America in the World

Barack Obama pursues 'minilateralism' in Copenhagen, bypassing UN for deal with China, India, Brazil and S Africa

One of the most interesting features of the Copenhagen summit was President Obama's decision to work with a very small number of nations once it had become clear that all nations gathered by the United Nations were not going to reach agreement.

The UK Liberal Democrat MEP Fiona Hall matter-of-factly noted the President's actions on LibDemVoice blog:

"After yesterday afternoon’s impasse on an international agreement, President Obama took matters into his own hands, struck a deal with China, India, Brazil and South Africa – and promptly left the country."

For a president who has been critical of his predecessor's go-it-aloneism the decision to form this small group is noteworthy. George W Bush had his coalition-of-the-willing in Iraq. Obama's grouping of China, India, Brazil and South Africa will probably get a name in due course too.

A technical name for what Obama engineered has already been proposed by Moisés Naím of Foreign Policy. He suggested that the failure of multilateralism will increasingly leads to minilateralism:

Naím on the failure of multilateralism: "When was the last time you heard that a large number of countries agreed to a major international accord on a pressing issue? Not in more than a decade. The last successful multilateral trade agreement dates back to 1994, when 123 countries gathered to negotiate the creation of the World Trade Organization and agreed on a new set of rules for international trade. Since then, all other attempts to reach a global trade deal have crashed. The same is true with multilateral efforts to curb nuclear proliferation; the last significant international nonproliferation agreement was in 1995, when 185 countries agreed to extend an existing nonproliferation treaty. In the decade and a half since, multilateral initiatives have not only failed, but India, Pakistan, and North Korea have demonstrated their certain status as nuclear powers. On the environment, the Kyoto Protocol, a global deal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has been ratified by 184 countries since it was adopted in 1997, but the United States, the world's second-largest air polluter after China, has not done so, and many of the signatories have missed their targets."

Naím on the need for minilateralism: "By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach: We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism's magic number. The magic number, of course, will vary greatly depending on the problem. Take trade, for example. The Group of Twenty (G-20), which includes both rich and poor countries from six continents, accounts for 85 percent of the world's economy. The members of the G-20 could reach a major trade deal among themselves and make it of even greater significance by allowing any other country to join if it wishes to do so. Presumably, many would. Same with climate change. There, too, the magic number is about 20: The world's 20 top polluters account for 75 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. The number for nuclear proliferation is 21—enough to include both recognized and de facto nuclear countries, and several other powers who care about them. African poverty? About a dozen, including all the major donor countries and the sub-Saharan countries most in need. As for HIV/AIDS, 19 countries account for nearly two thirds of the world's AIDS-related deaths."

Obama learns the wrong lesson from Reagan

 In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama paid tribute to Ronald Reagan:

"Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe."

The Daily Telegraph's Janet Daley takes him to task for those words, finding President Obama guilty of an "extraordinary historical fallacy":

"In fact, it was Ronald Reagan’s escalation of the arms race (through the much derided “star wars” programme) that bankrupted the Soviet Union, brought about the downfall of communism, and truly liberated the peoples of Eastern Europe."

Daley realises that Reagan's message of escalation "would not presumably have appealed much to the Nobel grandees in Oslo" and that is why the strong America of Reagan was not recognised by those grandees but the humble (some might say apologetic) America of Obama was.

Obama's pragmatic foreign policy reminds Jerry Seib of the approach pursued by the first George Bush

The video is based on a column by Jerry Seib which is here.

The column's ending is particularly pertinent:

"The current economic weakness of America may simply demand a less ambitious approach than George W. Bush attempted. It's harder to confront China on human rights, for instance, when relying on Beijing to finance America's ballooning debt, or to face down Iran alone when the U.S. military is stretched thin. The elder Bush's approach may have been a matter of prudence, while Mr. Obama's may be rooted more in necessity."

'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 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

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.

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.

