The Challenges Obama Faces
On January 20th, America’s 44th president, President Obama, formally took office and entered the White House. Waiting for him are not only fresh flowers and the sound of applause, but the more serious challenges of domestic and foreign policy.
Watching the way Obama soared to power, one could almost say that to some degree he borrowed strength from the financial storm sweeping across America. Most voters believe that this storm was the evil fruit of the Republican policy that opposed oversight, so, as far as the ability to manage the economy, voters turned their trust to the Democratic party.
Yet the current financial storm has already dragged America’s real economy into a recession. In just one month late last year, the entire country lost 500,000 jobs. So, as soon as he starts, Obama faces the enormous challenge of pulling the U.S. economy out of recession. Hence, Obama has finished drafting an 825 billion dollar plan with congressional Democrats. A major part of it invests more than 100 billion dollars into building bridges and repairing roads, raising energy efficiency, reforming infrastructure, and more. Obama believes this could help drive employment.
Additionally, what Obama received upon entering the White House is a 1.2 trillion dollar fiscal deficit, which makes one wonder where his spending money will come from. So far, Obama has only generally indicated that he will cancel government programs that do not produce results, but the idea that the little bit of money saved from those programs will be enough to close this enormous gap is not convincing. It seems the only way out is to borrow on a large scale from abroad; China, Japan, and the oil-producing gulf countries being America’s main targets.
Challenges abroad include how to win America's two wars against terrorism. The promise Obama made to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months does not seem difficult to realize. First, the security situation in Iraq has actually improved some, creating conditions for U.S. troops to pull out in phases. Second, Obama left a loophole for himself — the troop withdrawal he spoke of was the “main force,” and not the entire U.S. military.
When the time comes, he can leave some troops there based on the needs of the security situation at that time; for example, troops who are needed to continue training the Iraqi military police, Special Forces to pursue and wipe out terrorist ringleaders, and troops to protect U.S. diplomatic and engineering personnel, and so on. The security agreement the Bush administration signed with Iraq not long ago, which stipulates the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011, also allows Obama to be flexible on the troop withdrawal time line. Obama has added a definition to "troop withdrawal," calling it a “responsible withdrawal," which is to say that if the security situation is unstable, he will not pack up and leave obligations behind.
So Obama’s main challenge is not Iraq; rather it is how to win the war in Afghanistan. During his presidential campaign, Obama thought differently than Bush, who saw Iraq as the main front against terrorism. Instead, Obama has continually criticized Bush for starting the war in Iraq as it diverted and scattered the forces against terrorism. Obama himself sees Afghanistan as the “central front” of the war against terrorism and strongly advocates increasing troops there.
In the last year or so, Taliban forces in Afghanistan have regrouped and are making a comeback, and U.S. and NATO air strikes often cause great civilian injury and death. This multiplies the people’s hostile attitude towards both the United States and their own government. The United States had planned to increase troops by 30,000, and Obama has indicated that he will continue with the troop increase. He also wants European countries to follow suit and increase their troops, but these countries are unwilling due to popular will and limited ability. This is a test of Obama’s diplomatic ability and skill.
Moreover, Obama is thoroughly evaluating military strategy in Afghanistan. The new strategy will emphasize supporting local government, increasing developmental aid, improving civil life, and possibly establishing armed self-defense units in villages and towns and so on. However, whether this strategy will yield results cannot be known until it is implemented. People predict that Afghanistan could also become a long-term war that ties up U.S. troops.
The Iranian nuclear issue will be another difficult issue that tests Obama’s diplomatic thinking. A few days ago, Obama clearly stated that he would adopt a “new approach” with Iran, with an “emphasis on respect and a new willingness on being willing to talk." With preparation, Obama will engage in talks with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions. But Iranian president Ahmadinejad also has some expectations; he indicated that he would maintain a “wait and see” attitude. This provides some cushioning for the bilateral relationship. Yet, Obama's bottom line is that “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable,” and “could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” This shows that the fundamental difference between the two countries is difficult to resolve. The conflicting interests of the two countries to be the dominant power in the region are even more difficult to reconcile.
The North Korean nuclear issue is another uncompleted job; now North Korea is stating that they want to see the United States first abandon hostility, and begin the normalization of relations between the two nations, and only then will North Korea be willing to completely abandon nuclear weapons. So the ball is in Obama’s court and we will see how he reacts.
However, Obama’s most pressing mission is still to stop the warfare in Gaza and create a sustainable ceasefire. Prior to this, Obama could be “not in the position to comment” and avoid it. But in the face of world public opinion and a human rights crisis, he had to make a statement, and he said that seeing the Israeli and Palestinian civilians suffer was “heartbreaking” and that on “his first day in office” he would immediately began diplomatic mediation, and was “determined to break the deadlock.”
