The language of diplomacy is a subtle art. Flowery expressions and powerful declarations distract the populace with purpose and stability, while the underlying significance is customarily overlooked. One should be wary of the bold declarations of a statesman, for sure, but thoroughly fear the unsaid meanings of a diplomat. As a born-and-raised Delawarean, Joe Biden has been senator my entire life—but even MY adoring loyalty has been unsettled.
At the 45th Munich Security Conference, Joe made both straightforward and implicit promises with the obstinate resolve so characteristic of my shameless Senator. As Joe launched the new Administration’s foreign policy, most spectators expected the elevated world leader to follow habit and profess vague ideals-- merely kiss and make up with America’s spurned European allies. He did not disappoint. The mainstream response pinpoints a predominant trend in Biden’s address by quoting, “We will engage. We will listen. We will consult. America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America.”
What I seem to have found more interesting than the greater audience is that within the affirmations stressing a renewed global unification, a neglected universal principle has re-emerged: binding states to their responsibility to protect. As the community works to abide by the treaty law and organization they create, so should they take action towards effective means of enforcement. Resolutions must require a ‘comprehensive strategy for which we all take responsibility’. ‘It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should work together.’ Really funny, Joe; I can only hope that you actually mean it.
I’m aware of my rather hardline take—the past eight years have fostered quite a single-minded resolve. I’ve gotten greedy with the long-awaited change. Obama closed Guantanamo Bay. Effort to reconcile with Europe was a crucial move, and the inclusion of Russia tactical. The appointed emissaries to the Middle East and Pakistan are thankfully qualified, and the steps relevant to the Middle East are increasingly diplomatic. I’m not entirely impervious to the achieved successes so far, nor am I ungrateful. But patience has never been one of my virtues, and old habits die hard—Obama’s inauguration was as much my triumph as his; it was the entire country’s. I voted for his vision, and the delay has cost the people of Palestine another war for their oppression. How could I, a life-long Biden fan and student of human rights, possibly object to Joe?
Easy: the hypocrisy behind an American leader saying, at this time, ‘the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example’ is just too much for me to handle. Democracy and development aren’t WEAPONS, Joe. They’re supposed to be key principles of our moral code, not kept in our arsenal, just behind the AK-47’s and A-bombs. Equating ‘poor societies and dysfunctional states’ with ‘breeding grounds for extremism, conflict, and disease’ is the xenophobic epitome of America’s lack of effort to understand that is preventing any degree of progress. Without skipping a beat, he emphasized the need for a just and lasting Palestinian-Israeli peace by arranging ‘broader peacemaking efforts’. Despite promises to defend freedom, individual liberty, and rule of law, he championed the Palestinian Authority alone, charging the democratically-elected Hamas party to the ‘small number of violent extremists beyond the call of reason’ who surely are the ones ‘perpetuating the conflict’. I think this is an absolutely FANTASTIC start to a comprehensive ‘new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect’. Bang up job there, Joe. All I see is a detour route on the Road Map to Peace, and I actually DO think it is well past time for a solution.
I love the Joe-Bama team, and have hope for the future they fight to establish. I have yearned for a return to diplomacy and global preservation and unity since I first awoke to political consciousness. Unfortunately, time has triggered my inner-cynic, and I’ll have to see it to really believe it. But more than that: I hope we don’t really see all that both Statesman- and Diplomat-Joe promised, because I don’t see much in the fundamental elements of America’s treatment of the Middle East.
Although I am not a Delawarean as Robin, I too have much admiration and respect for Joe Biden. Working for his Presidential Campaign I grew to really believe in Joe's idealism for America, and was excited about his prospect for a new American identity in world politics. As Joe moved from Presidential candidate to running mate, these feelings were only exacerbated. Reading over Joe's speech at the Munich Conference just reminds myself how realistic the international stage is.
As Robin brought up, Joe attacked the democratically-elected Hamas party by declaring they are a ‘small number of violent extremists beyond the call of reason’ who surely are the ones ‘perpetuating the conflict’. For the past eight years American foreign policy has been focused on this almost ridiculous idea of an "axis of evil" inadvertently linking certain groups to the axis powers of the Second World War. How can diplomacy work, how can peace talks commence when the very people you wish to engage with are being labeled evil doers.
The recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which occurred just before the historic Obama-Biden inauguration, truly saddened me. Although they were a transition team, I expected the Obama Administration to react as they have preached. They should have denounced the violence on both sides and worked actively towards a cease fire.
While critical aid and medicine through international coalitions were blocked for several days through the efforts of the Israeli government, the Bush and Obama Administrations stayed quiet. How can anyone justify the embargo of medicine and food to people who are truly in need? At the end of the conflict thousands were unnecessarily massacred due to this inaction.
So sure Joe, diplomacy is a great international tool to spread peace and security, but systematically labeling groups and peoples as evil only helps to breed hatred.
Joe Biden is a good guy. He has much experience in foreign policy. Hopefully the Obama administration can do something about the turmoil in the world. The International Criminal Court announced a warrant on President Bashir of Sudan last week for committing war crimes. How will the Obama administration deal with this? A man that is responsible for promoting bloodshed can now be arrested. I believe the United States needs to show an initiative in this situation. Obama needs to show that the US can still have positive effects on International Relations. If the Obama administration can take the lead in figuring out a way to apprehend Bashir, and it is successful, it would give the United States a better look.
Also, the Obama administration should put more emphasis on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It needs to become more neutral and show Palestinians that they have not been forgotten. This would make the United States look better in the Muslim World. The US needs as many allies it can get in these rough times. If these two situations are looked at with some scrutiny from the Obama administration, things will look better for the US. Maybe then Americans will not feel embarrassed of their nation.
We need to cooperate with Europe as much as we need to cooperate with the Middle East. When will our politicians and diplomatic corps reform the American diplomatic approach? The need to construct innovative foundations for diplomacy is upon us; US hegemony is fading world-wide. Moreover, American negotiations and policies will be increasingly undermined until we negotiate with every region and every state with the same eagerness to cooperate. No state, America and others, can any longer afford to give preferential treatment or special attention to certain areas/allies. Nationalism is dying; globalizing forces are evolving international affairs.
It is obvious that Iran doesn’t have substantial national interest in a space program. The reality is Iran’s satellite launch is nothing more than broadcasting to the world that it should be noticed and taken seriously as a global participant. I find it very interesting that Iran has achieved the ability to showcase its fledgling ballistic capabilities. The state’s infrastructure is severely lagging behind modern demands, and its electricity shortages illustrate their inability to provide for Iranian residents. Moreover I find Iran’s technological advances remarkable. [I doubt they have advanced without assistance from other states, namely China and Russia.] The state has been one of the leading countries with significant brain drain issues for over fifty years, due to SAVAK’s brutal policies, the revolution and the Iran-Iraq wars, and today’s exodus of qualified Iranian workers abroad. I applaud Iran for its ability to make such a grand gesture, but they really should apply their technology and resources to their national issues first.
I think the US is suffering severe repercussions of it's own foreign policy. America has set an example for others over the past eight years that basically sends the message that there are no consequences to taking matters into your own hands. How can we tell Russia to back off Georgia when we invaded Iraq against most everyone elses good advice? And what does Iran have to fear from our threats when we are already spread thin and most of our other ventures have proved unsuccessful? I am not ready to judge the new Administration's methods at this early stage yet, especially as I am not equipped with any brilliant plans for what should be done to remedy the situation. The circumstances are pretty dire though, so no matter how much the policy changes in the next four years I am not expecting major improvement of the global situation in the near future.
The last eight years under the Bush administration have destroyed America's image around the world. His unilateral use of force and arrogance in claiming the countries in "The Axis Of Evil" have had severe repercussions for America. That being said, Obama was elected on the promise of change. People around the world have celebrated his election and although we have yet to see many of his proposals turn into action, I have faith in the administration, at least more than I did in the last one. His promise to use diplomacy and engage in talks with our enemies is a step in the right direction.
However, Biden's speech certainly does serve as a reminder that the United States needs to mend it's image and the message that it sends to the international community. If we are going to say that we are the strongest country in the world and that the rest of the world needs us, I agree with the statement that these promises of change need to be put into action. Only time will tell whether or not Obama's foreign policy strategy and diplomacy will be successful.
I think that enough time has passed since the vague promises of change were made that we can now begin to assess America's new foreign policy. I welcome the strategic changes in both wars. As Iraq begins to take more responsibility for its own security (e.g. taking on Al Qaeda strongposts in provinces like Diyala, etc...) then it is essential to remove extraneous troops. The consequences of a sudden withdraw are difficult to predict, but a responsible withdrawal, ending by 2012, seems to appease those who want America out, and those who want Iraq to be secure.
