America in the World

'No big mistakes but no real progress' says Time magazine's review of Obama's foreign policies

In a profile of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Time magazine's Joe Klein - a Democrat-supporter - tries hard to be positve but cannot help but voice worries about the direction of Barack Obama's foreign policy:

"There is a growing perception that the Administration's policies have been thwarted across the board: Afghanistan is a mess, Iran seems ready to scuttle the nuclear negotiations, there's no progress in the Middle East, the Syrians and North Koreans remain recalcitrant, the Russians have been offered a freebie on missile defense, and the Chinese have been given a pass on human rights with no apparent quid pro quos...

There is also a growing sense that the President's inexperience is beginning to show — not in his overall policy, which represents the views of a broad, moderate national-security consensus ranging from Brent Scowcroft to John Kerry, but in his execution of the details. The Afghan strategy review has been too public and taken too long; the Middle East peace hunt has become a wild goose chase. A letter to Iran's Supreme Leader is a productive gesture only if it gets a response; if it doesn't, it seems weak and supplicatory. A call for the Israelis to freeze settlements is effective only if it is accompanied by the credible threat of a reduction in aid. "You can't be seen pushing countries around — demanding [that] Israel freeze settlements, demanding that Hamid Karzai reform his government — and not get results," says Leslie H. Gelb, author of Power Rules. "The leaders of these countries are tough, successful politicians, and they'll begin to take you less seriously."

Klein does, however, argue that Obama possesses "the wisdom to have refrained from doing anything so wildly stupid as invading Iraq".

Read the full piece.

The untold story of the surge that saved Iraq

This is well worth thirty minutes of your time. It's a guide to how the American military under General David Petraeus pulled Iraq back from the brink of civil war. It includes exclusive remarks from Petraeus himself.

There is more on this website including a timeline of the surge.

George W Bush made the decision to send extra troops after nearly every advisor urged him to take other courses.  It was his best, bravest and loneliest decision as President after he had stubbornly stuck with the failed Rumsfeld strategy for far too long.

Ultimately the surge was about proving commitment as Bush made clear one year after he had despatched more troops:

"One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. So we reviewed our strategy and changed course. We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country.  The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return."

In the context of today's situation in Afghanistan some of those words are really worth repeating: "Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country."

The world's policeman is disarming

A year ago Barack Obama was elected American President. At first it looked like there might be a great deal of continuity in foreign policy but, over time, the differences have become very apparent.

George W Bush was not himself consistent in foreign policy. As I've written before, he pursued something resembling neoconservatism in Iraq and then realpolitik in Pakistan, multilateralism in Iran and traditional appeasement towards Saudi Arabia. These strategic approaches - particularly in Iraq - were not always pursued competently. Nonetheless, when Obama beat McCain, one of the big messages taken by the world was that the 'war party' (the Republicans) had lost to the 'peace party' (the Democrats).

Since the victory of 'the peace party' anti-Americanism has gone into reverse in most parts of the world. The decline of anti-Americanism has not, however, translated into tangible benefits for America. Europe has not given more troops to the Afghan campaign. Russia has not signed up to sanctions against Iran. Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber, ignoring Hillary Clinton's objections. And, less seriously, the IOC did not give Chicago the Olympics despite Obama's best efforts.

A year since Obama was elected it is possible to see a consistent pattern in his foreign policy. Individual decisions may be justifiable but, added up, they send a message that the world's policeman has largely disarmed:

On Afghanistan, the President has delayed and delayed deciding what to do in response to a report submitted to him by his own commander-on-the-ground, General Stanley McChrystal. Sources in the British government are worried that the "dithering" is now hurting the mission. The people of Afghanistan will not co-operate with NATO troops so long as they think the commitment is weak but will tie their fortunes to "the strong horse" of anti-western militants.

On Iraq, Obama accelerated George W Bush's more gradual troop withdrawal.

On Iran, Obama hesitated to support the peoples' protests against the widely-questioned re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Within the last week he hesitated again to back pro-democracy protestors in Tehran. A decision condemned inside the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

The White House cancelled George W Bush's missile defend shield for the Czech Republic and Poland in the hope that Moscow would help force Tehran to end its nuclear programme. The concession was made to Russia but to no effect.

Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai Lama for fear of offending Beijing.

Rather than isolating the government of Sudan for its genocidal abuses in Darfur, the Obama administration has proposed a mix of “incentives and pressure” in future relations.  Even the New York Times gasped: "We have difficulty accepting the idea of any outreach to President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for directing the genocide in Darfur."

The biggest sign of disarmanent has been in the new respect for the United Nations. The UN is a great talking shop with a terrible track record of confronting evil regimes or threats to security.

Obama has apologised for America on many occasions - particularly to the Muslim world.

The Wall Street Journal's overall view is that America has been more keen to truck with America's enemies than its friends:

"His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez." 

Is the world more dangerous today than a year ago? Not noticeably but there is a real danger that under Obama's disarming watch the forces that grew during the equally disarming Clinton years will grow again. The final word to Mayor of London, Boris Johnson:

"It was one of the very greatest American presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, who said the duty of America abroad was to "speak softly but carry a big stick". George Bush forgot the "speak softly" bit. But Obama needs to remember the vital importance of continuing to carry a big stick. That is because the job of America is still pretty much what it was when Fleming wrote Goldfinger in 1959 - to take on the bad guys in a way that no other country is able or willing to do."

Tim Montgomerie

Twice as many Americans see themselves as "conservative" than see themselves as "liberal"

Gallup polling here.

Shock as Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Sky Television's Foreign Editor, Tim Marshall, described it as one of the most controversial Nobel awards ever - second only to the honouring of Yasser Arafat. Nominations for this year's award closed on 1st February - only eleven days after Barack Obama became US president.

