Obama's Lack of Interest Is Europe's Cue
Published in die Welt
(Germany) on 20 March 2013
by Alan Posener (link to original)
U.S. President Barack Obama has no upcoming foreign policy project. Soon to be energy independent, the United States has lost interest in the Middle East. Europe can no longer afford to dally: It must live up to its new role.
America haters are having a tough time of it these days; the U.S. is doing little that warrants an anti-American demonstration. Communist North Korea threatens nuclear war and America yawns. The Iranian theocracy is nearing its goal to become a nuclear power and America does nothing. Syria declines into bloody civil war and America sadly shakes its head.
Islamists threaten to overrun Mali and seize its uranium mines; France sends in the troops while America looks benevolently on. The U.S. is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and has begun negotiations with the Taliban, while it does the same with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And when Obama finally visits Israel after four years in office, all the commentators emphasize his “frosty” relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The George W. Bush episode has been dealt with and the neoconservative dream of a democratic empire, when observed in the cold light of the morning after the party, now seems about as realistic as the dreams of those economists who envisioned a crisis-free capitalism. The new and moderate foreign policy of the Obama administration is based on the concept of nation-building at home.
When his advisors are asked what major foreign policy projects they have currently under way, they all just cough and look at their shoes. The truth is there are none. Obama has two years to accomplish those things he has set his sights on. Then come the midterm congressional elections; his goal there is to retake the House of Representatives, and no one wins elections these days by going to war.
Foreign Policy Developments Only Get in the Way
It's the economy, stupid! It's still fragile. 2 percent growth is much better than the eurozone, but it still isn't enough to bring down the debt. Spending cuts and higher revenues are what's needed. Obama was successful in wresting a few — if purely symbolic — tax increases from the Republican-dominated House of Representatives at the beginning of the year.
In return for that, Congress imposed an austerity program on the president that calls for three dollars in program cuts for every dollar in tax increases. Obama opposed that rhetorically but accepted it in practice because the budget policy commission he appointed in 2010 had recommended essentially the same ratio.
After the midterms are over, all eyes will be fixed on the candidates who will run for the presidency in 2016. The first black president wants to leave his successor a nation that's more economically and socially equitable, as well as fiscally better off than the nation he inherited in 2008. Foreign policy developments would only get in the way of achieving that goal. A free trade zone agreement between the U.S. and the European Union would be nice, but the White House doesn't foresee anything more than that on the foreign policy front.
When it comes to questions of national security, the questions from the White House are: (1) Is it doable and (2) what will it cost? Added to these is whether it can be done in one legislative session. Concerning Syria, the answer to the first question is “no.” Concerning Iran, the answer to the first question is “maybe.” The answer to the second is “a lot.” On the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the answer to the first question is “probably not” while the answer to the second is “a whole lot.” The answer to the third question in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict issue is “never and no way possible.” That's why in all three cases Obama will choose to do nothing, but he still has to sell this newly-found modesty to Israel.
Europe Shouldn't Wait for Obama
Likewise elsewhere. Obama's people like to point out the war in Libya, where France and Great Britain engaged in combat and the United States invented the concept of “leading from behind.” In concrete terms, that means when France and Great Britain ran out of ammunition and the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle had to disengage and return to Toulon for repairs, the United States delivered the firepower that gave the European liberation rhetoric the necessary emphasis.
In Washington it was said that Europe had been a “security consumer” during the Cold War and that now was the time for it to become a provider of the same, especially since the immediate European sphere — North Africa and the Near and Middle East — were becoming less important to the United States. By the end of the decade, America will be energy independent and become a net exporter of oil and gas within 15 years. China has already replaced the U.S. as the world's leading importer of oil and gas; Europe will soon become the second largest importer and, as administration experts say, already has extensive experience in “stabilization and democratization.”
