|
By Barry Rubin
 HERZLIYA, Israel--To get a sense of Obama administration thinking, let’s examine the speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Council on Foreign Relations, July 15. Remember that the wording of such speeches is not random and that phrases and formulations are carefully chosen to convey messages.
The most chilling and perhaps symbolic of all that was said in defining this administration is the speech's ending. In conclusion, Clinton quotes the American revolutionary Thomas Paine as saying, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.”
[I should mention at this point, though, that as we shall see later, Clinton is realistic enough to show some stronger sense of continuity. In fact, on certain points, she steals ideas from George W. Bush's policy, merely asserting that this administration will do the same things better. How much this first theme reflects the natural exuberance of a new government and how much it expresses the thinking of certain naive or foolishly ideological people--including the president himself--to whom Clinton must kow-tow will only be clear in time.]
Many will recognize this as something quintessentially American: history doesn’t matter too much; human beings are malleable; all obstacles can be swept away. It is also a basic aspect of revolutionary creeds, including those of the French, Nazi, and Russian revolutions. Such thinking is, on one hand, awe-inspiring; on the other, terrifying.
There is a more mundane English language cliché for this kind of thinking as well: reinventing the wheel. This world view can lead one to underestimate the extent to which others are bound by tradition, interests, and history. It can lead to far-reaching changes which don’t coincide with human social and psychological realities. Regarding international affairs, perhaps in more than any other aspect of endeavor, it can bring disaster.
Such thinking also reflects our current age of post-Marxist, high-technology philosophical idealism. History is seen as a series of shameful mistakes which our superior intellects will set right. Social conventions are artificially constructed. The human brain will dictate to material reality, whose existence after all is only a projection of human consciousness in the first place.
Much can be said about the weaknesses of that argument. But here’s one point. The American Revolution needed Paine’s idealism. But America’s success has been based on the thinking of founders who grounded their idealism in very realistic, even cynical, evaluations of how human beings work.
They limited government and divided power and understood that human attributes like greed had to be harnessed to develop an economic system that provided the greatest possible benefits for the largest possible number. Progress had to be incremental, based on working with the actual, existing world, with all its inevitable shortcomings.
Always, these founders understood, there would be people convinced that only they possessed absolute truth, that their ideas were the only ones of value, that these ideas must be imposed on the masses for the good of the masses.
And such people would have to be fought and defeated, at home or in the world.
No, the Obama administration does not have the power, even in partnership with other countries, to start the world all over again. Indeed, one of its most important tasks must be to save the world from those who want to do so.
Theme Two: Leadership through partnership
In more practical, modest terms, what mechanism does the administration plan to use to project U.S. power in the world:
“With more states facing common challenges,” said Clinton, “we have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart of America’s mission in the world today.”
This is a “key concept, “American leadership…in concert with others” through “common interests, shared values, and mutual respect.” In other words, the idea of American leadership is accepted but not one that is too unilateral. There will be consultation and cooperation. At times, President Barrack Obama has seemed to reject the idea of American leadership, so is this Clinton’s view or a concept of balanced compromise within the administration?
Such a concept is designed against the “bad old days” of President George W. Bush’s “unilateralism” and unpopularity. But the Obama administration’s approach could be a trap in itself
In this approach, the United States cannot get too far ahead. Sometimes leaders do have to tell followers or junior partners what to do. On the issue of Iranian sanctions, for example, the United States will probably be bound by the lowest common denominator, and Russia’s denominator is about as low as one can get.
What happens when those with all the shared values, common interests, and respect don’t do what you want them to do? And suppose they don’t want to accept U.S. leadership at all?
Clinton tried to cover this. Some believe that:
“The rise of other nations and our economic troubles here at home as signs that American power has waned. Others simply don’t trust us to lead; they view America as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its will at the expense of their interests and our principles. But they are wrong….
“America will always be a world leader as long as we remain true to our ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. So we will exercise American leadership to build partnerships and solve problems that no nation can solve on its own, and we will pursue policies to mobilize more partners and deliver results.”