Yet the efforts of all previous U.S. presidents have been futile. Admittedly, there were many reasons for this, but America’s stubborn support of Israel, which makes the United States unable to truly become an impartial, neutral mediator, is probably a major factor. Obama clearly stated that he was “deeply sympathetic to Israel’s right to defend itself” and resolutely supported that. Realistically, because Jewish lobbyist groups have an enormous influence in the financial circles, public opinion, and political circles in America, no president of the United States could change the pro-Israeli position. The difference is that Obama will not stand idly by and unconditionally support the behavior of Israel like Bush did—there might be some restraints. This is exactly the reason Israel rushed to finish its battle before Obama took office.
As long as America does not pressure Israel to make some compromises on a few fundamental differences such as settlements, areas of occupation, Jerusalem, and the return of refugees, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be unsuccessful.
Russian President Medvedev stated that he hopes Obama’s new administration will be able to “eliminate any limiting ideologies” and build a close relationship between the two countries on a more secure foundation. Obama also has hopes for improving the bilateral relationship. He stated that he is willing to conduct further negotiations on extending the “START” treaty and reducing nuclear stockpiles. Obama is anything but positive on the deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, but his reason lies mainly in the fact that he distrusts the reliability of the technology of the missile defense system. The United States and Russia could reach some compromises on this issue. However, Obama may not be opposed to NATO continuing its eastern expansion. Hence the atmosphere of relations between the United States and Russia is warming greatly, and the two countries will have better cooperation in overcoming the financial crisis, opposing terrorism, and non-proliferation. Yet on some important issues, it will still not be easy for the two sides to bridge the gap.
Obama’s diplomatic style will bring changes to U.S. diplomacy — he advocates using the “power of wisdom,” which is the integration and comprehensive use of soft power and hard power, strengthening diplomatic methods and playing down the use of arms. Obama is willing to abandon the confrontational approach and lean towards negotiating agreements; he is willing to give up unilateralism and emphasize multilateralism; he advocates a flexible and pragmatic style and a weakening of ideological overtones. In this way, Obama will bring all kinds of change to U.S. diplomacy, and if he really implements these actions, it will cause international relations to warm and the world situation to stabilize. This would, without a doubt, be worth welcoming.
Watching the way Obama soared to power, one could almost say that to some degree he borrowed strength from the financial storm sweeping across America. Most voters believe that this storm was the evil fruit of the Republican policy that opposed oversight, so, as far as the ability to manage the economy, voters turned their trust to the Democratic party.
Yet the current financial storm has already dragged America’s real economy into a recession. In just one month late last year, the entire country lost 500,000 jobs. So, as soon as he starts, Obama faces the enormous challenge of pulling the U.S. economy out of recession. Hence, Obama has finished drafting an 825 billion dollar plan with congressional Democrats. A major part of it invests more than 100 billion dollars into building bridges and repairing roads, raising energy efficiency, reforming infrastructure, and more. Obama believes this could help drive employment.
Additionally, what Obama received upon entering the White House is a 1.2 trillion dollar fiscal deficit, which makes one wonder where his spending money will come from. So far, Obama has only generally indicated that he will cancel government programs that do not produce results, but the idea that the little bit of money saved from those programs will be enough to close this enormous gap is not convincing. It seems the only way out is to borrow on a large scale from abroad; China, Japan, and the oil-producing gulf countries being America’s main targets.
Challenges abroad include how to win America's two wars against terrorism. The promise Obama made to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months does not seem difficult to realize. First, the security situation in Iraq has actually improved some, creating conditions for U.S. troops to pull out in phases. Second, Obama left a loophole for himself — the troop withdrawal he spoke of was the “main force,” and not the entire U.S. military.
When the time comes, he can leave some troops there based on the needs of the security situation at that time; for example, troops who are needed to continue training the Iraqi military police, Special Forces to pursue and wipe out terrorist ringleaders, and troops to protect U.S. diplomatic and engineering personnel, and so on. The security agreement the Bush administration signed with Iraq not long ago, which stipulates the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011, also allows Obama to be flexible on the troop withdrawal time line. Obama has added a definition to "troop withdrawal," calling it a “responsible withdrawal," which is to say that if the security situation is unstable, he will not pack up and leave obligations behind.
So Obama’s main challenge is not Iraq; rather it is how to win the war in Afghanistan. During his presidential campaign, Obama thought differently than Bush, who saw Iraq as the main front against terrorism. Instead, Obama has continually criticized Bush for starting the war in Iraq as it diverted and scattered the forces against terrorism. Obama himself sees Afghanistan as the “central front” of the war against terrorism and strongly advocates increasing troops there.
