the United States must not over rely on it. Signaling is important in the world of international relations, and while the past 8 years have resulted in negative signaling, a look at the first Gulf War provides a good example of what I consider to be smart balancing.
The first President Bush used the full force of the United States military. He did so however after appealing, personally, to other world leaders and to international bodies. The second President Bush sent representatives to try to convince other countries to support the invasion of Iraq and in certain cases (namely France) put other world leaders in difficult political situations.
The first President Bush was able to both maintain a hegemonic position while still treating other leaders as equals. Obama must keep this in mind. His treatment of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, as well as a perceived snub of Prime Minister Brown, raise the question of whether Obama is acting humble enough. While their may be reasons why Obama has acted the way he has, he must still not embarrass the leaders, and the people, of other nations.
Ben,
The point you make about the shift in global perrogatives is pertinent, and the comparison of the contrasting economic impact of war within the last 50 odd years is a dimension that had not occurred to me. I feel that one of the greatest challenges for any statesman is correctly identifying these evolutions and adapting their policy in order to best profit from them. This is where I feel one of Obama's major stregnths lies.
I also agree that President Bush actions provide a valuable example of how to effectively balance these two forms of power.
As for his recent dealings with european leaders, you are right to point out that this is a delicate situation. Concern is rapidly mounting in Europe that the importance of the continent's relationship with the US has been relegated to behind that Asia and the Middle East with the US. While perhaps an unfortunate reality, for us Europeans, the maintenance of close US-EU relations would appear to be symbiotic.
Thanks for your comment, its great to get a viewpoint which integrates the economic aspect of these questions. I took the term smart power from this article by Joe Keohane http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/smart-power_b_74725.html
Darragh
As president, Barack Obama has embraced many of the very national security strategies for which he excoriated Bush during his campaign: he has authorized the military tribunals which he formerly called a “legal black hole” and “enormous failure;” he is sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, imitating the successful surge strategy that Bush applied in Iraq under General Petraeus; and he has adopted the same timetable for withdrawal from Iraq that Bush negotiated last year (despite his campaign promise to have all troops out by March 2009). Democrats are quick to decry the Bush era decisions, though when Obama employs the same policies, all criticism seems to disappear. Ironically, many of his actions are not “diametrically opposed” to the Bush administration, but a very validation of the strategies essential to our security. It is a welcome turnaround, although it poses the question: is this the work of “smart pragmatist,” or a flip-flop recently conditioned by the realities of governance?
I entirely reject Ben’s assertion that Iraq was a diplomatic and humanitarianism fiasco founded purely on America’s power “getting to its head.” In Resolution 1441, the U.N. Security Council affirmed that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to international peace and security and shortly following this, Great Britain, Spain, and Israel (all countries which have been victims of terrorist attacks) supported America and the use of military force against him. Secondly, I would even argue that the humanitarian costs of keeping him in power were greater than the humanitarian costs involved in eliminating him. Saddam Hussein killed nearly 300,000 people, publicly declared he would give $25,000 to Palestinian suicide bombers, invaded two countries, attempted to assassinate the first President Bush, and invited a decade of sanctions under which the Iraqi people greatly suffered. Moreover, I believe you are both wrong to suggest that America’s “Manichean” vision of the world and preemptive recourse to force began with George W. Bush. Did the Clinton administration not itself grow impatient with European timidity, bombing Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Sudan?
I agree that the first President Bush was correct in using force with the approval of the Security Council and international community. In my opinion, though, France’s approval is only a plus, not a necessity. The Security Council has authorized the collective use of force on two occasions: the Korean War and the Gulf War---were these operations really collective efforts, or was it America that supplied the resources and forces necessary for the successful execution of these missions? The task and ability to protect the world has always fallen to America and Europe has been benefiting from the security it has provided since WW2. Moreover, the concrete reality is that America IS the primary target, thereby creating a lower threshold for what constitutes an acceptable threat. On September 11, over 3,000 innocent people died in the heart of our territory and nowhere else.
I can foresee the response: Hussein had no proven links to Al-Qaeda and WMDs were never found. Though I would counter-argue that 1) America was not alone in believing Hussein had WMDs (he violated 16 U.N. resolutions against him before 2002), and 2) WMDs aside, the case for war against Saddam included his larger support of terrorism, the threat he posed to his neighbors, and the tyranny against his people. What also makes Iraq unique from other “axis of evil” members such as Iran and North Korea is that all means short of war were tried and proven futile.
Now, the computer won’t let me put all I have to say in one post so I will finish in the following one…
Darragh, you make a lot of smart and interesting points, but we have sharply different perspectives on Obama’s soft power tactics. During the campaign, he said he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad without precondition and even Hilary disagreed with him on this point. Such a meeting confers legitimacy to the views of one of the world’s greatest tyrants and the largest state sponsor of terrorism. How would one even proceed with such a negotiation? Extend a hand and politely ask Ahmadinejad to run fair elections, affirm the existence of homosexuality, take back his comments denying the Holocaust, suppress his desire to wipe Israel off the map, and reject arms build-up as a display of power against us American colonialists? Peaceful negotiation and diplomacy are simply not viable options with such an individual.
