Obama’s Reversal and the Route of International Cooperation

This month American President Barack Obama will hit the midpoint of his four-year term.

The ruling Democratic Party suffered a huge defeat in last year’s midterm elections. In the House of Representatives, Obama is now facing a headwind of Republicans who occupy a large number of seats in the “divided Congress.” It also seems that some are beginning to doubt his re-election in next fall’s presidential election.

The administration cannot avoid turning inward to minimize friction in Congress. The effect this will have on the administration’s diplomatic route, which has touted international cooperation, is worth paying attention to.

The presidential inauguration two years ago is fresh in my mind. In Washington, 2 million people gathered, and all were overcome with enthusiasm. Even to the Muslim world, which former President Bush had taken a stance against, Obama offered “a handshake.” Obama’s slogan of unification, “Change,” left an impression.

However, a solid political foundation is vital to strong diplomacy, and Obama’s is faltering.

The administration’s “big government” policies, such as the nationalization of the bankrupt General Motors Corporation and the health care reform package that favors the poorer class, have been bathed in criticism from the Republican Party and others. Moreover, employment and the economy have not recovered as much as hoped, inviting the estrangement of Democratic Party supporters as well.

Currently, Obama cannot help but give in to the Republican Party on things such as the extension of the tax cuts to top earners, which he criticized during the previous administration. It appears his early ideology has begun to thin out.

It is likely that similar compromises in the diplomatic and security spheres will be urged, as well. The exit strategy for the nearly 100,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan may become the first such case.

As the complete withdrawal from Iraq continues, Obama is also poised to begin the withdrawal from Afghanistan this July. However, they are still bogged down with battling the Taliban insurgency. As the administration has been criticized for having a “weak attitude” toward Islamic power, they will likely be urged to rethink their strategy.

The path to “a world without nuclear weapons,” which Obama touted in his Prague address, has also become increasingly uncertain. Besides the signing — at long last — of the New START nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia at the end of last year, any other forward progress seems unlikely.

Iran is continuing to enrich uranium. A solution is being sought through diplomatic channels, but that doesn’t mean calls for hard-line action haven’t arisen in Congress.

Historically, when America’s internal political struggles reach a certain point, they use military actions abroad to redirect some of the aggression. Such foolishness cannot be allowed this time.

Ever since last year, tensions have been rising on the Korean Peninsula and between Japan and China. Still, more difficult diplomatic guidance should be stressed here, too.

A summit between America and China is scheduled for next week. How can they urge China, which has become the world’s second-largest economy, to restrain its increasing military strength? America also plays an important role in getting North Korea to peacefully return to the negotiation table over abandoning their nuclear development program.

On the other hand, it’s conceivable they will ask Japan for even more cooperation with the American military.

In a multi-polar age where the influence of India and other emerging nations will increase, Japanese diplomatic strategy also needs a new point of view. It has relied too much on the Japan-America alliance.