Afghanistan, however, is getting an increase in not just troops, but personnel who can try to replicate the success of training national security forces. In regards to Pakistan, I think he's best exemplified how he plans to use broader international support to achieve common goals. Extremism is destabilizing Pakistan at a rapid pace, and Mr. Obama's recent conference with Karzai and Zardari has indicated that the three leaders are committed to working together to put down the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Now Pakistan is actively fighting the Taliban where the truce was signed, an indication of the Taliban's inability to be content with shariah in just one region: it is inherently expansive.
His speeches to Europe, Turkey, Iran, and the Americas are showing signs of tangible change, such as reestablishing ties with Cuba and offering a new era of talks with Iran.
Though it will be years before we see the results of these changes, I have to say Obama has been both realistic and idealistic at the same time, without setting us up for danger at home.
He has been able to bridge differences to make pragmatic alliances. For example, the Turks know that Obama has called the Armenian genocide what it is, and delicately stated in Ankara that he didn't need to explain his position for that reason. But his firm stance hasn't precluded efforts to find, say, peace in the Near East, where Turkey has indirectly sponsored talks between Israel and Syria. This kind of honesty, coupled with pragmatism, is going to go a long way in a world of problems where no one sees eye to eye.
Biden’s attempt to convince the world of the Obama administration’s sincerity is a step in the right direction. However, like Professor Khan alluded, words are meaningless without the support of actions. It is not the things one says which will be valued and remembered but rather the things one does. Furthermore, putting those promises out there sets a bar for the Obama administration, goals upon which their actions or non-actions will be severely judged. The world now knows what it expects the administration to accomplish.
It too concerns me that perhaps Biden has established unachievable goals without a major re-evaluation of American foreign policy objective. A more diplomatic approach to the current objectives will not necessarily change the outcomes. I agree that there is a major fallacy to Biden’s logic: If our rivals didn’t want to comply when the United States was more menacing and threatening, why would the come into appliance now just because the U.S. says “please” and asks kindly?
Nevertheless, I believe that diplomacy is more than just beautiful rhetoric and empty but symbolic gestures. Many people think that diplomacy is just open dialogue, but the negotiations involved in diplomacy are a “soft power” technique that might actually carry some weight. It is important in ANY form of negotiation to listen to the needs and demands of the other side, to continually re-evaluate you position and to have flexibility in modifying your stance without losing sight of primary objectives. Moreover, economic sanctions can also be useful. I support these “soft power” techniques any day over the use of military power and believe they have the ability to be effective. Time will tell whether the diplomatic tactics supported by the Obama administration will be aggressive and pliable (at the negotiating table) enough to create tangible results.
As the Obama Administration begins to forge a new partnership in Pakistan, I believe that the politics of Washington will be very supportive of the Obama-Biden promise of diplomacy over the precedent set by the Bush Administration and its cowboy-like foreign policy tactics. As the United States begins to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan, the necessity of a safe and secure Pakistan will rise to the top of the list of foreign policy concerns. As a symbol of diplomatic support, the Obama Administration has pledged more than ten billion dollars in aid, which is more than a three times the support dedicated to the region under the Bush Administration. The rise in economic aid will come to help stabilize the violate areas and to help the Pakistani Army crack down on terror cells within its borders. While the United States would help rebuild the domestic situation in Pakistan, Washington also knows that this process will take time to mature, and they must be approached with caution. In recent hearings, the Senate has questioned whether the government should fund a nation with an uneasy political structure. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) stated: “[The unrest] strikes me as something we should be approaching with enormous concern.” As Washington debates the matter, American forces will be prepared for more frequent operations within the borders of Pakistan. Currently, the United States is increasing the drone aircraft patrols of the mountainous region that borders Afghanistan. Using drone aircraft, which are remotely controlled, these aircrafts have been valuable in helping close many of the transit lines on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Based on the success of the current military operations in Pakistan and the growth of forces in Afghanistan, Washington will not only be supportive of current military operations in the nation, but also the number of missions will increase as their success in thwarting terrorist activity is further vindicated.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you wrote " if these players perceive current American predicaments as a direct result of their collective defiance, they are likely to stand their ground more firmly now than they did before."
