Obama’s Neo-Unilateralism

Unilateralism, which led to the decline of the United States’ reputation and moral authority, is the most significant feature of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. It not only worsened the U.S. debt crisis through the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but it also intensified antagonism between the United States and Islamic countries, aggravating a global “clash of civilizations.”

Ostensibly, Obama is trying to “bring order out of chaos,” emphasizing international cooperation, restoring alliances with America’s European allies and adopting “friendly” diplomacy toward the Islamic world. Suddenly, Obama garnered many international accolades and even received his undeserved Nobel Peace Prize.

Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration recognizes the limitations of U.S. power and influence and always emphasizes “cost-effectiveness,” a way that helps America acquire the greatest international interests at the least cost. This is the most significant feature of the so-called “Obama doctrine,” which affects the White House’s policy-making and priorities and that revealed itself especially in the promotion of the strategic importance of the Asia-Pacific region. Nevertheless, on the “anti-terrorism” front, even some American conservatives hold that there is no substantial difference between policies adopted by Obama and Bush, except in how they are implemented.

Directed by the “cost-effectiveness” principle, the Obama administration is actually carrying out neo-unilateralism, of which the long-term impact on the international community and security is no less than the Bush version of unilateralism.

Obama’s Continuance in Office Faces a Severe Challenge

This neo-unilateralism is essentially the uncontrolled high-tech militarization of war. This information emerged from Obama’s more and more troublesome re-election campaign.

With the slowdown in the U.S. economy and employment recovery and the deepened Euro-zone crisis, Obama’s re-election is facing more and more severe challenges. That the Democrats were defeated in the Wisconsin recall election and that Romney topped Obama in fundraising for the first time are both ominous signals. Obama’s campaign was forced to underscore the only highlight of the current administration — the “anti-terrorism” front. Thereafter came two important reports from the New York Times, which for the first time spotlighted the details of drone attacks on terrorists and the first U.S. computer virus attacks on another sovereign country.

Not to mention the political disturbance it caused by deliberately “leaking” information to manifest its political achievements, the Obama administration generated great long-term impact on both domestic and international society through these two actions.

First, the New York Times revealed that Obama would make a “Death List” every Tuesday, which, intentionally or not, propagandized Obama’s image as a “tough guy.” As I commented last year, the practice of the “Death List” is equivalent to an “illegal assassination,” which totally circumvents judicial procedure, violating the most highlighted principle of the British and American legal systems — judicial independence.

The CIA is involved in the drone attacks and has become the major source of intelligence that serves the decision-making on the “Death List,” making it difficult to explain every drone attack as a battlefield action, especially as an American citizen was also killed in such an attack. Even the American media do not hesitate to point out the severe defects of “illegal assassination,” such as the made-up “evidence of a crime,” which the former president of Yemen once employed to eliminate his political opponents.

The Obama Administration’s Harm to Peace Is No Less Than the Bush Administration’s

The militarization of high-tech war is a double-edged sword. Although the U.S. has built up a commanding lead on technology, other governments or non-governmental organizations are all catching up. As a result, the popularization of drone attacks can be expected to happen soon. A large number of Islamic radical fundamentalists have been trained in engineering in Western countries, which would likely make the U.S., the originator of drone attacks, responsible for the consequences.

Therefore, after the New York Times report, even the major “anti-terrorism” proponent, American Jewish conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer, immediately called for an end to drone attacks.

The New York Times then continued to disclose that the Obama administration once cooperated with Israel to secretly initiate an extremely advanced and complicated virus attack on an Iranian nuclear plant. This action marked the milestone of the militarization of the “virtual world.” Ironically, the U.S. has constantly criticized other nations, especially Russia and China, for attacking Western nations through computer spyware and destructive virtual warfare, but the U.S. government itself first adopted the practice of a virus attack on another sovereign nation. The historic meaning of such an action and its impact on the increasing development of militarization of the “virtual world” and the global internet goes without saying.

In short, the Obama administration fully utilized America’s current high-tech advantage to militarize the newest technology development to reduce casualties in warfare, pushing forward the next round of high-tech arms race among powerful countries. Even the New York Times admitted that these actions are no different than the Bush administration’s unilateralism, but only seems better under a soft cover. The Atlantic criticized Obama’s assassination policy as exacerbating the country’s anti-American emotion. All in all, future historians would never consider Obama’s unilateralism to be any less harmful to world peace than Bush’s.