America in the World

"When freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen."

Perhaps America cannot win. The world protested at George W Bush's America for being an interventionist superpower. Today, in a powerful editorial, The Times of London attacks Barack Obama's foreign policy for a shirking of responsibility to stand with the people of the Arab world and their yearning for freedom:

Obama's lack of leadership: "Addressing cheering crowds in Berlin in July 2008, Mr Obama declared that the burdens of global citizenship united Europe and America. His Administration is shirking those burdens, and presiding over a disturbing erosion of American influence."

Obama's failure to defend freedom: "The Arab world has been roiled by political dissent and violent attempts to suppress it. And when freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen."

Hillary Clinton's feeble diplomacy: "In language as bloodless as its diplomatic impact is feeble, Hillary Clinton declares: “Absent international authorisation, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable.”"

Obama's weakness on Iran: "His indifference to protests in Iran against a patently fraudulent presidential election in 2009 gave an ominous sign of the cast of his diplomacy."

Obama's neglect of the transatlantic relationship: "The transatlantic alliance is founded on shared values rather than personalities. It will survive Mr Obama’s feckless disregard for America’s reputation among its allies and admirers."

Read the full leader in The Times.

A Times leader does not equate to protestors in the streets but if, under Obama's watch, the Arab uprising is crushed, Iran takes decisive steps towards becoming a nuclear power and the special US/UK relationship is broken, who is to say that non-interventionism is at least as deadly?

Obama's America fails as the world's policeman

Under President Obama, America has sought to be liked. It is retreating from its status as the world's policeman.

While the world's attention has been fixed, understandably, on Japan the mercenaries and military under Gaddafi's command have accelerated their brutal attempts to suppress the uprising. First he bombed an ammunition dump, avoiding civilian casualties, to test the west's reaction. When nothing happened he moved to retake control of a few small towns. Again the West did nothing. Now his forces are advancing fearlessly. The consequences for US power are enormous. David Frum is asking the right questions on his blog:

• If Muammar Qaddafi violently suppresses the Libya uprising while America stands by, will Arab and Muslim opinion really believe that we were “neutral”? Or will they believe that we tacitly support Qaddafi – as they believed through the 1990s that we tacitly supported Saddam Hussein?
• What behavior can we expect from a Muammar Qaddafi who survives this uprising? Qaddafi turned to the West after 2003 because he was frightened by the overthrow of Saddam. Having crushed an uprising – and successfully defied an American president – which way will Qaddafi turn next? How confident are you that he won’t revert to terrorism, if not against Europe then against a newly volatile Egypt right next door?
• Iran crushed its uprising in 2009, with impunity. Hezbollah has seized power in Beirut. Hamas holds Gaza. The Muslim Brotherhood is rising in Egypt. Who looks like the ascendant power in the Middle East today? Iran or the United States?
• If you are the king of Saudi Arabia, what conclusions do you draw from the fall of American ally Mubarak and the survival of American enemy Qaddafi?
• If you are the prime minister of Iraq, what conclusions do you draw from the apparent regional ascendency of Iran and the apparent decline of the United States?
• If you are a Libyan insurgent and you are offered arms by international Islamist groups, do you say yes or no?

Read all of his questions here.

The former British Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind has written in today's London Times (£) urging that the Libyan rebels be armed:

"[There] should be an open and urgent supply of the necessary weapons to the insurgents so that they can fight Gaddafi on equal terms. The UN has imposed an arms embargo and some have suggested that this makes illegal any supply of weapons to either side in Libya. The UN Resolution, however, refers to a ban on arms supply to the Libyan “Jamahiriya”, which is Gaddafi’s invented name for the state he controls. It need not prevent supplies to those trying to bring him down. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistake of the Bosnian war — when the UN embargo had much less impact on the Bosnian Serbs who were, already, heavily armed. Having been Defence Secretary at that time I have, in retrospect, felt that that was the most serious mistake made by the UN. Gaddafi could hardly make successful propaganda from such arms supplies to the insurgents. He himself has internationalised the conflict by importing mercenaries from the surrounding countries of North Africa and the Middle East."

British Conservative MP, Mark Pritchard also recommended this course, nearly one week ago.

In his Times piece, Sir Malcolm Rifkind also endorses a no fly zone.

