Although foreign policy until now has not been a major issue in the American presidential campaign, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with Republicans believing that Barack Obama can be portrayed as a weak foreign policy President.
Obama has handled the Arab Spring relatively well. America’s participation in UN-sanctioned military strikes in Libya prevented genocide taking place- Anthony Manduca
Obama’s comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the fringes of a nuclear summit in South Korea last week presented the latest opportunity for Republicans to bash the US President’s foreign policy.
Unaware that his remarks would be picked up by microphones, Obama told Medvedev, when discussing missile defence: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Although there is nothing wrong with what Obama told his Russian counterpart – any US President has to be more cautious before an election – it is understandable that the Republicans would try and make political capital out of such comments.
Not surprisingly, leading Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticised Obama’s “breathtaking weakness” towards Moscow in an article published on the Foreign Policy magazine website.
“President Obama has already been pliant on missile defence and other areas of nuclear security. Without extracting meaningful concessions from Russia, he abandoned our missile defence sites in Poland.
“He granted Russia new limits on our nuclear arsenal. He capitulated to Russia’s demand that a UN resolution on the Iranian nuclear-weapons programme exclude crippling sanctions,” Romney wrote.
In a sign that the White House believes that Romney will be the Republican nominee and that foreign policy will be an important issue in November’s election, Obama’s foreign policy advisers released a public letter calling on Romney to explain the actual changes in foreign policy he would make. This followed a letter from Romney’s advisers that claimed a second term for Obama would result in “greater weakness and inconsistency” in the area of US foreign policy.
“Should the American people expect more efforts to placate Russia by weakening the missile defence systems that protect us and our allies?” Romney’s advisers wrote. They also accused Obama of having “a politically driven time-table” for ending the war in Afghanistan “that has no strategic sense”, claimed the President would continue to undermine Israel in his second term and criticised the proposed cuts from the Pentagon’s budget over the next decade, as well as the administration’s policy towards Iran.
In reply, Obama’s advisers called on Romney to explain whether he believed there were other options for dealing with Iran other than war and what type of US involvement in a strike on Iran he would support.
They also claimed that Iran today is more isolated than ever, that the Obama administration was fully committed to Israel’s security and that the new phase in relations between the US and Russia has brought about benefits for America.
On the whole I believe Obama has had a reasonable foreign policy record in his first term in office.
The killing of Osama bin Laden and other senior Al-Qaeda operatives is without doubt a huge plus for the President’s re-election bid, although it is certainly not enough to guarantee his return to the White House.
America’s world leadership role, while not reaching its full potential, is certainly better than it was under President George W. Bush.
Obama has handled the Arab Spring relatively well. America’s participation in UN-sanctioned military strikes in Libya prevented genocide taking place and was therefore the correct thing to do, and Obama had the courage to ask Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak – a long time US ally – to step down when the revolution was under way.
True, the US, on a bilateral basis, can be criticised for not doing enough in Syria, but Russia and China are responsible for preventing any action taking place on a UN level.
The Obama administration has brought the war in Iraq to an end and although the security situation there is far from stable, this is no fault of the current President. Obama inherited the situation in Iraq from his predecessor and historians will for years to come debate whether the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was worth it in the long term.
Obama has also proved to be committed to Israel’s security and the claim by Republican candidates that he has undermined the Jewish state cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand one can, justifiably, criticise Obama for not exerting enough pressure on Israel to resume negotiations with the Palestinians and for not supporting the Palestinians’ bid for statehood at the UN.
The US President has also imposed the harshest ever unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran, while leaving all options open, including the use of military force if necessary. It is difficult to criticise Obama’s Iran policy because the consequences of a military attack on Teheran would be truly devastating.
In Afghanistan, things are not going too well for the US and its allies, and Nato troops plan to leave the country by 2014. One can criticise Obama for pulling out his troops in a hurry, but somehow, 11 years after the overthrow of the Taliban, I am not convinced that staying in Afghanistan much longer would make a difference.
Under the Obama administration Russia and the US signed the new START Treaty that reduced the number of strategic nuclear weapons while maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent. Such an agreement is certainly to be welcomed.
So generally speaking, Obama’s foreign policy record is quite good.
And while Obama’s comments to Medvedev in South Korea proved to be embarrassing, Romney’s claim in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that Russia was “without question our number one geopolitical foe” was a huge gaffe that earned him the criticism of members of his own Republican Party, including those who have often criticised Russia.
Romney will have to be more careful in his choice of words if he wants to come across as the better foreign policy candidate.