In short, we should not wait for Obama. Like Godot in Samuel Becket's play, Obama won't come when it involves Europe's problems. America considers the rectangle with sides from Belorussia in the north to Egypt in the south, from Azerbaijan in the east to Morocco in the west, to be in Europe's natural sphere of influence.
America haters are having a tough time of it these days; the U.S. is doing little that warrants an anti-American demonstration. Communist North Korea threatens nuclear war and America yawns. The Iranian theocracy is nearing its goal to become a nuclear power and America does nothing. Syria declines into bloody civil war and America sadly shakes its head.
Islamists threaten to overrun Mali and seize its uranium mines; France sends in the troops while America looks benevolently on. The U.S. is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and has begun negotiations with the Taliban, while it does the same with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And when Obama finally visits Israel after four years in office, all the commentators emphasize his “frosty” relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The George W. Bush episode has been dealt with and the neoconservative dream of a democratic empire, when observed in the cold light of the morning after the party, now seems about as realistic as the dreams of those economists who envisioned a crisis-free capitalism. The new and moderate foreign policy of the Obama administration is based on the concept of nation-building at home.
When his advisors are asked what major foreign policy projects they have currently under way, they all just cough and look at their shoes. The truth is there are none. Obama has two years to accomplish those things he has set his sights on. Then come the midterm congressional elections; his goal there is to retake the House of Representatives, and no one wins elections these days by going to war.
Foreign Policy Developments Only Get in the Way
It's the economy, stupid! It's still fragile. 2 percent growth is much better than the eurozone, but it still isn't enough to bring down the debt. Spending cuts and higher revenues are what's needed. Obama was successful in wresting a few — if purely symbolic — tax increases from the Republican-dominated House of Representatives at the beginning of the year.
In return for that, Congress imposed an austerity program on the president that calls for three dollars in program cuts for every dollar in tax increases. Obama opposed that rhetorically but accepted it in practice because the budget policy commission he appointed in 2010 had recommended essentially the same ratio.
After the midterms are over, all eyes will be fixed on the candidates who will run for the presidency in 2016. The first black president wants to leave his successor a nation that's more economically and socially equitable, as well as fiscally better off than the nation he inherited in 2008. Foreign policy developments would only get in the way of achieving that goal. A free trade zone agreement between the U.S. and the European Union would be nice, but the White House doesn't foresee anything more than that on the foreign policy front.
When it comes to questions of national security, the questions from the White House are: (1) Is it doable and (2) what will it cost? Added to these is whether it can be done in one legislative session. Concerning Syria, the answer to the first question is “no.” Concerning Iran, the answer to the first question is “maybe.” The answer to the second is “a lot.” On the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the answer to the first question is “probably not” while the answer to the second is “a whole lot.” The answer to the third question in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict issue is “never and no way possible.” That's why in all three cases Obama will choose to do nothing, but he still has to sell this newly-found modesty to Israel.
Europe Shouldn't Wait for Obama
Likewise elsewhere. Obama's people like to point out the war in Libya, where France and Great Britain engaged in combat and the United States invented the concept of “leading from behind.” In concrete terms, that means when France and Great Britain ran out of ammunition and the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle had to disengage and return to Toulon for repairs, the United States delivered the firepower that gave the European liberation rhetoric the necessary emphasis.
In Washington it was said that Europe had been a “security consumer” during the Cold War and that now was the time for it to become a provider of the same, especially since the immediate European sphere — North Africa and the Near and Middle East — were becoming less important to the United States. By the end of the decade, America will be energy independent and become a net exporter of oil and gas within 15 years. China has already replaced the U.S. as the world's leading importer of oil and gas; Europe will soon become the second largest importer and, as administration experts say, already has extensive experience in “stabilization and democratization.”
In short, we should not wait for Obama. Like Godot in Samuel Becket's play, Obama won't come when it involves Europe's problems. America considers the rectangle with sides from Belorussia in the north to Egypt in the south, from Azerbaijan in the east to Morocco in the west, to be in Europe's natural sphere of influence.