Obama unhappy at release of Lockerbie bomber

Earlier today Barack Obama - echoing Hillary Clinton's earlier remarks - expressed his unhappiness at the decision of the Scottish government to release the Lockerbie bomber on 'compassionate grounds':

For Janet Daley of The Daily Telegraph the release is another proof that Obama has made America more likeable but not necessarily more influential:

"The rehabilitation of America’s standing in the world was going to be one of the great gains, if you remember, of the Obama election victory. No more was the voice of the US to be held in contempt by its old allies. The Obama White House would restore the moral authority of the nation, and thus its influence in the world. So much for that. As the Scottish Justice Secretary intoned his ruling that Megrahi was to be permitted to go free because he was “a dying man”,  most Americans (even of the liberal Obama persuasion) would be wondering what a life sentence meant if it did not involve dying in prison. But the important political lesson will have gone home. The President and his Secretary of State could do nothing - for all their administration’s  supposed global prestige - to prevent what they considered to be an outrage. On yet another score, Mr Obama could not deliver the goods."

Do You Feel Safer?

This video to mark 100 days of Barack Obama's White House tenure, released by the Republican Leader in the House John Boehner, questions the new President's decisions on Guantanamo Bay, aggressive interrogation techniques and outreach to hostile regimes.

Obama accelerates his 'America has changed' message

Last week was a big week for President Obama's mission to show that US foreign policy will be very different under his administration.  On climate change, 'torture', Cuba and relations with other American states he communicated his change agenda.  The BBC communicated all four shifts:

On climate change... "The US government is to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases may endanger human health and well-being. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the move following a review of the scientific evidence. The decision marks a major change from the Bush presidency, when the EPA argued it could not regulate CO2 because the gas was not a pollutant."

Publication of 'torture' memos... "The US has published four secret memos detailing legal justification for the Bush-era CIA interrogation programme. Critics of the programme say the methods used amounted to torture. President Barack Obama has also issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employees will be prosecuted for their role in the interrogation programme."

Friendlier relations with other American states... "President Barack Obama has said the US seeks an "equal partnership" with all the nations of the Americas. Mr Obama said in particular that he wanted a thaw in relations between the US and Cuba, having earlier shaken hands with one of the US's harshest critics, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez."

A easing of restrictions on Cuba... "US President Barack Obama has approved measures that will allow Cuban Americans to travel more freely to Cuba, his spokesman has said. Cuban-Americans will also be allowed to send more money to relatives in Cuba. The move, announced by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, comes after Mr Obama last month signed a spending bill easing some economic sanctions on Cuba."

Writing in the Financial Times Clive Crook attempted to define an Obama foreign policy doctrine.  He identified a key ingredient as personal warmth:

"Mr Obama’s willingness to start anew, ask what works, offer respect to governments that crave it (even if they may not deserve it) and patiently seek progress where he may is refreshing.

One aspect of this pragmatism is the president’s desire to build alliances and cool old enmities, and work towards US aims through co-operation rather than confrontation. The trouble is, most US presidents – including Mr Obama’s predecessor – felt the same way until the world beat it out of them. Foreign policy doctrine is put to the test only when co-operation in pursuit of mutual interests fails to achieve results, and the hard choices that Mr Obama insists he is willing to make actually present themselves.

Though it is much too soon to write off Mr Obama’s friendly overtures, you could hardly describe them so far as a notable success. He travelled to Europe this month and received ovations at every step; presidents and prime ministers jostled like giddy teenagers to be photographed with him. Yet he went away with nothing: no co-ordinated fiscal stimulus; no meaningful commitments of new military support in Afghanistan. Judged by the outcome, could his predecessor have done much worse?

The world agreed that North Korea’s missile test should be opposed; the US even hinted it might shoot the rocket down. The launch went ahead without repercussions. The US and its allies could not agree on a response.

The world believes that Iran should be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, but the allies drag their feet over sanctions."

Read the rest of Crook's piece here.