America’s leadership role in the world, as well as its ability to deter would-be aggressors and troublemakers, has been in the spotlight lately, especially since the collapse of the Arab Spring (with the exception of Tunisia, the one bright spark in the entire region) and Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
Because the US is the world’s only superpower, as well as the most powerful global democracy, people expect it to act or to assume a leadership role whenever there is an international crisis or something goes wrong.
Last week, for example, President Barack Obama announced that a team of law enforcement and military officials had gone to Nigeria to help the government in its attempt to find the 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by the monstrous Boko Haram terrorist organisation.
America has the unenviable task of being considered the ‘world’s policeman’ and of being criticised for failing to act, either militarily or politically, whenever such action is needed on the world stage. Of course, when things go wrong as a result of its involvement, it is also heavily criticised.
When Obama was first elected President of the US in November 2008 his foreign policy platform included an emphasis on global engagement, public diplomacy and multilateralism. His election came in the aftermath of a disastrous war in Iraq and an unpopular one in Afghanistan, which are expected to cost $6 trillion (€4.3 trillion), the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household, according to Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
Obama was well aware that as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans were suffering from war fatigue and were not keen on new military adventures abroad, which had proved to be very costly and also did not always result in a positive outcome, as is the case with Iraq.
Of course, when Obama was first elected, the geo-political situation was quite different to what it is today. There was no Arab Spring, Russia was not causing trouble in Europe (it had invaded Georgia in August 2008 but that was nothing compared to Ukraine), Kim Jong-Un had not yet taken over in North Korea, and China was not yet the world’s second largest economy and had not yet made claims over its maritime borders.
There is little doubt that Obama has been conditioned by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
On a more positive note, back in 2008 the US and Iran were getting nowhere in arriving at an agreement over Teheran’s nuclear programme; last November, however, Iran and the 5+1 countries (which includes the US) signed an interim nuclear accord and are currently negotiating a formal treaty.
Hopefully, such a treaty will be signed; this has the potential to be the greatest foreign policy achievement of the Obama presidency, and would be a great victory for Obama’s belief in international engagement and the use of economic sanctions as a method of convincing countries to alter their behaviour. Time will tell, of course. It has to be pointed out, however, that Obama was greatly helped by the fact that Iran elected a moderate President, Hassan Rouhani, in June 2013.
There is little doubt that Obama has been conditioned by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that he has been cautious (some will argue too cautious) about resorting to military action. The so-called ‘Obama doctrine’ therefore sees military intervention as a last, not a first resort.
Obama did, however, resort to military action in Libya, with the authorisation of the UN Security Council, and was instrumental, together with his Nato allies, in preventing genocide taking place in Benghazi and in toppling the horrendous Gaddafi regime. Even though the situation in Libya today is still very volatile and unstable, I still think the US military intervention there can be regarded as a foreign policy success.
In Syria, which is far more complicated than Libya, Obama has been particularly cautious and arrived at a situation where US intervention was no longer feasible. Unfortunately, the US was reluctant to arm the moderate rebel movements earlier in the conflict, while Russia and Iran had no qualms about supporting their ally, President Bashar al-Assad.
The jihadists, on the other hand, many of them linked to al-Qaeda, were well supported by the some of the Gulf states. Sadly, the situation has deteriorated drastically: over 150,000 people have been killed, there are three million refugees abroad, a further 6.5 million are displaced inside Syria and three million people have minimal access to essential services. Although Washington did manage to broker an agreement over Syria’s chemical weapons, and the international community’s failure over Syria is largely due to Russia and China vetoing resolutions at the Security Council, the Syrian conflict is certainly not a foreign policy success story of the Obama administration.
In other areas of foreign policy the Obama administration has had mixed results. It has put in a lot of effort at trying to get the stalled Middle East peace process going again, and has adopted a slightly more balanced approach in dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians than the Bush administration. However, there is little to show for this effort, with Israel and the Palestinian Authority unable to reach common ground.
In Egypt, where any hope of a democratic post-Mubarak era has disappeared, the US seems powerless to influence events, but in reality there is little Washington can do here. In Iraq, Obama kept his promise to withdraw US troops, but sectarian violence continues to plague the country. Obama, on the other hand, was successful in eliminating Osama bin Laden, but now has to acknowledge that there is a growing al-Qaeda insurgency in sub-Sahara Africa.
The US has also had to face a resurgent Russia, which has been causing problems in Ukraine since last November. Moscow annexed Crimea and is behind unrest in eastern Ukraine. Obama imposed sanctions on individuals, sent troops to Poland and the Baltic states in a sign of support and has promised sanctions against key sectors of the Russian economy if Vladimir Putin invades eastern Ukraine. In the circumstances, I doubt any other President could have performed better.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un – who has proven to be even more unpredictable than his father and grandfather – is another headache for the Obama administration. Washington has no leverage on Pyongyang, unlike China, which can exert pressure on North Korea to change its behaviour, but has chosen not to so far. One hopes that American deterrence is still enough to prevent Kim Jong-Un from attacking South Korea. Most observers have no doubt that a North Korean attack on the South would result in a massive US response, but we don’t know if Kim Jong-Un believes this.
China, of course, is becoming another great challenge for the US. Beijing recently started to flex its muscles in the East and South China Seas, not, I believe, as a result of American weakness, but because of growing Chinese confidence on the world stage. Cordial US-Sino relations are essential for international peace and stability, and Obama will have to use all his diplomatic skills to be on good terms with China while at the same time reassuring his allies in the region of American support.