Obviously, mobilizing more partners can get in the way of delivering results. Every administration, including that of Bush, took the same approach. The question is at what point a
Go to the top of right column
|
|
balance is found between keeping the partners happy (more popularity, fewer results) and pushing through one’s own policy (less popularity, more results).
At times, Clinton almost sounds as if the United States is to be a clearing house rather than a leader:
“We’ll work through existing institutions and reform them.…We’ll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. We’ll go beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and individuals to contribute to solutions.”
“It is nice to have a “new mindset” but such phrases don’t overcome old realities. Very specific issues come up; very specific decisions must be made. If you are dealing with North Korea’s nuclear weapons or Venezuela’s radical regime, all the talk of “new mindset” doesn’t get you a policy.
You can be tough or conciliatory and have all sorts of mixtures in beteen, but the whole point of radical regimes is that they won’t be changed by such maneuvers.
They will defy tough talk unless it becomes credible through action; they will take advantage of conciliatory concessions.
That is a lesson this administration either will or will not learn.
Theme Three: What are America’s goals?
The list of the seven top Obama administration priorities Clinton provides in her speech to the Council of Foreign Relations isn't all that different from those of the previous administration, albeit with some fascinating aspects.
Item 1: “We want to reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat.”
Item 2: “We want to isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world. “
Item 3: “We want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.”
All three top items relate directly to the Middle East. And the nuclear issue--which mainly means Iran--is number one, even if camouflaged with the utopian intention of getting rid of all the world's nuclear weapons.
If the Bush administration had made this the number-one item on its explicit agenda, I suspect Obama’s supporters would have blasted him for it as an obsessive focus on Iran neglecting other important priorities.
But why the talk of a nuclear-free world? Aside from any merits for that goal, it is needed to avoid basing opposition to Iran or North Korea on the nature of those regimes. Remember that the Bush administration spoke about the "axis of evil," aggressive, anti-American terrorism-supporting states that were deeply anti-American.
Obama's administration avoids such value judgments. It wants to leave open the door to engagement and believes such claims scare off potential allied cooperation. So Iran is not even named here. Of course, this approach also weakens the administration's case. Ironically, it goes so far as to imply acceptance of Tehran's own argument: why is it all right for other countries to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? The Obama administration approach subverts itself.
Number 2 is what was called the war against terrorism, roughly the same thing in the Obama agenda. It is amusing how the administration avoids relating “terrorists” and “violent extremists” directly to Islam in the first part of the sentence while making it clear they are talking about Muslims in the second part. Note also the basic similarity to Bush administration policy, despite Obama's different style of outreach.
Only in position number 3 is the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is not even named. The wording seems to indicate a downplaying of pressure on Israel.
I’d go so far as to say that the administration is already moving on, being pressed by events to put more emphasis on Iran. Whatever pretense of intensive action it keeps up on the Israel-Palestinian issue it may already have learned that focusing on this is a mistake. Israel isn’t giving way on the construction, the Palestinians don’t want to do anything, and the Arab world isn’t helping.
Item 4: “We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs.”
One could argue that in terms of U.S. interests this should be item number 1.
Item 5: “We want to combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future.”
It is open to question whether such a high priority should be placed and so many resources should be spent based on a theory of man-made climate change which is still being hotly debated. Such an emphasis involving huge amounts of resources and dealing with a long-term phenomenon seems premature. It is also questionable that an administration which rejects drilling for oil on U.S. territory speak of energy security.
Perhaps it would have been better to have gone with a more traditional pro-environment approach, stressing a commitment to both development to fight poverty and sufering in the world while also protecting the environment.
Item 6: “We want to support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for their people.”
Item 7: “And we intend to stand up for human rights everywhere.”
These last two sound like the historic liberal agenda. But they also sound like George W. Bush, don’t they? And that’s the subject of Part Three of this analysis.
|
|