It is said that Europe is upset because Bush demonstrated that they really don't have a leash on the US. The Middle East is emboldened because Bush demonstrated that the US isn't as powerful as the image it projects. Now that our cards are on the table and we are trying to reconcile with both diplomatically, it will be much harder to coerce reluctant allies.
Through positive incentives, however, I feel that this policy may have a chance at working. Despite not being the dominant superpower that Bush portended to be, the US holds with it huge economic potential for countries like Iran - even in light of the recession. If such incentives could be clearly outlined to such countries, we could well be on our way to detente with Iran and embracing new partnerships with countries previously stubbornly standing their ground.
As to Europe, they are also fast becoming an Economic powerhouse with a combined GDP in the EU that is larger than the US's. If they continue on the path of integration (by no means a sure bet), they will create a common foreign policy and potentially a military force as well. Like every great empire in history, if the EU can manage to convert its economic power into military power, the US would do well to ally itself to its rising star.
In his February article, Dr. Khan asked why hostile nations to the United States would submit to Obama “given that they did not do the same to a more threatening America when it was definitely more powerful than it is now”. Four months into the Obama presidency, we are beginning to see the differences between what results we hoped would come from Obama’s promises of engagement and what several of America’s rivals have continued do to undermine Obama’s wishes for a new era of dialogue.
We can look to Pyongyang for a prime example. In light of North Korea’s choice to continue testing its nuclear arms in defiance of the United Nations Security Council and the international community at large, critics are beginning to wonder if engagement with hostile nations will actually bring success to America’s diplomatic aims in the long run. Helpfully, both Russia and China—America’s fair-weather friends among the permanent five Security Council members—joined America in a unanimous vote on Monday that condemned the nuclear tests. As long as their own security interests align with those of the United States, we will find worldwide cooperation against North Korean aggression. The prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea is a frightening prospect for just about every country in the region and for Japan in particular. I agree with President Obama that diplomatic engagement should be the first option to try and prevent nuclear proliferation to both North Korea and Iran, but if North Korea continues with its provocative tactics of international relations, the Obama administration will need to reconsider its own approach.
In contrast to North Korea, which flaunts its development of nuclear weapons, Iranian leadsership continues to deny that its nuclear program is being developed for purposes of aggression. Ahmedinejad has even publicly criticized nations such as North Korea who are in the process of building nuclear arms. However, he still refuses to engage in nuclear dialogues with the United States, and, as such, I do not see it as unreasonable for the United States to continue or strengthen its sanctions against Iran. What we are seeing now fulfills the prediction that Dr. Khan made some three months ago: “In a few months from now, words alone will not be enough; America will be judged by its actions not by its promises.” Engagement with both Iran and North Korea has made very little substantive progress so far, but—as in most diplomatic process—more time is needed to determine the outcome of Obama’s continued attempts to “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interests and mutual respect”. However, given the fact that the last few months seem to have been unfruitful in the area of preventing nuclear proliferation, the cascade of “CHANGE” espoused in the Obama campaign will take quite a while to materialize.
For all of the promise of change that accompanied an Obama Presidency, Obama's course change in foreign policy have been more on style than in substance. Obama to date is continuing US policy of not talking with Hamas or Hezbollah. Furthermore, while he has expressed willingness to talk with Iran, Obama continues to demand exactly the same things of the country as Bush did, mainly that it end its support for Hamas and Hezbollah and end its Nuclear weapons aims.
The difference in style, however, shouldn't simply be dismissed. Even if one argued that Obama has no interest in reaching an agreement with the Iranians, simply by giving off the perception of willing to negotiate strengthens America's hand when it asks for our allies' cooperation in applying economic sanctions and in the possibility of military force. Obama's upcoming speech in Cairo, while not offering anything substantive to the Arab world, will continue the process of reversing the damage done by Bush.
It is, however, to early to assume that Obama will continue to follow his predecessor's policies. IT could be the case that Obama simply doesn't want to "rock the boat" this early in his presidency by announcing major policy shifts. In addition, Obama is a pragmatist and it seems that as such he would be willing to compromise with our allies in order to come to an agreement rather than hold fast to an ideology resulting in no agreement.
