US Foreign Policy Speech: Leadership toward a New Order
It was a speech that seemed to declare the end of America’s own unilateral system.
It is the speech President Obama gave at West Point Military Academy. He reiterated a cautious approach to military intervention in other countries. He made it clear that America would continue along a route of international cooperation centering on diplomacy and a multilateral framework.
With more than two and a half years till January 2017 remaining of his term of office, he spoke for the key principles of U.S. foreign policy.
After the end of the Cold War, the United States, which has exerted absolute influence in the world as the lone superpower, is exhausted from its war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. The immense burden of war expenditures is putting pressure on the administration, and they are also suffering from the economic downturn. The speech suggests that the United States no longer has the choice to take the lead in initiating military action.
On the other hand, Russia forced the incorporation of Southern Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, as if to pick at the power vacuum. China is unilaterally pushing ahead with resource development in the South China Sea and stepping up its movements to expand its own interest by force.
The U.S. administration is overshadowed by criticisms of weakness for not intervening militarily in Syria’s civil war and being unable to deter the actions of Russia and China.
The foreign policy speech is in line with Mr. Obama’s traditional approach, but what it further demonstrates is that the speech is likely intended to refute criticism ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Although they have criticized Russia and China’s actions, the United States simply does not have a clear policy for how to deal with [the countries’ actions]. The pain of being unable to find an effective measure for peaceful resolution is also evident.
The rise of emerging nations — including China, which surpassed Japan with the world’s second largest gross domestic product, as well as India and Brazil — is remarkable. Even militarily, China’s power has rapidly grown.
[We are going] from a U.S.-led world to a multipolar one that boosts the presence of emerging nations like China. As that trend gains strength, America’s role in the world is also being pressured to change.
How do we peacefully settle disputes and conflicts over resources and interests? How do we resolve economic disparities associated with globalization, and should we get involved in conflict and terror prevention? There are many issues that should be tackled for world stability.
Mr. Obama stated in his address that, “America must always lead on the world stage.” Multipolarity is also full of the risk connected to “apolarity” — the absence of a leading nation. Can they point the way toward creating a new world order not based on military strength? The responsibility the Obama administration has taken on is heavy.
It is the speech President Obama gave at West Point Military Academy. He reiterated a cautious approach to military intervention in other countries. He made it clear that America would continue along a route of international cooperation centering on diplomacy and a multilateral framework.
With more than two and a half years till January 2017 remaining of his term of office, he spoke for the key principles of U.S. foreign policy.
After the end of the Cold War, the United States, which has exerted absolute influence in the world as the lone superpower, is exhausted from its war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. The immense burden of war expenditures is putting pressure on the administration, and they are also suffering from the economic downturn. The speech suggests that the United States no longer has the choice to take the lead in initiating military action.
On the other hand, Russia forced the incorporation of Southern Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, as if to pick at the power vacuum. China is unilaterally pushing ahead with resource development in the South China Sea and stepping up its movements to expand its own interest by force.
The U.S. administration is overshadowed by criticisms of weakness for not intervening militarily in Syria’s civil war and being unable to deter the actions of Russia and China.
The foreign policy speech is in line with Mr. Obama’s traditional approach, but what it further demonstrates is that the speech is likely intended to refute criticism ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Although they have criticized Russia and China’s actions, the United States simply does not have a clear policy for how to deal with [the countries’ actions]. The pain of being unable to find an effective measure for peaceful resolution is also evident.
The rise of emerging nations — including China, which surpassed Japan with the world’s second largest gross domestic product, as well as India and Brazil — is remarkable. Even militarily, China’s power has rapidly grown.
[We are going] from a U.S.-led world to a multipolar one that boosts the presence of emerging nations like China. As that trend gains strength, America’s role in the world is also being pressured to change.
How do we peacefully settle disputes and conflicts over resources and interests? How do we resolve economic disparities associated with globalization, and should we get involved in conflict and terror prevention? There are many issues that should be tackled for world stability.
Mr. Obama stated in his address that, “America must always lead on the world stage.” Multipolarity is also full of the risk connected to “apolarity” — the absence of a leading nation. Can they point the way toward creating a new world order not based on military strength? The responsibility the Obama administration has taken on is heavy.