The European Courier | Obama: Foreign Policy Visionary or Neophyte?

Home	USA	Europe	World	Law	Security	Elections	Week in Review	About us

OBAMA: A FOREIGN POLICY VISIONARY OR NEOPHYTE? – August 12, 2007

Inevitably, when you think of Senator Barack Obama and foreign policy, you have to think of his inexperience; having only spent a few years as a State senator in Illinois and only a few years in the U.S. Senate in Washington, Obama has far less experience then his rivals and is doing everything he can to make up for it. Obama has a tricky balance to strike; he must continue his support for ending the Iraq war and prove to anti-war voters that he will not repeat similar mistakes, and simultaneously he must assure others that he is not so anti-war that he would be afraid to use military force to fight American enemies when necessary. Barack Obama’s foreign policy vision is at times fresh, bold, and idealistic – maybe a little too idealistic; just enough to make American voters appreciate his optimism, but it may not be quite enough to make them forget the years of experience his opponents have over him.

In the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs [1] , Mr. Obama presented us an essay outlining his foreign policy aims, as many presidential candidates have traditionally done. The essay, entitled “Renewing American Leadership,” is filled with hope, idealism, optimism, and a little targeted criticism. In it, Obama calls for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all troops by March 31, 2008. “It is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth,” Obama wrote; “We cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution.” He criticizes the Bush Administration’s “tragically misguided” approach to dealing with Iraq and calls for major changes.

The essay continues with Obama telling readers that he plans to remove troops from Iraq, use diplomacy to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, solve the problem between Palestine and Israel, stop the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world, revitalize the American military, combat global terrorism, rebuild America’s foreign relationships, and help struggling nations develop secure and democratic societies. He emphasizes military strength and military action against rogue states, while backing the Iraq Study Group’s suggested date of March 31, 2008 for troop withdrawal. He wants a “tough-minded” diplomatic strategy and isn’t afraid to use force. All these are noble and worthy aims that certainly deserve attention; and if Obama can achieve all those goals he will certainly be hailed as a great president. But the essay seems to be missing one key element: a solid dose of realism. All of those aims, however noble, will at the very least be very difficult to achieve in four, possibly eight, years in the White House, especially to someone who has no executive experience and no foreign policy background and who only a few years ago was a State senator in Illinois.

But Obama still needed to get people talking about his foreign policy and to demonstrate that he has the wisdom and understanding of international relations to lead the United States in the twenty first century. In the CNN/YouTube debate between the Democratic candidates on July 23, the candidates were asked whether they would meet with the leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition in the first year of their presidency. Obama, the first to respond, immediately said that he would. “The reason is that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding principle of this administration — is ridiculous,” Obama explained. “Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire.”

Obama’s willingness to talk to dictators may prove refreshing to some; his idea that we should talk to these countries even if we don’t like them is interesting and certainly a departure from the Bush administration’s approach. However, Obama has received mixed reviews for his answer. The Clinton campaign labeled him “irresponsible” and “naive” for being willing to meet with the five dictators without preconditions, and especially within the first year of his administration. John Edwards agreed with Clinton that lower-level officials should meet with the countries first before the president would consider such a meeting. Obama likened himself to Ronald Reagan, but neglected to mention that Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev was in the fifth year of his administration, not the first. On the other hand, some praised Obama for his boldness. The Nation claimed that Obama “signaled a certain humility that reflects the understanding that the next president must reach out to the rest of the world and not merely issue conditions from the White House and threaten military force if it does not get its way.”[2] However, many more viewed Obama’s statements as a foreign policy blunder that only highlighted his inexperience.

In addition, on August 1, Senator Obama gave a speech about foreign policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in which he boldly declared he would be willing to invade Pakistan if necessary.[3] "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again [...] If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said. Those remarks touched off a firestorm of furious responses. His critics decried his speech as further evidence that he is just not ready to be commander in chief, while his supporters claimed he was willing to be bold and take whatever actions necessary to combat global terrorism and eradicate al-Qaeda from their hiding places.

Max Boot of the Center on Foreign Relations said: “He’s sticking by his earlier assertion that you have to meet without preconditions, without any hope of agreement, you have to just go and talk to people. Which further reinforces the image that he’s a neophyte in foreign policy and doesn’t really know what he’s doing, and that Clinton would be a stronger hand on the tiller.”[4] Obama’s rival Joe Biden, called Obama’s speech “a little disingenuous” in light of the fact that in the Senate, Obama has never helped push for redirecting forces to Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton commented that "You can think big. But remember you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president because it has consequences across the world." The Wall Street Journal proceeded to call Obama a neoconservative and said: "Anyone who wants to run to the right of Rummy [Donald Rumsfeld, former defense secretary] on counter-terrorism can't be all bad.”[5] Across the globe, Pakistani constituents in America and Pakistan itself responded with outrage, and concern at what could happen if he is elected president.

And then, Obama invited further commentary when he stipulated that he will not use nuclear weapons in combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And once again, it was a statement not altogether wrong, but made hastily, and gave critics an opportunity to repeatedly point out that he has a tendency to not think through such statements. He wants to be tough on terror, but not come off seeming like an opportunistic war-hawk, and it seems he can’t win either way.

Perhaps one of the most successful yet least well-known things Obama has accomplished in the realm of foreign policy is the Lugar-Obama Act.[6] This is not the first piece of legislation Obama has sponsored with Senator Richard Lugar; together they have also sponsored an energy initiative.[7] The newest Lugar-Obama bill is a renewal of the Nunn-Lugar Act that had once focused on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet empire. The new bill will expand the detection and interdiction of weapons of mass destruction, which is increasingly important in today’s society, though the bill is not well known and Obama hardly receives the credit he deserves for sponsoring this bill. Instead, attention is drawn to his mistakes and controversial statements, and his critics are easily given the opportunity to emphasize his flaws.

However, what his rivals paint as irresponsible naiveté, Obama brushes off as youthful idealism. Whereas Clinton and Edwards demonstrate careful, thought-out answers calculated down to the last word; Obama rushes in with optimism and hope. Clinton and Edwards bear the wisdom and acumen of years in the Senate (and White House); Obama possesses the power to move crowds to tears and cheers. He exudes charisma, but can that alone help him overcome the crucial foreign policy inexperience and understanding he misses?

Nisha Chittal

-------------------

Author of the article is a B.A. candidate in political science and Islamic studies at the University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign.

-------------------

Footnotes:

1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

2. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=217320

3. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/obamasp0807.pdf

4. http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/08/01/cq_3207.html

5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118610868429787031.html

6. http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-lugar-obama_bil/

7. http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/press/pdf/2006_Energy_Trip_Report.pdf