Moving away from Iran, we can look to Obama’s errors in his “softer” decisions related to the War on Terror (actually, since he's abandoned this phrase I'm not sure what to call it). Obama came out strongly against the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA in the aftermath of September 11, even making the reports public to pander to his base and spark animosity towards the Bush administration. However, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has affirmed on multiple occasions that waterboarding was used against only 3 individuals and it elicited valuable information which directly led to dismantling plots and saving American lives. As Dick Cheney pointed out, Obama has failed to release these documents and show the other side of the story. He quickly closed Gitmo to appeal to his base, but now faces the problem of displacing nearly 300 suspected terrorists to other locations (for obvious reasons, nearly the entire Senate rejected Obama’s request to relocate them to American soil). I sincerely doubt he’ll be able to make good on his promise to completely close the facility by January 2010.
In more recent news, Obama has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan. In American law, Miranda rights are those recited to criminals upon arrest, reminding them of their “the right to remain silent” until they find or are given a lawyer. When faced with suspected terrorists who possess highly valuable information that could save American lives, is it in the interest of either justice or safety that these individuals remain silent? Moreover, I believe Obama’s larger policy shift away from a military approach to a law enforcement approach will create confusion both in the combat zone and at home about the proper delegation of responsibility between the FBI and CIA.
I can’t deny that Obama is a charismatic speaker who has attracted a large following. Though in my estimation, this president is all sizzle and no steak. Looking beyond his lofty rhetoric and celebrity appeal, I see a pattern of decisions which are going to severely undermine America’s future prosperity.
W. is starting to look a whole lot better.
The reality of governance has perhaps blunted some of the idealism which Obama seemed to espouse during the election campaign. However, is this not a ever present reality of politics and governance?
I fully agree with you that the pre-emptive use of force and Manichean were not inventions of the Bush administration and any attempt to brand these as such is a distortion of history. However, the frequent recourse to a dialectic of "good" and "evil", along with a tendency to bring to the forefront of public debate the notion of America's "manifest destiny" and its Christian nature (in opposition to Islam)seem to suggest an attempt to advance a simplified world view which has otherwise been mostly absent since the end of the Cold War.
Since WW2 the US has acted as the guarantor of much of Europe's security, yet its economic and in particular military hegemony do not mean that it would not benefit from the legitmisation of its actions by international organisations such as the UN. Yes the US can, and has, acted without the consent of the UN, but if the US discredits the image of such bodies it will find its attempts to maintain stability and protect its interests severely undermined. The UN and to an even greater extent economic organisations such as the WTO and the IMF are deeply imbued with western values and as such should be seen as a valuable, if sometimes frustrating, tool for consolidating US influence.
Yes, Ahmadinejad is a bigot, a holocaust denier and prone to threatening Israel. He does not appear to be a reasonable man, one open to discussion and debate - a man willing to reconsider his views in the face of overwhelming proof. Yet, to refuse to negotiate with Iran on the basis of his personality would be a mistake. As the recent elections show, his position in power is far from unassailable and an offer of dialogue, although it may be refused, could empower the Iranians to replace Ahmadinejad (a man whose bellicose views seem increasingly unrepresentative of those of the Iranian people.)
The debate on the release of "enhanced interrogation techniques" memos is an interesting one. Yet your point that these techniques "reputedly" saved lives does not counter the fact that the use of such methods severely undermined the image of America as the "land of the free" and the attendant attraction this entailed for the rest of the world - and thus undermined US security. I find it difficult to countenance the view that Obama released these memo's purely to vilify "W" and to "pander" to his base rather than to illustrate, at least in a symbolic manner, his rejection of said techniques.
As for the "Miranda rights", I am not familiar with this policy but I do believe that it illustrates one of the most significant security dilemmas which the US faces. To what degree, if any, should security take precedence over the rule of law and the protection of rights and liberties? Can the US protect its security using techniques abroad which are in contradiction with its domestic laws?
Looking forward to reading and responding to your future comments!
For legal and security reasons, full due process cannot be extended to suspected terrorists: they are not American citizens and as they are charged with crimes of war, they are to be subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals with the judicial review appropriate for such courts. Military conflicts change the appropriate range of rights and liberties extended to defendants.
As for your argument on Iran, I think the distinction must be made between extending a hand towards a country's regime and extending a hand towards its people. Is it in either American or Iranian interest to engage a despotic government, ignoring the oppression and excusing the oppressors? Unrest in Iran has been mounting for years and greater solidarity with the Iranian people is expressed through a rejection of Ahmadinejad, not open negotiation. We can stand by a people while rejecting their tyrannical regime.
While in favor of the invasion of Iraq, I find it hard to argue that Iraq was not a diplomatic and eventual humanitarian crisis. Diplomatically, the United States, due its unilateral action alienated itself from much of the world. Whether we like it or not, it was an ill-received action. Had Bush followed the footsteps of his father by gaining the support of his international community, he could have avoided this isolation. While France’s “green-light” is unnecessary, there is nonetheless a need for the United States to work within the system.