The language of diplomacy is a subtle art. Flowery expressions and powerful declarations distract the populace with purpose and stability, while the underlying significance is customarily overlooked. One should be wary of the bold declarations of a statesman, for sure, but thoroughly fear the unsaid meanings of a diplomat. As a born-and-raised Delawarean, Joe Biden has been senator my entire life—but even MY adoring loyalty has been unsettled.
ReplyDeleteAt the 45th Munich Security Conference, Joe made both straightforward and implicit promises with the obstinate resolve so characteristic of my shameless Senator. As Joe launched the new Administration’s foreign policy, most spectators expected the elevated world leader to follow habit and profess vague ideals-- merely kiss and make up with America’s spurned European allies. He did not disappoint. The mainstream response pinpoints a predominant trend in Biden’s address by quoting, “We will engage. We will listen. We will consult. America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America.”
What I seem to have found more interesting than the greater audience is that within the affirmations stressing a renewed global unification, a neglected universal principle has re-emerged: binding states to their responsibility to protect. As the community works to abide by the treaty law and organization they create, so should they take action towards effective means of enforcement. Resolutions must require a ‘comprehensive strategy for which we all take responsibility’. ‘It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should work together.’ Really funny, Joe; I can only hope that you actually mean it.
I’m aware of my rather hardline take—the past eight years have fostered quite a single-minded resolve. I’ve gotten greedy with the long-awaited change. Obama closed Guantanamo Bay. Effort to reconcile with Europe was a crucial move, and the inclusion of Russia tactical. The appointed emissaries to the Middle East and Pakistan are thankfully qualified, and the steps relevant to the Middle East are increasingly diplomatic. I’m not entirely impervious to the achieved successes so far, nor am I ungrateful. But patience has never been one of my virtues, and old habits die hard—Obama’s inauguration was as much my triumph as his; it was the entire country’s. I voted for his vision, and the delay has cost the people of Palestine another war for their oppression. How could I, a life-long Biden fan and student of human rights, possibly object to Joe?
Easy: the hypocrisy behind an American leader saying, at this time, ‘the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example’ is just too much for me to handle. Democracy and development aren’t WEAPONS, Joe. They’re supposed to be key principles of our moral code, not kept in our arsenal, just behind the AK-47’s and A-bombs. Equating ‘poor societies and dysfunctional states’ with ‘breeding grounds for extremism, conflict, and disease’ is the xenophobic epitome of America’s lack of effort to understand that is preventing any degree of progress. Without skipping a beat, he emphasized the need for a just and lasting Palestinian-Israeli peace by arranging ‘broader peacemaking efforts’. Despite promises to defend freedom, individual liberty, and rule of law, he championed the Palestinian Authority alone, charging the democratically-elected Hamas party to the ‘small number of violent extremists beyond the call of reason’ who surely are the ones ‘perpetuating the conflict’. I think this is an absolutely FANTASTIC start to a comprehensive ‘new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect’. Bang up job there, Joe. All I see is a detour route on the Road Map to Peace, and I actually DO think it is well past time for a solution.
I love the Joe-Bama team, and have hope for the future they fight to establish. I have yearned for a return to diplomacy and global preservation and unity since I first awoke to political consciousness. Unfortunately, time has triggered my inner-cynic, and I’ll have to see it to really believe it. But more than that: I hope we don’t really see all that both Statesman- and Diplomat-Joe promised, because I don’t see much in the fundamental elements of America’s treatment of the Middle East.
Joe-Bama nice term Robin. I agree with your observations.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not a Delawarean as Robin, I too have much admiration and respect for Joe Biden. Working for his Presidential Campaign I grew to really believe in Joe's idealism for America, and was excited about his prospect for a new American identity in world politics. As Joe moved from Presidential candidate to running mate, these feelings were only exacerbated. Reading over Joe's speech at the Munich Conference just reminds myself how realistic the international stage is.
ReplyDeleteAs Robin brought up, Joe attacked the democratically-elected Hamas party by declaring they are a ‘small number of violent extremists beyond the call of reason’ who surely are the ones ‘perpetuating the conflict’. For the past eight years American foreign policy has been focused on this almost ridiculous idea of an "axis of evil" inadvertently linking certain groups to the axis powers of the Second World War. How can diplomacy work, how can peace talks commence when the very people you wish to engage with are being labeled evil doers.
The recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which occurred just before the historic Obama-Biden inauguration, truly saddened me. Although they were a transition team, I expected the Obama Administration to react as they have preached. They should have denounced the violence on both sides and worked actively towards a cease fire.
While critical aid and medicine through international coalitions were blocked for several days through the efforts of the Israeli government, the Bush and Obama Administrations stayed quiet. How can anyone justify the embargo of medicine and food to people who are truly in need? At the end of the conflict thousands were unnecessarily massacred due to this inaction.
So sure Joe, diplomacy is a great international tool to spread peace and security, but systematically labeling groups and peoples as evil only helps to breed hatred.
Joe Biden is a good guy. He has much experience in foreign policy. Hopefully the Obama administration can do something about the turmoil in the world. The International Criminal Court announced a warrant on President Bashir of Sudan last week for committing war crimes. How will the Obama administration deal with this? A man that is responsible for promoting bloodshed can now be arrested. I believe the United States needs to show an initiative in this situation. Obama needs to show that the US can still have positive effects on International Relations. If the Obama administration can take the lead in figuring out a way to apprehend Bashir, and it is successful, it would give the United States a better look.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Obama administration should put more emphasis on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It needs to become more neutral and show Palestinians that they have not been forgotten. This would make the United States look better in the Muslim World. The US needs as many allies it can get in these rough times. If these two situations are looked at with some scrutiny from the Obama administration, things will look better for the US. Maybe then Americans will not feel embarrassed of their nation.
We need to cooperate with Europe as much as we need to cooperate with the Middle East. When will our politicians and diplomatic corps reform the American diplomatic approach? The need to construct innovative foundations for diplomacy is upon us; US hegemony is fading world-wide. Moreover, American negotiations and policies will be increasingly undermined until we negotiate with every region and every state with the same eagerness to cooperate. No state, America and others, can any longer afford to give preferential treatment or special attention to certain areas/allies. Nationalism is dying; globalizing forces are evolving international affairs.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that Iran doesn’t have substantial national interest in a space program. The reality is Iran’s satellite launch is nothing more than broadcasting to the world that it should be noticed and taken seriously as a global participant. I find it very interesting that Iran has achieved the ability to showcase its fledgling ballistic capabilities. The state’s infrastructure is severely lagging behind modern demands, and its electricity shortages illustrate their inability to provide for Iranian residents. Moreover I find Iran’s technological advances remarkable. [I doubt they have advanced without assistance from other states, namely China and Russia.] The state has been one of the leading countries with significant brain drain issues for over fifty years, due to SAVAK’s brutal policies, the revolution and the Iran-Iraq wars, and today’s exodus of qualified Iranian workers abroad. I applaud Iran for its ability to make such a grand gesture, but they really should apply their technology and resources to their national issues first.
I think the US is suffering severe repercussions of it's own foreign policy. America has set an example for others over the past eight years that basically sends the message that there are no consequences to taking matters into your own hands. How can we tell Russia to back off Georgia when we invaded Iraq against most everyone elses good advice? And what does Iran have to fear from our threats when we are already spread thin and most of our other ventures have proved unsuccessful? I am not ready to judge the new Administration's methods at this early stage yet, especially as I am not equipped with any brilliant plans for what should be done to remedy the situation. The circumstances are pretty dire though, so no matter how much the policy changes in the next four years I am not expecting major improvement of the global situation in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThe last eight years under the Bush administration have destroyed America's image around the world. His unilateral use of force and arrogance in claiming the countries in "The Axis Of Evil" have had severe repercussions for America. That being said, Obama was elected on the promise of change. People around the world have celebrated his election and although we have yet to see many of his proposals turn into action, I have faith in the administration, at least more than I did in the last one. His promise to use diplomacy and engage in talks with our enemies is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Biden's speech certainly does serve as a reminder that the United States needs to mend it's image and the message that it sends to the international community. If we are going to say that we are the strongest country in the world and that the rest of the world needs us, I agree with the statement that these promises of change need to be put into action. Only time will tell whether or not Obama's foreign policy strategy and diplomacy will be successful.
I think that enough time has passed since the vague promises of change were made that we can now begin to assess America's new foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteI welcome the strategic changes in both wars. As Iraq begins to take more responsibility for its own security (e.g. taking on Al Qaeda strongposts in provinces like Diyala, etc...) then it is essential to remove extraneous troops. The consequences of a sudden withdraw are difficult to predict, but a responsible withdrawal, ending by 2012, seems to appease those who want America out, and those who want Iraq to be secure.
