You are here:   Features > The Post-American Presidency
 

In short, these putative examples of a muscular US foreign policy are instead anomalies caused as much by domestic political reasons as anything else. They may fascinate in the short term, but are peripheral to Obama's core approach. That Obama's initial steps in several areas have much in common with Bush policies tells you more about the collapse of Bush's philosophy in his second term than about Obama's vision. Bush was, ironically, becoming more like Obama in advance, rather than the other way around.

But let us turn to specifics, where North Korea provides the best illustration to date of Obama's philosophy in action and why it will not work. North Korea was intended as a primary beneficiary when the new President said on 20 January: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent...we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Unfortunately for Obama, however, Pyongyang apparently wasn't watching the Inaugural address. Instead, it was preparing for its second nuclear test and for multiple ballistic missile launches, and engaging in new terrorist activities, preparing to sentence two female American journalists snatched near the Chinese border to 12 years of hard labour.

Pyongyang's behaviour left the young Administration in a quandary. This was not the script Kim Jong-il was supposed to follow and the resulting policy options were perplexing to Obama's mindset. Should he reverse Bush's twin decisions to remove North Korea from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism and to allow it access to international financial markets? Doing so would, stunningly, leave him pursuing a harder line than Bush when he left office. Should Obama, in addition, press for meaningful new sanctions in the UN Security Council, and, if so, could he persuade Russia and China to support him? And what would other proliferators conclude if North Korea successfully called the American bluff? Where was North Korea's open hand, and why wouldn't it return to the Six Party Talks?

To date, Obama has appeared confused and indecisive in his response, although much remains to unfold. Intense diplomatic efforts for stricter Security Council sanctions resulted in only modest additions to the existing UN sanctions imposed after the North's October 2006 nuclear test. The American reporters remained in prison. Obama's most significant mistake, however, even while labouring mightily to achieve only incremental increases in international pressure against Pyongyang, was that his goal was still only to coax North Korea back into negotiations. Most tellingly, the North refused to return to the Six Party Talks, almost certainly because it had not yet finished wringing concessions out of the US. But even if Kim Jong-il were to oblige Obama and relaunch negotiations, nothing more would be accomplished than occurred in the prior six years of failure, or the many earlier failures, all of which prove that North Korea is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. Thus, even if Obama achieved his immediate objective of restarting the Talks, he would not be resolving the underlying threat.

Nowhere was Obama's reaction to North Korea's belligerence followed more carefully than in Iran. The close, lengthy co-operation between Iran and North Korea on ballistic missile technology and also almost certainly on their nuclear programmes (exemplified by the North Korean reactor in Syria, destroyed by Israel in September 2007), has been vital to both countries. During the 2008 campaign, Obama made Iran the very epitome of his foreign policy differences with President Bush. Iran was precisely the issue on which face-to-face bilateral negotiations, including even President Obama himself, would both fundamentally change the US-Iran political dynamic for the better and eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. Once in office, however, the Administration found itself in an exhausting internal policy debate, gridlocking possible substantial policy shifts until Iran's impending election made it impossible for real movement until the results were known. Meanwhile, Iran's unceasing efforts to enrich uranium and expand its nuclear programme continued without effective hindrance. Even the European Union's endless, feckless negotiating efforts ground to a halt.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Bob from Virginia
August 16th, 2009
4:08 PM
Soft on Iran and its nuke program, hard on Israel, dismissive of democracy in the Middle east and Honduras, giver of a Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson; Thomas Sowell was right, if Obama only wrecks the economy we can count ourselves lucky. And so many predicted this from day one of his campaign. Prime Minister Howard of Australia said in February 2007 "If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would ... be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.".

Charles Griffith
August 5th, 2009
9:08 PM
Am I correct in thinking that this "Standpoint" is a UK publication? Then, many thanks to "Standpoint" for publishing this essay. But, from what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't seem to reflect what the great majority of the pundits in the UK are saying publicly. We need much, much, more of John Bolton's forthright and blunt analyses....This American thinks that we Americans are far, far too concerned with our "popularity". Endless bales of our cash broadcast worldwide during the past one hundred years have yielded little more than scorn. The puzzle remains why we Americans can't seem to learn from this reality of our being "used". Sad to say this, but here it is.