The approval of the Security Council as you admit is not truly necessary, and thus is an important argument in this case. Good or bad, one can have international support without relying on the approval of the Security Council, although it is a bonus. I specifically chose France as an example in my previous comment. France was in the process of coming around to giving us its support. For domestic political reasons, it had to approach the matter delicately. France wanted a few more weeks to have inspectors examine Iraq. After that, they would have had no choice but to approve the use of force. Rather than wait, Bush snubbed Chirac and angered the French people. France may not be a true world power anymore, but the United States needs allies.
As for the invasion being a humanitarian crisis, I would like to believe that United States would hold itself to higher standards than Saddam Hussein There was a lack of planning for post-war Iraq. Planned projects to deliver electricity and water never got off the ground. Oil production, necessary for funding the country’s operations, fell (admittedly some as a result of attacks and destroyed infrastructure).
Again, at least in my opinion, the problem was not the invasion of the country. The problem was the manner in which Bush went about this invasion, without adequate international support and humility and without an adequate post-war plan to deal with the people of Iraq.
Your “foreseen” response is not one that addresses the arguments of either Darragh or myself. It is responding to the normal “popular’ critiques of the Iraq War and the Bush administration.
As for Obama’s “mélange” of military and civilian judicial proceedings, I think it is too early to tell. The rights and the judicial infrastructure created by the Geneva convention is ill equipped to deal with a new system in which nations are not the only actors. Transnational and unofficial military forces are a fact, and continuing to impose old standards on this new order is not the answer. By international law, the Resistance forces in Europe during World War II had no rights as they fought without wearing a uniform, and under the orders of no nation. They too deserved at least basic rights. While we may not agree at all with the actions of “enemy combatants”, and as horribly as they may seem, we must still hold ourselves to a high standard.
As for Iran, as disappointing as it may be to have to engage the leadership, it may be necessary. Looking at North Korea who we have “ignored” for all these years, we may be able to accomplish more with engagement than with isolation.
Nor does your response directly address mine, Ben. I never said that the execution of the Iraq war was perfect: I mainly argued that the menace was imminent and the cause just. In that regard, I suppose we agree. (In your first post you did write "diplomatic, (and humanitarian) fiasco that was the invasion of Iraq" and I responded to my interpretation of that).
As for Obama's "melange" of military and civilian judicial proceedings, I think you're right to point out that the nature of a terrorist war is not one of a traditional form wherein there exists conflict between nation-states and enemy territories. However, I still believe Geneva can and must provide an appropriate framework for the classification and trial of unlawful combatants.
We cannot compare the rights of Resistance forces in WW2 to those of suspected terrorists: one fought outwardly in the name of liberty and freedom, the other hides clandestinely in the shadows, seeking to reproduce the atrocities of September 11 and to create a maximum degree of insecurity through intimidation or terror. Surely, the law does not apply equally to these two sets of actors. Moreover, the reason some Resistance forces fought "without wearing a uniform, and under the orders of no nation" is because their countries were taken over by the greatest tyrant the world has seen. The analogy does not apply.
The definition of an "unlawful combatant" was first set out in WW2 to try Nazi saboteurs that were planning attacks on the United States. In Ex parte Quirin, the Supreme Court found that when an enemy seeks to act on our territory without a uniform, commissioning "hostile acts involving destruction of life and property,” s/he is an "unlawful combatant," subject to capture and detention, as well as trial and punishment by military tribunals. This is in line with the Geneva Conventions and can be applied to terrorists: those guilty of crimes against the laws of war should be held accountable as such. I agree the United States holds itself to high standards and of course even "unlawful enemy combatants" will receive basic rights. However, this does not mean we can or should extend them the same due process rights as civilians. Not that Obama has extended them the full range of such rights, but he is certainly getting closer.
Thank you both for your precisions on the definition and evolution of law regarding "unlawful combatants". It is an area to which I am entirely new. The issue of the extension of rights to current combatants in the Middle East seems to return us to an issue which was both at the heart of the original post, and which has been at the centre of the ensuing discussion: the trade-off between security and engagement, whether that be in the form of dialogue or in the extension of rights. I accept that there is a delicate balance to be found between the two, yet I do not think they are totally opposed.
To me, Obama's willingness to talk is a sign of strength more than it is one of weakness. It demonstrates a readiness to confront head on the islamic, or other,regimes whose thin veil of legitimacy can only be lifted by removing its ability to define itself in contrast with the US. By discrediting the image of America as some form of neo-imperialist devil and by rendering the term pro-American more neutral than insulting, this type of engagement can strengthen opposition to leaders such as Ahmadinejad and thus potentially strengthen US influence.
Similarly, the extension of rights to those who are trying to destroy the US is a courageous declaration of faith in the liberal democratic system. It attests to a belief that the answer to these challenges to the values of equality, tolerance and liberty lie not in extraordinary measures but in a reaffirmation of the very values which are under threat. The question in my mind, is at what stage, if any, does this expansion become deleterious?
Post a Comment