Even many of his admirers will be surprised at this award. There were audible gasps of astonishment at the announcement. America's 44th President does not yet have any big foreign policy achievements to his name - although the Nobel Committee cited his aspiration to rid the world of nuclear weapons as one explanation.

Sky's verdict: He got it for NOT being George W Bush.

Obama accused of "economic vandalism" for protectionist moves

Last week we reported Barack Obama's decision to impose 35% tariffs on imported Chinese tyres. The Obama administration's protectionist instincts are the subject of a damning editorial in The Economist magazine:

"The tyre decision needs to be set into the context of a string of ominously protectionist policies which started within weeks of the inauguration with a nasty set of “Buy America” provisions for public-works contracts. The president watered these down a bit, but was not brave enough to veto. Next, the president stayed silent as Congress shut down a project that was meant to lead to the opening of the border to Mexican trucks, something promised in the NAFTA agreement of 1994. Besides these sins of commission sit the sins of omission: the president has done nothing at all to advance the three free-trade packages that are pending in Congress, with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, three solid American allies who deserve much better. And much more serious than that, because it affects the whole world, is his failure to put anything worthwhile on the table to help revive the moribund Doha round of trade talks. Mr Bush’s tariffs, like the Reagan-era export restraints on Japanese cars and semiconductors, came from a president who was fundamentally committed to free trade. Mr Obama’s, it seems, do not."

Read the full piece here.

Obama highlights seven key changes in American foreign policy since Bush left White House

In a major speech to the United Nations yesterday Barack Obama set out the ways in which American foreign policy had already changed since he became President:

1. Closing Guantanomo: "On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law."
2. Withdrawing from Iraq: 'We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all our combat brigades from Iraqi territory."
3. Reductions in America's nuclear arsenal: "I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."
4. A new effort at Middle East Peace: "I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected."
5. Global leadership against climate change: "To confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean energy.  We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards.  We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations."
6. Action against the global recession: "We worked with the G20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink."
7. A new respect for the United Nations: "We have paid our bills.  We have joined the Human Rights Council.  (Applause.)  We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.  And we address our priorities here, in this institution  -- for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today."

Read the full speech here.

President Obama gave the speech on the day when the New York Times reported that the White House was reconsidering its strategy in Afghanistan. Vice President Joe Biden disagrees with US generals on the ground that more troops are needed. "Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban," the New York Times suggested, "American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics."

It is not clear if the consideration of alternatives represents a real change of heart since Obama promised an Iraq-style troops surge or is a necessary exercise to reassure Democrats that all alternative options have been explored.

Obama abandons Bush's plan to protect Europe with missile defence system

The Czech government has confirmed that America has abandoned George W Bush's commitment to build a missile defence system in central Europe.

President Bush had said the system was an essential protection against rogue states attacking Europe with a nuclear-armed missile.

Critics of the Obama administration are suggesting that persistent Russian opposition to the plan is the explanation.  Other theories include the enormous expense at a time when the American budget deficit is growing sharply and also continuing concerns that a missile defence system - first proposed by President Reagan in the early 1980s - is technologically too difficult.  Some believe that a dirty nuclear bomb - smuggled into a major urban centre in a 'suitcase' - is much more likely and a missile defence system offers no protection against it.

Obama administration officials are claiming that the policy shift reflects their belief that Iran's long-range missile plans are less advanced than originally predicted.

Nile Gardiner of Washington's Heritage Foundation is in no doubt that the White House has been intimidated by the Kremlin:

"This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear."

Last November Russia moved its own ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad between Nato member states Lithuania and Poland.  Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had threatened to "neutralise - if necessary - the [US] anti-missile system".

Last week Russia shut the door to tougher sanctions against Iran.  It may be that this U-turn reflects a hope by Washington to trade the missile defence system for Russia pressurising Tehran.  Time will tell.

The Wall Street Journal has an informative background report on this developing story.

Decline in anti-Americanism has not yet been converted into strategic gains for USA

AmericaInTheWorld recently noted a worldwide decline in anti-American sentiment since Barack Obama's election. That important change has not yet translated into strategic gains for America. John Bolton made this point in connection with Scotland's release of the Libyan bomber. Europe's reluctance to support Obama's objectives in Afghanistan is the most important failure but Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard noted others in a blog at the weekend:

"We see the benefits of the "reset" with Russia as Lavrov shuts the door on real sanctions. While Obama is pressuring Israel on settlements and reaching out to Damscus, we learn that Syria has more nuclear sites. Hariri has given up on trying to form a government in Lebanon. And Iran has apparently stepped up its support for killing Americans in Afghanistan."

Click here to access the links within The Weekly Standard blog entry.

China accuses Obama of "rampant protectionism"

Last week China accused Barack Obama of "rampant protectionism" after the American President imposed a new duty of 35% on Chinese tyre imports.  US labour unions - a key part of the Democratic Party's coalition - had sought the tariffs.

Writing for The Financial Times, Charles Freeman accuses the Obama administration of "calculated cynicism" in its new protectionist attitude toward China:

"The levying of new tariffs on imports of Chinese tyres is not particularly heartening. To be sure, China is no angel in international trade matters. As everywhere, China’s domestic politics complicate Beijing’s economic policies and bedevil efforts of international negotiators to ensure a level playing field in cross-border trade. But this particular White House decision, taken through a process that is widely despised in China as uniquely discriminatory against that country, is no mere slap on the wrist for run-of-the-mill Chinese perfidies. This decision provides fodder for nationalist interests in China that will not just push for tit-for-tat retaliation against US economic interests, but play into a broader trend within China to roll back market-opening reforms. That could result in a back-and-forth battle of retaliatory trade measures which, given the importance of US-China trade relations to global commerce, will provide cheer to only the most parochial of interests worldwide."