John
July 31st, 2009
4:07 PM
Eric, the effects of Bush? Oh, perhaps you mean the effects of decades of legislating that banks and lenders should give risky (ie bad) loans to people because, afterall, EVERYONE deserves a house, regardless of how unrealistic the aim. And besides, from what I know (since there could be more), Obama has hired racists, eugenicists, radical abortionists, tax-cheats, a self-confessed communist and now a guy who thinks trees should have the right to sue. Nice change, huh?

Eric
July 14th, 2009
3:07 AM
Give Obama a couple of years - change is not going to happen in the time period of a year and it is sure as hell not going to reflect while he is still in office - we are still in the middle of the effects of Bush.

Occam's tool
July 9th, 2009
3:07 AM
Obama can be simply summed up as the following: 1) A friend of traitors, if not one himself. 2) The weakest defender of America since James Buchanan. 3) An idiot economist. 4) A compulsive liar and psychopath. The outcome of his Presidency will be an unemployment rate coming close to 20%, and a WMD attack on the US, unless Republicans take over the House or Senate in 2010 and put an end to his scummitude. Incidentally, everything he is doing was easily predictable from the race he ran, and his comments.

Airgrpcomm
July 5th, 2009
1:07 PM
It will remain to be seen what Obama will accomplish. We as Americans have had great presidents, as well as poor presidents, but as yet. We have no treasonous presidents, our country dosen't want treason in WhiteHouse hince thats why Hilary wasn't elected. We as American's may have stepped forward with Obama but he cannot afford to play as President. America needs reform ? Yes it does, it needs to go back to where Americans, had to speak English to obtain citizenship, It needs to return to the Ideals of IN GO WE TRUST, and Merry Christmas,people who wish to remove these hard won beliefs need to be removed because they are clearly not Americans and will cause our great country to fail. Pray tell me please why does a person leave another country and come to America, because of religious persecution or tyranny, then get here and try to remove the very marrow of American in effort to make our country like theirs. If a person can't believe American. Leave. If you don't believe in helping American retain her greatness.... leave. Obama will show his true colors. All men do, great men and weak men alike. In Vietnam, our men had to believe in a harder and colder mind set of enemy.Now we are at war...on two fronts..with warriors who believe it is more important to die for their cause, then live for their beliefs.

Anonymous
July 5th, 2009
4:07 AM
The young lady that was shot in Iranian by a government sniper was as much a hero fighting for freedum as any one. My hart gos out to her family, and all the fallen that fight to be free of a government that forces its will on the people it should be protecting. The Hondures Senate, Supreme Court, and Army got it right in supporting and upholding there constution. I only wish the Senate and Supreme Court in the U.S. would have the guts to do the same. Under what athority can any President fire a CEO of a privet company? Or take controle of Banks and Auto Companies? He's a President not a King.

Ragfish
July 3rd, 2009
6:07 AM
Some of us in the USA view Obama as a KGB groomed trojan horse. Revenge from Russia with love! He is designed to end American preeminence and make way for someone's vision of a One World Government, Economy (and Religion?). Psychologically, his means of adaptation center upon appeasing rather than confronting. His early abandonment by a Comunist father, Muslim stepfather and his own mother, have set the stage for a geopolitical tragedy. His historical distortions/revisions of Islam's contribution to America is evidence of his following an ideologically justified path, which fulfills his wounded psychological need to win the favor of Islam. Any one on one negotiation with an authoritarian, older male Muslim is a loaded gun pointed at America!

egil
July 1st, 2009
4:07 PM
Obama is showing clearly that he has an affinity for Left-Wing and Islamist dictators. He has been friendly and willing to "engage" with Chavez, the Castros and the Iranian mullahs, yet he denounces Honduras for ridding itself of a Chavez-like character who was acting unconstitutionally, and trying to illegally extend his rule. The pundit Charles Krauthammer also noted how Obama hasn't placed any value on freedom in his statements about Iraq. Obama certainly is a disgrace.

jemudd
June 30th, 2009
11:06 PM
Bravo! Excellent analysis. Should be read by the American press but they can only compare him to God! Sooner or later, however, he will have to change. He is not stupid and when things don't work, the will adapt. If not, God help us!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.