Barack Obama celebrates passage of his $871bn* healthcare bill

Obama's presidency is not a year old but whatever he does in the remainder of his presidency the passage of his healthcare bill** may be regarded as his biggest achievement. The absence of healthcare cover for many Americans is regularly cited by anti-Americans as a sign of an uncaring society.  The great upside of Obama's bill is the fact that thirty-one million uninsured Americans will have access to healthcare. The great downside is the cost. Some estimates say that the plan will cost up to a trillion dollars.

The bill has the passionate support of most Democrats although hardliners are disappointed at the scrapping of, for example, 'the public option' (a state-run healthcare service component) in order for the bill to win the support of moderate Democrats. Most Americans oppose the healthcare bill, however. Partly because average family insurance policies will increase in cost from $13,100 to $15,200. The Republicans hope to make big gains in next November's Congressional elections on the back of the cost of Obama's legislative boldness.

* A Congressional Budget Office estimate.

** Technically the bill has only passed the Senate. Negotiations now begin with the House of Representatives to draft a bill that satisfies both halves of Congress. Agreement is widely expected as the House had already passed a more radical bill.

Obama accused of "climate crime" as green groups condemn Copenhagen outcome

Many on the international Left had unrealistic expectations of what Barack Obama could achieve (and at what pace) but green groups and commenters have reacted furiously to the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks summit:

"The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport in shame. World leaders had a once in a generation chance to change the world for good, to avert catastrophic climate change. In the end they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through." - Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace (quoted at The Huffington Post).

"The world's worst polluters - the people who are drastically altering the climate - gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings. They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives." - Johann Hari, The Independent

"Today optimism feels impossible. The chance of world leaders preventing a more than 2C increase in temperature looks vanishingly small. Politics is being weighed in the balance and found wanting. The writing is on the wall. The leadership required within and between each nation is heavier lifting that the weak machinery of governmental power can manage." - Polly Toynbee, The Guardian

The Sky News video below records President Obama's immediate reaction to the limited agreement:

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 America 'is the worst kind of ally'

A little while ago I commissioned the drawing on the right to accompany this piece on Barack Obama's 'disarming' foreign policy. I feared that Obama has decided that it is more important that the world's policeman is popular than it is strong. In a withering cover piece for this week's Spectator (above) Con Coughlin accuses President Obama of mistreating Britain in the much delayed decision about strategy in Afghanistan:

"The astonishing disregard with which Mr Obama treats Britain has been made clear by his deliberations over the Afghan issue. As he decides how many more troops to send to Afghanistan — a decision which will fundamentally affect the scope of the mission — Britain is reduced to guesswork. The White House does not even pretend to portray this as a joint decision. It is a diplomatic cold-shouldering that stands in contrast not just to the Blair–Bush era, but to the togetherness of the soldiers on the ground... There will, though, inevitably come a time when Obama discovers who America’s true friends really are. Sooner or later he will have to deal with the considerably more taxing issues of Islamist militancy, rogue nuclear states and other tangible threats to the West’s security. At that point, Obama will discover a simple but essential truth. The world divides between those who support American values of freedom and democracy, and those who seek to destroy them. Few nations have been more committed to supporting those values with both blood and treasure than Britain. This country, and especially those British troops fighting alongside their American counterparts, deserve far better than this president’s disregard."

Fraser Nelson, The Spectator's new Editor, bigs up the piece: "Obama is simply not there. And in this respect he is, as we say on the cover, the worst kind of ally."

Obama under pressure to attend climate change talks in Copenhagen

Britain's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, ed Miliband, has urged President Obama to attend next month's Copenhagen summit on climate change:

 "I think as many leaders as possible - including President Obama - do need to come there, because that will make a difference in the end to the kind of deal we want... His diary is a matter for him, but I hope he does go. I think it's important that this is done in the end by leaders."

(Source: BBC).

The pressure on the US President is likely to be resented by the White House. President Obama does not want to be associated with a failed summit and in the last 24 hours there has been a retreat from the initial hope that Copenhagen would deliver a binding climate deal.

World leaders are more hesitant, partly because of opinion polling which suggests voters do not see action on climate change as a priority during these difficult economic times. In a poll of British voters for The Times, "only just over a quarter (28 per cent) think that [climate change] is happening and is “far and away the most serious problem we face as a country and internationally”.  "Just over half (51 per cent)," found Populus for The TImes, "think it is “a serious problem, but other problems are more serious”.

A growing number of Americans think media coverage of climate change is "exaggerated".

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

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 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.