A GLOBAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZER - April 6, 2009

As of now, the foreign policy of Barack Obama seems to be a combination of cheap populism, immatureness and some interesting long-term vision in relation to few important global issues.

ANTIMISSILE SHIELD

It is doubtless that his handling of the antimissile shield issue has been very amateurish since the beginning. During the presidential campaign last year, he was questioning the wisdom of this concept and the necessity of developing it. Obama claimed that the shield would be continued by his administration only “if” it was technologically achievable, “if” it was financially feasible and “if” really needed. Nevertheless, it was already believed back in the 1980’s that the project was technologically feasible, while financing has not been a big problem for the U.S., considering that the annual appropriations are presently around $8 billion only (as compared to almost a trillion dollar of federal stimulus plan).

Obama actually fell into his own trap on that issue. Cancelling or even slowing down the project would have far reaching adversarial consequences for many U.S. companies, which are working on the development of the system, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. Terminating billion dollar contracts for those companies would cause considerable layoffs and perhaps create a necessity of another federal bailout, this time for the military engineering and IT industry. Some folks in Europe thought that the U.S. Congress would cut appropriations for the antimissile shield because of the economic crisis. However, the rationale is opposite. Any such cuts would only increase the unemployment rate in certain industries and in some particular States, in which governmental contracts are important part of local economies.

Also from historical perspective, it is interesting to note that Barack Obama is an exact contradiction of Ronald Reagan on that issue (it is actually hard to believe that some media compared Obama to Ronald Reagan after his victory in the last November elections.)

Barack Obama does not believe in the concept of the national ballistic missile defense and he made it clear numerous times. He also does not believe that it should be the cornerstone of America’s national security policy. On the other hand, President Reagan thought that the antimissile defense shield is the new hope for the humankind and for the United States. In his Address to Congress on National Security on March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan said that the free people have now the opportunity to base their security not on a fear of nuclear retaliation and revenge (mutually assured destruction), but on defensive measures which would enable to intercept and destroy strategic nuclear missiles launched by enemies of the United States.

Another weakness of Obama’s approach is that even if he terminates the project, then any subsequent Republican administration and Congress will quickly reverse his decision and resume the program. From that perspective the development of the antimissile defense shield is already a foregone conclusion and Obama’s endeavors to limit the project are a waste of his efforts. The only uncertainty is the timing of the program (which he may impact), but not its eventual development (which will happen, sooner or later).

RESETING RELATIONS WITH DICTATORS

It is a dangerous concept. Firstly, because such a policy can legitimize the standing of authoritarian regimes that violate international law and human rights. A mere change of rhetoric usually does not solve complicated international problems. States have hard interests to secure and sending a video to Iran will not cause that country to redefine its national security interests according to America’s wishes. Obama’s foreign policy in that field is unrealistic and it is likely that Iran will take advantage of that. The United States cannot persuade Germany or Italy to stop doing business with Iran and start obeying UN sanctions imposed on that country, but Obama believes that he can persuade Iran through YouTube videos to drop its nuclear weapons program.

Other dictators are already trying to take advantage of his approach. For example, Hugo Chavez now wants to reset bilateral relations with the U.S. as well. Clearly, this kind of policy creates dangers for international law and relations. Authoritarian regimes could be rewarded for changing their rhetoric towards the U.S. with America’s approval of their abusive rules. The victims of such a foreign policy could be the leaders of the opposition to Hugo Chavez, Iranian students dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad’s ideas or human rights activists in Russia.

NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Obama’s statement that he supports abolishment of nuclear weapons is the most populist so far. It seems that the Obama Administration misses a point over here. Even if that idea was politically achievable, all nuclear weapons states that would get rid of their nuclear weapons would still remain virtual nuclear weapons powers. What it means is that they would be technically capable of rebuilding their nuclear arsenals within hours since making a political decision to do so. How would that deter Kim Jong Ill or Ahmoud Ahmadinejad from seeking atomic bombs?

Also how would one persuade Russia to get rid of their nuclear weapons? Russia is a country which is geopolitically important mainly because of its nuclear arsenal and energy resources. It is a failed democracy and a fledgling economy with huge structural problems. Its population and domestic market is decreasing one million people a year.  As a matter of fact, hardly anybody would pay much attention to Russia if it had no nuclear weapons. Why would Russia dispose of its most influential assets?

THE HOLBROOKE MORALITY

Another Obama’s weakness is the standard adopted by his administration in respect to certain diplomats and policy problems. The New York Times has now came out with two subsequent articles confirming that Obama’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, has in fact made a secret deal with Radovan Karadzic to help him avoid international justice for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Balkans. From a legal point of view it is perhaps not an issue anymore, however, from the perspective of morality and wisdom it is somewhat curious to send an envoy to Muslim countries, who is world famous for making secret deals with people who murdered Muslims in other parts of the globe.

TURKEY

Policy toward Turkey is the strongest point of Obama’s foreign policy so far and he can be praised for that. His recent calling to admit Turkey to the European Union as soon as possible was the proper move to make. It seems that Obama understands that now when decision has been made to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq there is a need to invest heavily in Turkey and to strengthen it. Otherwise, anti-American Iran could become a hegemonic power in the Middle East, especially considering that it soon will acquire its first nuclear weapons.

There is, however, a need to do something more tangible, besides making political statements. The pressure applied by Obama on the European Union, especially on France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, has to be efficient, decisive and persistent.

Sebastian Aulich