There’s certainly no lack of political pundits, on the right and left, second-guessing Obama’s 2009 attempts at diplomacy.  From The Middle East to Europe and from Asia to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, he is on a mad carousel that gives the term ‘whirlwind diplomacy’ a whole new intensity over the last 10 months.  It seems a lot longer, doesn’t it?

Being a bystander, like so many of us bloggers are, and watching with interest something we know next to nothing about, has its benefits.  It gives one a certain detachment and allows you to see a bigger picture as causes and affects seem to come together.  A ‘method for madness’ seems to form as results come into focus.  Obvious successes and failures can be identified.

We can also easily pick out the idiots.

John Bolton may have been the worst UN Ambassador in history and his recent article in the Taipei Times is clear evidence that he continues to be a pitiful excuse for a political or diplomatic activist.  His bashing of Obama’s Asian trip as a ‘submissive’ & ‘post-American’ exercise was underscored by this quote:

“…Obama’s trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party’s ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downturn, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.” – John Bolton

A week later China announced the most significant commitment to carbon emission reduction ever made by that country (or any developing country for that matter).

“China actually promised Thursday [26 Nov, 2009] to reduce its ‘carbon intensity,’ a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.” – L.A. Times

What Bolton, and those that share his ideology, seem not to understand, is that these types of concessions and agreements are best served cold.  Months of negotiations and planning preempt these types of successes.  Often a government does not like the connotation that they were ‘strong-armed’ into making a concession. They want it to appear as if it was a product of their diligence, not America’s insistence, that brought about change.

“It’s amazing how much one can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.” – Ronald Reagan

Bolton has always been about ‘credit’. Obama’s statements in Singapore were obviously crafted and aligned with Chinese diplomatic needs that required their decision to be unexpected and completely their responsibility.  A move more like genius than naiveté; and a move to which the Bush administration would never have agreed.

In Afghanistan, one can see a change in language and rhetoric emerging as the Obama Administration tries to redefine Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ to a more palatable “combating extremism”.  In his recent speech on Afghanistan, the President cited the “al-Qaeda’s terrorist network” and “acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people”, but not once did he mention the now defunct ‘War on Terror’.  The term used by the Bush administration to justify any transgression, from the invasion of Iraq to the imprisonment of anyone even suspected of extremist sympathies, made the term ‘War on Terror” the laughing stock of the Islamic world.  The very people that are needed if we are to succeed in stopping state sponsored terrorism.

Obama’s biggest critics are, like Bolton, some of the same people that got us into this mess with their fascist style of foreign diplomacy.  None other than Dick Cheney remarked, during his long winded speech defending his “Interrogation techniques”, and other constitutional atrocities in the name of the ‘War on Terror’, that setting an exit strategy would be viewed by Afghans as a weakness.  No one ever told him that not setting one is viewed as an ‘occupation’.  Cheney and his “right blind” ilk have been getting it wrong for 7 years, they need to shut up and let this administration try to fix the mess they made.

While Cheney and others bashed Obama for setting a troop pull-out ‘begin’ date (a date, by the way, purposely ambiguous) NATO and ISAF allies this week announced they will add 7,000 more troops to the cause.  Now why would they do that for this administration while under Bush they made no new commitments since 2006?

Because there was a commitment to a real strategy – rather than an occupation.

Why will the Afghan army make more progress in the next 18 months than they did in the last 6 years?  Because, like Iraq, the knowledge that they are being given the responsibility and accountability for success – will bring about a pride and resolve not demonstrated while under foreign command.  Let us not forget, that the pull-out date in Iraq did not come about until the left wing politic and a presidential candidate by the name of Obama made it a populist movement in the U.S..  The resulting changes in the Iraq army competence and commitment were nothing less than extraordinary.

We also need to discuss the apparent failures of Obama diplomacy.  Like so many before him, Obama appears to have failed to find a simple solution to the Palestinian issue or placate the ‘Arab Street’.

An intractable stance by an Israeli government that considers most of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem part of their ‘Jewish state’, has made a confrontation between Israel and the West in general – and the U.S. in particular – inevitable.  An inevitability that Obama cannot yet address.  His administration is stretched to the limit, as is the U.S. military and world economy.  The Palestinians will have to continue to wait.

However, behind the scenes, where real diplomacy is exercised, the pressure on Israel mounts. The EU has threatened to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. A move that undoubtedly has the hesitant blessings of Obama foreign policy engineers. The chess pieces are being strategically positioned. Don’t be surprised if someone in Israel gets the ‘credit’ for breaking the impasse by 2012.

Iran continues to befuddle even Iranians.  While completely void of outward progress, efforts to limit Iran’s threat to a Middle East nuclear arms race have been ponderous at best. Iran has strategic advantages in not only oil production; but the capability of closing – or at least restricting – the Strait of Hormuz; a key choking point in the world’s oil supply.  The world economy cannot afford a confrontation that threatens the Strait.

What’s going on behind the scenes in Iran is anyone’s guess; but the fact that such a relatively simple goal as freeing three American hikers from Iranian spy charges, has not been achieved, I’d say we are just as frustrated as the Iranian people where their government is concerned.

Both Iran and Israel are extreme opposite examples of how self-delusional ideology can turn into self defeating policy.  These countries, for differing reasons via differing cultures, pose similar threats for dissimilar reasons.  They both invite some type of intervention to break a sociopolitical impasse.  In some cases it simply makes no difference how good a diplomat or negotiator you are, the only real chance for a breakthrough will come from within these countries – not from without. The most important thing a diplomat can do is recognize when intervention will help and when it will not. Know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.  Obama is waiting for the flop.

I’m no diplomat. But all-in-all I think the biggest difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy is the difference itself.  We are simply not accustomed to treating other nations as equals and allowing others to take credit for success.  We also have not been willing to let other nations clean up their own messes. We may be seeing a change in that approach.  An approach the Bush administration’s so-called professional ‘diplomats’ never thought of.

I just wish our President would learn to do a proper Japanese bow. That one to the Emperor was tragic.

JB

Sources & References:

AKI (2009) Mideast: EU ‘ready to recognise East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital’, AND Kronos International, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.4058204456

Bolton, J. (2009). Obama’s self-defeating Asia tour, The Taipei Times, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/11/29/2003459714

ISAF. (2009). ISAF placement – Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://operatsioonid.kmin.ee/public/files/isaf_placemat.pdf

McChrystal, S. (2009). Commander’s counter insurgency guidance, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf

MOFA (2009). Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA] of Japan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/index.html

Pierson, D.; Tankersley, J. (2009). China makes a pledge on greenhouse gas emissions [Corrected], Los Angeles Times, , retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27,0,3694292.story

Pilling, D. (2009). Hong Kong tiptoes towards democracy, Financial Times, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f8086b4-df77-11de-98ca-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

PRA (2009). Profile of John Bolton; Political Research Associates, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Bolton_John

Sheridan, M. (2009). NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission, The Washington Post, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120400621.html

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.