Obama the Progressive Pragmatist
An in-depth look at yesterday’s foreign policy speech by the American President
It is worth taking a closer look at the foreign policy speech that Barack Obama gave yesterday. Now at the mid-way point of his second term, the American President, who has overseen an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was keen to present an analysis of his actions that linked them with his guiding principles. He further developed the themes which he had previously addressed in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2013: that far from being in decline, America remains the world’s primary economic, technological and military power; that it is not, however, responsible for the world’s policing. America will fervently protect its interests, is determined to maintain its influence and will continue to guard its security, at the same time as playing by the rules of multilateralism. America has no intention of abdicating its 70-year responsibility as the guarantor of global order. For that matter, no other country is in a position to assume world leadership; in that sense, the U.S. is still the “necessary power.” Its armed forces are the backbone of that power, yet not every problem requires a military solution. It is this notion that to this day has been behind its worst political mistakes. The U.S. will not, however, hesitate to resort to fair and proportional force whenever its vital interests are at stake; unilaterally if needs be, and without asking permission from anybody.
In times, though, when the nation is under no direct threat, military intervention is only conceivable within the framework of collective action and the mobilization of allies and partners, and then only once the means of diplomacy and international law have been exhausted, regardless of moral pressure. American leadership has primarily been evident in the establishment and development of a series of international bodies, whose purpose has been to maintain peace and further the progress of humanity. It is now time to review the structure of these organizations and to modernize them. NATO and the UN must be strengthened in their respective functions of defense and of maintaining peace, as well as in their ability to anticipate.
International institutions only work if they are used judiciously; Obama gives two examples of this: The response of NATO, the G7 and the IMF to the current situation in Ukraine, as well as the role played by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe), have been enough to face down Russia and allow the Ukrainian people to choose their own future unopposed. And while at one point the Iranian nuclear program seemed to be progressing inexorably, an increase in economic sanctions, in conjunction with the outstretched hand of diplomacy, has resulted in a negotiated solution becoming plausible for the first time in a decade.
For the moment and the foreseeable future, terrorism inflicted by the decentralized subsidiaries of al-Qaida and other extremists is the most severe threat. While there is only a negligible risk of attacks on U.S. soil, American individuals abroad are more vulnerable. A new strategy is being established, which will cover an area stretching from the Sahara to South Asia. A fund for the anti-terrorist alliance is to be created, with a reserve of $5 billion, intended for use in the countries on the front line of this war, such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Mali.
It is difficult to speak of an Obama doctrine; the President’s words are marked by what has been called “progressive pragmatism,” supposedly free of ideology. He is mapping out a realist middle ground between the isolationists and the interventionists. The former believe that the U.S. should have nothing to do with conflicts that do not directly affect their security or their prosperity, such as Syria, Ukraine or the Central African Republic. The latter, both on the left and on the right, hold the opposite view; that America simply cannot shy away from such issues; that if it is not prepared to use its power, it will allow chaos to reign, encouraging would-be attackers in doing so.
Barack Obama quite rightly makes the point that this is a debate as old as the U.S. itself; from the beginning, George Washington warned his compatriots against getting dragged into foreign squabbles and alliances. This debate could take on another perspective when Hillary Clinton publishes her memoirs, entitled “Hard Choices,” on June 10. The former Secretary of State, who was Obama’s rival for the Democratic candidacy and still longs to succeed him, has called for a more robust approach to Syria. She realized early on that the ‘reset’ with Russia had failed ...
The domestic dimension is also present in President Obama’s speech. It is for him to manage a decrease in the military budget and to face the critics of this decrease. Besides that, he must take on a Republican opposition that is blocking the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (and how can America then demand that China respect such a law?). And how can he begin to promote American values when his enemies prevent him from closing Guantanamo Bay?
It is worth taking a closer look at the foreign policy speech that Barack Obama gave yesterday. Now at the mid-way point of his second term, the American President, who has overseen an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was keen to present an analysis of his actions that linked them with his guiding principles. He further developed the themes which he had previously addressed in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2013: that far from being in decline, America remains the world’s primary economic, technological and military power; that it is not, however, responsible for the world’s policing. America will fervently protect its interests, is determined to maintain its influence and will continue to guard its security, at the same time as playing by the rules of multilateralism. America has no intention of abdicating its 70-year responsibility as the guarantor of global order. For that matter, no other country is in a position to assume world leadership; in that sense, the U.S. is still the “necessary power.” Its armed forces are the backbone of that power, yet not every problem requires a military solution. It is this notion that to this day has been behind its worst political mistakes. The U.S. will not, however, hesitate to resort to fair and proportional force whenever its vital interests are at stake; unilaterally if needs be, and without asking permission from anybody.
In times, though, when the nation is under no direct threat, military intervention is only conceivable within the framework of collective action and the mobilization of allies and partners, and then only once the means of diplomacy and international law have been exhausted, regardless of moral pressure. American leadership has primarily been evident in the establishment and development of a series of international bodies, whose purpose has been to maintain peace and further the progress of humanity. It is now time to review the structure of these organizations and to modernize them. NATO and the UN must be strengthened in their respective functions of defense and of maintaining peace, as well as in their ability to anticipate.
International institutions only work if they are used judiciously; Obama gives two examples of this: The response of NATO, the G7 and the IMF to the current situation in Ukraine, as well as the role played by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe), have been enough to face down Russia and allow the Ukrainian people to choose their own future unopposed. And while at one point the Iranian nuclear program seemed to be progressing inexorably, an increase in economic sanctions, in conjunction with the outstretched hand of diplomacy, has resulted in a negotiated solution becoming plausible for the first time in a decade.
For the moment and the foreseeable future, terrorism inflicted by the decentralized subsidiaries of al-Qaida and other extremists is the most severe threat. While there is only a negligible risk of attacks on U.S. soil, American individuals abroad are more vulnerable. A new strategy is being established, which will cover an area stretching from the Sahara to South Asia. A fund for the anti-terrorist alliance is to be created, with a reserve of $5 billion, intended for use in the countries on the front line of this war, such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Mali.
It is difficult to speak of an Obama doctrine; the President’s words are marked by what has been called “progressive pragmatism,” supposedly free of ideology. He is mapping out a realist middle ground between the isolationists and the interventionists. The former believe that the U.S. should have nothing to do with conflicts that do not directly affect their security or their prosperity, such as Syria, Ukraine or the Central African Republic. The latter, both on the left and on the right, hold the opposite view; that America simply cannot shy away from such issues; that if it is not prepared to use its power, it will allow chaos to reign, encouraging would-be attackers in doing so.
Barack Obama quite rightly makes the point that this is a debate as old as the U.S. itself; from the beginning, George Washington warned his compatriots against getting dragged into foreign squabbles and alliances. This debate could take on another perspective when Hillary Clinton publishes her memoirs, entitled “Hard Choices,” on June 10. The former Secretary of State, who was Obama’s rival for the Democratic candidacy and still longs to succeed him, has called for a more robust approach to Syria. She realized early on that the ‘reset’ with Russia had failed ...
The domestic dimension is also present in President Obama’s speech. It is for him to manage a decrease in the military budget and to face the critics of this decrease. Besides that, he must take on a Republican opposition that is blocking the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (and how can America then demand that China respect such a law?). And how can he begin to promote American values when his enemies prevent him from closing Guantanamo Bay?