The World Needs Constructive Participants

Each United States president has wanted to have his own doctrine and Obama’s doctrine is seemingly still being established. This doctrine is a type of theory that aims to maximize the influence of the United States while minimizing spending costs for the cash-strapped government. An article by the British Financial Times defines the Obama Doctrine and considers the recently concluded war in Libya to be a model for its success.

During the war in Libya, the U.S. provided advanced weaponry without deploying a single soldier. Specific missions and command operations were all carried out by NATO. The U.S. only spent $1 billion USD, which is nothing compared to the $1.1 trillion it spent on the war in Iraq.

The Obama administration has consistently and deliberately followed a strategy of maximizing its influence in exchange for the least amount or for a reduced cost since its inauguration. The offshore balance strategy actually came into being after the failure of the Bush administration’s dominant strategy of preemptive military intervention. Hillary Clinton’s proposal of smart power diplomacy after she was sworn into office in 2009 as U.S. secretary of state can be described as a prelude to this strategy. In the background leading up to the introduction of this strategy, the image of the United States was greatly damaged due to the brandishing of its gun, and its power was diminished.

In reality, the changes mentioned above are merely changes in a pattern. The U.S. broadcasts its values and political model to the world in order to protect its global interests and maintain its leadership status. This will not change. Its goal, as mentioned in “U.S. National Security Strategy 2010,” is to again position the United States to champion mutual interests among nations and peoples.

One important piece of background regarding the introduction of the Obama Doctrine is that following the rise of the emerging powers, there was an increase in the global trend of multi-polarization. Since the occurrence of the 2008 financial crisis, reforms to the International Monetary Fund and coordination within the G20 underscore the changes in the global power structure. However, while one facet of the new U.S. way of thinking is to adapt to developments and situational changes, it is also a way for the U.S. to rebound.

On one hand, the United States must change its antiquated method of leading global affairs. For some major international affairs, it needs to increase its consultations [with other nations] and use outside assistance. On the other hand, the U.S. refuses to relinquish its dominant position, and it will do everything possible to make circumstances fit its designed trajectory. The U.S. has not abandoned its policy of intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. Rather, it will selectively or indirectly intervene.

This type of contradictory mentality creates a high amount of uncertainty for future U.S. strategy. Under what circumstances will the U.S. use military force to intervene? Will it use some of the already existing regional conflicts for its benefit more [than it already has]? Will it not hesitate to stir up conflict between some of the countries in order to realize its so-called offshore balancing? Will it stir up trouble and then wash its hands of the resulting problems, leaving trouble for its allies or for the international community? These questions are not only relevant for the sustainability of U.S. global strategy but also for global stability.

The chessboard of today’s world is incredibly complex. It is much too naive to believe that we can continue to exist by relying on imitating the Libya Model. The resolution of international issues requires consultation and thorough consideration. This is a trend that will not bend to the will of any individual country. Circumstances are more powerful than individuals, and Western nations should possess a deep understanding of this fact.

Of course, an adjustment of the current economic and politic order cannot occur without the participation of the United States, the number one world power. As for the U.S., it isn’t concerned with simply being a leader, but rather with on learning how to be a constructive participant.