Afghanistan, however, is getting an increase in not just troops, but personnel who can try to replicate the success of training national security forces. In regards to Pakistan, I think he's best exemplified how he plans to use broader international support to achieve common goals.
Extremism is destabilizing Pakistan at a rapid pace, and Mr. Obama's recent conference with Karzai and Zardari has indicated that the three leaders are committed to working together to put down the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Now Pakistan is actively fighting the Taliban where the truce was signed, an indication of the Taliban's inability to be content with shariah in just one region: it is inherently expansive.
His speeches to Europe, Turkey, Iran, and the Americas are showing signs of tangible change, such as reestablishing ties with Cuba and offering a new era of talks with Iran.
Though it will be years before we see the results of these changes, I have to say Obama has been both realistic and idealistic at the same time, without setting us up for danger at home.
He has been able to bridge differences to make pragmatic alliances. For example, the Turks know that Obama has called the Armenian genocide what it is, and delicately stated in Ankara that he didn't need to explain his position for that reason. But his firm stance hasn't precluded efforts to find, say, peace in the Near East, where Turkey has indirectly sponsored talks between Israel and Syria. This kind of honesty, coupled with pragmatism, is going to go a long way in a world of problems where no one sees eye to eye.
Biden’s attempt to convince the world of the Obama administration’s sincerity is a step in the right direction. However, like Professor Khan alluded, words are meaningless without the support of actions. It is not the things one says which will be valued and remembered but rather the things one does. Furthermore, putting those promises out there sets a bar for the Obama administration, goals upon which their actions or non-actions will be severely judged. The world now knows what it expects the administration to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteIt too concerns me that perhaps Biden has established unachievable goals without a major re-evaluation of American foreign policy objective. A more diplomatic approach to the current objectives will not necessarily change the outcomes. I agree that there is a major fallacy to Biden’s logic: If our rivals didn’t want to comply when the United States was more menacing and threatening, why would the come into appliance now just because the U.S. says “please” and asks kindly?
Nevertheless, I believe that diplomacy is more than just beautiful rhetoric and empty but symbolic gestures. Many people think that diplomacy is just open dialogue, but the negotiations involved in diplomacy are a “soft power” technique that might actually carry some weight. It is important in ANY form of negotiation to listen to the needs and demands of the other side, to continually re-evaluate you position and to have flexibility in modifying your stance without losing sight of primary objectives. Moreover, economic sanctions can also be useful. I support these “soft power” techniques any day over the use of military power and believe they have the ability to be effective. Time will tell whether the diplomatic tactics supported by the Obama administration will be aggressive and pliable (at the negotiating table) enough to create tangible results.
As the Obama Administration begins to forge a new partnership in Pakistan, I believe that the politics of Washington will be very supportive of the Obama-Biden promise of diplomacy over the precedent set by the Bush Administration and its cowboy-like foreign policy tactics. As the United States begins to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan, the necessity of a safe and secure Pakistan will rise to the top of the list of foreign policy concerns. As a symbol of diplomatic support, the Obama Administration has pledged more than ten billion dollars in aid, which is more than a three times the support dedicated to the region under the Bush Administration. The rise in economic aid will come to help stabilize the violate areas and to help the Pakistani Army crack down on terror cells within its borders. While the United States would help rebuild the domestic situation in Pakistan, Washington also knows that this process will take time to mature, and they must be approached with caution. In recent hearings, the Senate has questioned whether the government should fund a nation with an uneasy political structure. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) stated: “[The unrest] strikes me as something we should be approaching with enormous concern.”
ReplyDeleteAs Washington debates the matter, American forces will be prepared for more frequent operations within the borders of Pakistan. Currently, the United States is increasing the drone aircraft patrols of the mountainous region that borders Afghanistan. Using drone aircraft, which are remotely controlled, these aircrafts have been valuable in helping close many of the transit lines on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Based on the success of the current military operations in Pakistan and the growth of forces in Afghanistan, Washington will not only be supportive of current military operations in the nation, but also the number of missions will increase as their success in thwarting terrorist activity is further vindicated.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you wrote " if these players perceive current American predicaments as a direct result of their collective defiance, they are likely to stand their ground more firmly now than they did before."
