February 28, 2013 6:32 pm
Wary Obama cannot shut out the world
A risk-averse White House neglects the obligations of a global superpower
Anyone looking for the leitmotif of Barack Obama’s foreign policy could do worse than conclude that it is the avoidance of war. During the US president’s first term the troops came home from Iraq. During his second, they are leaving Afghanistan. Washington led from behind in Libya and is staying out of Syria.
Given Mr Obama’s inheritance it is unsurprising that he has shunned wars of choice. One of the lessons of the opening years of the present century was about the limitations of military might. A second was that in a world of rising states, even a global superpower does well to refurbish its alliances.
What is harder to fathom – and has been a real disappointment for those who believe the US is still indispensable to global order – has been Washington’s reluctance to deploy its diplomatic muscle. It is one thing to say the military cannot solve the myriad conflicts of the Middle East; another to say the alternative is to do nothing very much – or at least nothing involving significant risk. The best diplomacy often demands an audacity that carries the possibility of failure. And, often forgotten, inaction is a choice with its own dangers.
Hillary Clinton left the state department last month under a shower of plaudits. I cannot quite understand why. Certainly she was tireless in touring the globe to rebuild the bridges burnt during George W. Bush’s first term. Her focus on raising the status of women was smart as well as admirable. She understood that modern diplomacy amounts to more than cutting deals behind closed doors. But by and large, she concentrated on diplomacy’s cuddlier dimensions. The bold stuff – the blending of strategic insight and courage with persuasion and coercion to change the basic contours of international relations – was left to one side.
One explanation is that the White House kept Mrs Clinton on a short leash. Big decisions were reserved for the president. This may be true. But it was hard to escape the impression that Mrs Clinton’s choices had something to do with her political ambitions for 2016.
Policy experts leaving the Obama administration carry with them an air of disillusionment. Two themes emerge from their accounts of life in the bubble. The president’s analysis is often right. What’s missing is a resolve to follow it through. Leaders have to be willing to fail. Excess caution can be as much an enemy of good policy as is recklessness.
In January 2009 Mr Obama put reviving peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians at the top of his list of priorities. The effort quickly ran into difficulties, notably because of the intransigence of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. A couple of attempts were made to revive the process over the next two years, but the White House judgment seemed to be that Mr Obama’s re-election chances should not be endangered by pressing too hard on Israel.
Still more damaging was the failure to invest in a political settlement in Afghanistan. A couple of years ago Mrs Clinton promised that the drawdown of troops would be accompanied by a “political surge”. Senior officials laboured mightily to that end. Maybe the Taliban was never going to engage, but the US effort never attracted the sustained presidential backing that might have provided half a chance of success. All that blood and treasure may well count for nought.
John Kerry, who toured Europe this week in his role as Mrs Clinton’s successor, is said to be determined to be an activist secretary of state. Officials say he harbours few doubts about his capacity to square the most stubborn of diplomatic circles.
European foreign ministers are investing a lot of hope in his interest in Middle East peace. William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, summed up the mood when he told Mr Kerry that the next few months represent a last chance to revive talks on a permanent settlement.
The same argument is being put directly to Mr Obama as he prepares to visit Israel and the West Bank. No one doubts his good intentions. Everyone expects him to give a great speech. But will he then invest presidential prestige in the project? His State of the Union speech, with only the slightest of nods towards world affairs, suggests otherwise. Mr Hague, though, is right: the already slight chance of a two-state solution will disappear entirely if Mr Obama is not prepared to take a risk.
Iran presents a different challenge. The White House says that no one should doubt the president’s willingness, if necessary, to use military means to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Officials add privately that he will try everything else before sending in the bombers. Where, though, is the diplomatic démarche that turns the present pro-forma talks between Iran and the international community into a serious bilateral negotiation between Washington and Tehran?
In truth, Mr Obama would like to leave the Middle East behind. That is what was meant by the “pivot” to Asia. Yet missing again is anything resembling a grand strategy. The approach to China is to “engage and hedge”. The hedging bit can be seen in the diplomatic and military outreach to China’s neighbours. But what does the administration mean by the “engage” part? If it has a plan, it has been keeping it to itself.
My Washington friends say we should not expect much to change. Mr Obama has challenges enough at home. The watchword of the staff who guard him in the White House is the avoidance of risk. Yet that will not guarantee an absence of war. Washington cannot by itself simply “fix” things; and some things may never be fixable. What we can say for sure is that without the US most things will remain unfixed.
.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario