If global politics depended only on honeyed words and fine sounding platitudes, on calls to a higher minded shared vision of the world and stroking the feelings of any and all people who feel themselves put upon and otherwise either insulted or ignored, Mr Obama would be the greatest foreign policy president in history.
Unfortunately for Mr Obama, the world cares not a whit about the mood music of his speeches. No speech, no capability for sounding good, not even a talent surpassing that of Winston Churchill buys a country the smallest particle of the most prized commodity in international politics.
The commodity?
Simple, bucko, influence. The capacity to substantially, materially, and directly occasion changes in the policies and actions of other governments in a way which serves the national interest.
In the acquisition and maintenance of influence, actions speak infinitely louder and infinitely more effectively than words. Words are useful only insofar as they provide either the context of action or amplify upon the intent of the action. More importantly, the words of a Great Power are useful in the influence game only when they are consistent with actions.
States, whether Great Powers or of a lesser status, demand the US speak clearly and consistently as to our policies, and, further, that our actions are congruent with the words. For generations now, foreign leaders and publics have expected the US to provide clear declaratory policy backed by actions including contractual understandings which are maintained consistently over time and between administrations of different parties.
It does not matter if the other country, again whether of Great Power status or not, agrees with American policy. What matters is that the US provides a fixed point of reference in global affairs. Other actors know in advance if a contemplated action will meet with American acceptance or rejection. They will know in advance of a contemplated policy or act if it infringes upon American national and strategic interests. And, if it does, to what extent will the US exact a cost.
The need for a clear conveyance of American policy limits can be well illustrated in the post-World War II diplomatic history of the world. In 1950, Dean Acheson neglected to put South Korea on the American side of the line delineating our sphere of concern. As a result, Joe Stalin concluded that the US would offer no objection to the proposed North Korean invasion of the South. Or, in 1990 the new American ambassador to Iraq was not given proper instructions from Foggy Bottom or the Oval with the result that she inaccurately gave Saddam Hussein the impression that an invasion of Kuwait would not meet with American disapprobation.
The congruence of words and actions is equally important with that of clear, consistent declarations of policy. This actuality eludes Mr Obama completely (as does, arguably, the first consideration.)
The long, drawn-out diplomatic dance with Iran has made the disconnect between words and deeds very apparent. In a similar way, the strong US denunciation of the North Korean sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan coupled with the improbability of any action beyond a Security Council condemnation and a chance that Pyongyang will be put back on the list of governments sponsoring terrorism shows a failure to appreciate that words and actions must be congruent.
Mr Obama chose the graduation at the US Military Academy to lay out his new strategy for global politics. He said that his view of life meant that our strategy would rely upon diplomacy, upon strengthening old alliances and forming "new partnerships," on developing new "international standards and institutions." Unfortunately, in this noble view of a future which might be such as to justify his Nobel Prize, Mr Obama gave no hint of how he proposed to strengthen the old alliances, or with whom he proposed to form new partnerships or--get ready for the big event--any idea of just what might constitute American national interest.
In justice to Mr Obama it may be the case that he sees American national and strategic interests as coinciding to the point of identity the interests of the always-undefined "international community." In his answer to George W. Bush's West Point speech eight years ago, Mr Obama made the same numerous allusions to international institutions which have peppered all of his speeches dealing with foreign affairs. This encourages the inference that Mr Obama sees no blue sky between the interests of the US as a sovereign nation-state and that of assorted international institutions, with the UN heading the list.
If that is the case then it is easy to see the motives for as well as the justifications of Obama's curious practice of diplomacy. His cavalier treatment of old allies such as Great Britain, Germany, even Canada. His pressurization campaign against Israel.
The Obama version of "we are all passengers on spaceship Earth" also would allow a motive for his interesting way of establishing "new partnerships" such as the one way street arrangement with Russia which has such delightful features as exempting Russian arms sales from any new round of Iran sanctions or conceding Russia a membership in the WTO despite the country's flagrant flouting of WTO practices and the shared philosophy which serves as the group's foundation.
It is the same bumper sticker phrase which seems to be the intellectual underpinning of the Obama outreach-to-the-Muslims effort which has so far been as one way as the exchange with the Russians and as much of a success as the effort to derail the mullahs' march to the bomb. We can all agree that the Muslim hyper-sensitivity is a drag, a bore, an exercise in tedium without equal, but it is not reason to abandon honesty in the defining and securing of US national and strategic interests.
Genuflecting before Muslim groups and their totems is an excellent way to assure that goals of American national interest will not be achieved. Muslim majority states more than most appreciate and react favorably to a posture of consistent strength and resolve. The historical record shows the US has enjoyed its greatest success in diplomacy with Muslim governments when it has been perceived as having the ability and will to kick one in the teeth--to act the part of the strong horse.
Only weak horses bow, scrape, evade, equivocate, and fail to follow an announced and well charted course. Mr Obama, by his love affair of international organizations no matter how biased or ineffectual, has convinced more than a few of the pragmatically inclined leaders of Muslim states that he rides a very weak horse. One more example of nice words equal very non-nice results.
Great Power diplomacy of the successful sort depends upon three features: clarity, resolve, and strength. The latter feature includes but most assuredly is not limited to military force. It includes all the instruments of national power including the evident resolve of the American president.
The Guy in the Oval is the Man in the Bully Pulpit. He is seen as being the man in charge by kings, dictators, and presidents of powers great and small. His speech is seen as the functional equivalent of action. When the Guy in the Oval appears to be, as Jimmy Carter was and Barack Obama is, weak, irresolute, and in possession of the faintest of faint hearts, the US is impaired in pursuing its national interests.
Great Powers fail on occasion due to the over-reach of their leaders. Imperial and Nazi Germany are recent examples of this. So too, at least in argument, is the Soviet Union.
The decline and fall of Great Powers comes far more often because leaders have lost faith in their country or themselves. The fitful, rocky slide to oblivion of the Roman Empires, both West and East, stand as prime in this field. The same dynamic can be seen as operating in the case of the UK and France. Now it is self-evident with President Obama, the man whose vision does not include a role for the US as a Great Power.
The question before We the People is not if Mr Obama can see the error of his ways and rectify the already present, pernicious consequences but, can the next American president see and repair the damage before it is truly fatal. As the sidling of Brazil and Turkey to the arms of Iran show, the diminishment of the perceived potency of the US is already being acted upon by second tier countries. Soon it will be acted upon by those of the first rank.
Mr Obama, listen up and listen tight. Regardless of the words imputed to one of your aides, that you were elected, "to preside over the graceful decline of the US," this is not what you were put in the Oval to do. But, it is a very real reason to demand your replacement.
No comments:
Post a Comment