ReplyDeleteIt is said that Europe is upset because Bush demonstrated that they really don't have a leash on the US. The Middle East is emboldened because Bush demonstrated that the US isn't as powerful as the image it projects. Now that our cards are on the table and we are trying to reconcile with both diplomatically, it will be much harder to coerce reluctant allies.
Through positive incentives, however, I feel that this policy may have a chance at working. Despite not being the dominant superpower that Bush portended to be, the US holds with it huge economic potential for countries like Iran - even in light of the recession. If such incentives could be clearly outlined to such countries, we could well be on our way to detente with Iran and embracing new partnerships with countries previously stubbornly standing their ground.
As to Europe, they are also fast becoming an Economic powerhouse with a combined GDP in the EU that is larger than the US's. If they continue on the path of integration (by no means a sure bet), they will create a common foreign policy and potentially a military force as well. Like every great empire in history, if the EU can manage to convert its economic power into military power, the US would do well to ally itself to its rising star.
In his February article, Dr. Khan asked why hostile nations to the United States would submit to Obama “given that they did not do the same to a more threatening America when it was definitely more powerful than it is now”. Four months into the Obama presidency, we are beginning to see the differences between what results we hoped would come from Obama’s promises of engagement and what several of America’s rivals have continued do to undermine Obama’s wishes for a new era of dialogue.
ReplyDeleteWe can look to Pyongyang for a prime example. In light of North Korea’s choice to continue testing its nuclear arms in defiance of the United Nations Security Council and the international community at large, critics are beginning to wonder if engagement with hostile nations will actually bring success to America’s diplomatic aims in the long run. Helpfully, both Russia and China—America’s fair-weather friends among the permanent five Security Council members—joined America in a unanimous vote on Monday that condemned the nuclear tests. As long as their own security interests align with those of the United States, we will find worldwide cooperation against North Korean aggression. The prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea is a frightening prospect for just about every country in the region and for Japan in particular. I agree with President Obama that diplomatic engagement should be the first option to try and prevent nuclear proliferation to both North Korea and Iran, but if North Korea continues with its provocative tactics of international relations, the Obama administration will need to reconsider its own approach.
In contrast to North Korea, which flaunts its development of nuclear weapons, Iranian leadsership continues to deny that its nuclear program is being developed for purposes of aggression. Ahmedinejad has even publicly criticized nations such as North Korea who are in the process of building nuclear arms. However, he still refuses to engage in nuclear dialogues with the United States, and, as such, I do not see it as unreasonable for the United States to continue or strengthen its sanctions against Iran. What we are seeing now fulfills the prediction that Dr. Khan made some three months ago: “In a few months from now, words alone will not be enough; America will be judged by its actions not by its promises.” Engagement with both Iran and North Korea has made very little substantive progress so far, but—as in most diplomatic process—more time is needed to determine the outcome of Obama’s continued attempts to “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interests and mutual respect”. However, given the fact that the last few months seem to have been unfruitful in the area of preventing nuclear proliferation, the cascade of “CHANGE” espoused in the Obama campaign will take quite a while to materialize.
For all of the promise of change that accompanied an Obama Presidency, Obama's course change in foreign policy have been more on style than in substance. Obama to date is continuing US policy of not talking with Hamas or Hezbollah. Furthermore, while he has expressed willingness to talk with Iran, Obama continues to demand exactly the same things of the country as Bush did, mainly that it end its support for Hamas and Hezbollah and end its Nuclear weapons aims.
ReplyDeleteThe difference in style, however, shouldn't simply be dismissed. Even if one argued that Obama has no interest in reaching an agreement with the Iranians, simply by giving off the perception of willing to negotiate strengthens America's hand when it asks for our allies' cooperation in applying economic sanctions and in the possibility of military force. Obama's upcoming speech in Cairo, while not offering anything substantive to the Arab world, will continue the process of reversing the damage done by Bush.
It is, however, to early to assume that Obama will continue to follow his predecessor's policies. IT could be the case that Obama simply doesn't want to "rock the boat" this early in his presidency by announcing major policy shifts. In addition, Obama is a pragmatist and it seems that as such he would be willing to compromise with our allies in order to come to an agreement rather than hold fast to an ideology resulting in no agreement.