In the last year or so, Taliban forces in Afghanistan have regrouped and are making a comeback, and U.S. and NATO air strikes often cause great civilian injury and death. This multiplies the people’s hostile attitude towards both the United States and their own government. The United States had planned to increase troops by 30,000, and Obama has indicated that he will continue with the troop increase. He also wants European countries to follow suit and increase their troops, but these countries are unwilling due to popular will and limited ability. This is a test of Obama’s diplomatic ability and skill.
Moreover, Obama is thoroughly evaluating military strategy in Afghanistan. The new strategy will emphasize supporting local government, increasing developmental aid, improving civil life, and possibly establishing armed self-defense units in villages and towns and so on. However, whether this strategy will yield results cannot be known until it is implemented. People predict that Afghanistan could also become a long-term war that ties up U.S. troops.
The Iranian nuclear issue will be another difficult issue that tests Obama’s diplomatic thinking. A few days ago, Obama clearly stated that he would adopt a “new approach” with Iran, with an “emphasis on respect and a new willingness on being willing to talk." With preparation, Obama will engage in talks with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions. But Iranian president Ahmadinejad also has some expectations; he indicated that he would maintain a “wait and see” attitude. This provides some cushioning for the bilateral relationship. Yet, Obama's bottom line is that “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable,” and “could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” This shows that the fundamental difference between the two countries is difficult to resolve. The conflicting interests of the two countries to be the dominant power in the region are even more difficult to reconcile.
The North Korean nuclear issue is another uncompleted job; now North Korea is stating that they want to see the United States first abandon hostility, and begin the normalization of relations between the two nations, and only then will North Korea be willing to completely abandon nuclear weapons. So the ball is in Obama’s court and we will see how he reacts.
However, Obama’s most pressing mission is still to stop the warfare in Gaza and create a sustainable ceasefire. Prior to this, Obama could be “not in the position to comment” and avoid it. But in the face of world public opinion and a human rights crisis, he had to make a statement, and he said that seeing the Israeli and Palestinian civilians suffer was “heartbreaking” and that on “his first day in office” he would immediately began diplomatic mediation, and was “determined to break the deadlock.”
Yet the efforts of all previous U.S. presidents have been futile. Admittedly, there were many reasons for this, but America’s stubborn support of Israel, which makes the United States unable to truly become an impartial, neutral mediator, is probably a major factor. Obama clearly stated that he was “deeply sympathetic to Israel’s right to defend itself” and resolutely supported that. Realistically, because Jewish lobbyist groups have an enormous influence in the financial circles, public opinion, and political circles in America, no president of the United States could change the pro-Israeli position. The difference is that Obama will not stand idly by and unconditionally support the behavior of Israel like Bush did—there might be some restraints. This is exactly the reason Israel rushed to finish its battle before Obama took office.
As long as America does not pressure Israel to make some compromises on a few fundamental differences such as settlements, areas of occupation, Jerusalem, and the return of refugees, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be unsuccessful.
Russian President Medvedev stated that he hopes Obama’s new administration will be able to “eliminate any limiting ideologies” and build a close relationship between the two countries on a more secure foundation. Obama also has hopes for improving the bilateral relationship. He stated that he is willing to conduct further negotiations on extending the “START” treaty and reducing nuclear stockpiles. Obama is anything but positive on the deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, but his reason lies mainly in the fact that he distrusts the reliability of the technology of the missile defense system. The United States and Russia could reach some compromises on this issue. However, Obama may not be opposed to NATO continuing its eastern expansion. Hence the atmosphere of relations between the United States and Russia is warming greatly, and the two countries will have better cooperation in overcoming the financial crisis, opposing terrorism, and non-proliferation. Yet on some important issues, it will still not be easy for the two sides to bridge the gap.
Obama’s diplomatic style will bring changes to U.S. diplomacy — he advocates using the “power of wisdom,” which is the integration and comprehensive use of soft power and hard power, strengthening diplomatic methods and playing down the use of arms. Obama is willing to abandon the confrontational approach and lean towards negotiating agreements; he is willing to give up unilateralism and emphasize multilateralism; he advocates a flexible and pragmatic style and a weakening of ideological overtones. In this way, Obama will bring all kinds of change to U.S. diplomacy, and if he really implements these actions, it will cause international relations to warm and the world situation to stabilize. This would, without a doubt, be worth welcoming.
Previous article![]( "Key Things the New Guy Needs to Know. By George.")
