In the United States, the Bush administration and the pseudo-military group in Lebanon, Hezbollah, put “old” foreign policy goals onto the front pages. Bush went before the Israeli Knesset and appallingly condemned Obama in front of a foreign audience for expressing a willingness to negotiate with Iran, Syria, and potentially Hamas and Hezbollah. And when Hezbollah flexed its muscles in Beirut John McCain pounced on Obama again for entertaining the idea of “negotiating” with Hezbollah. This squabble in the United States was more about Obama than about policymaking as the Republicans have nothing really to say lest it be pointed out that Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and other Islamic hardliners have done quite well as a result of the Bush administration’s “Mess-o-potamia” foreign policy. Still, Obama had to demonstrate he could establish credibility towards stability in the Middle East especially because he has put forth an innovative approach (diplomacy, how novel).
The deans of Washington seem to believe that Obama “passed” this hysterical “test.” David Brooks, in his latest New York Times column writes:
Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments – about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he’s part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.
As always, having a Democrat who can surf the waters between “realist” and “idealist” is a good thing. The next president’s foreign policy agenda is largely set. The top five priorities:
1) Leaving Iraq;
2) Leaving Iraq;
3) Leaving Iraq;
4) Leaving Iraq; and
5) Leaving Iraq.
After that, the United States will have to create an innovative energy policy that can deal with climate change, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and aid more democratic regimes in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Iran and Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, China, Russia, and Latin America will surely play a major part in determining how America engages in the world no matter which party is in power.
Senator Obama, however, should not let Washington insiders (and other party hacks) control his foreign policy vision. Liberal commentators in the press, particularly the New York Times, have argued that he would instantly change America’s image in the world, reflecting global ethnic diversity in a way no American president ever has. Roger Cohen argued that Obama fits well with the world after having a conversation with Senator Obama’s half-sister Auma: “He can be trusted,” says Auma, “to be in dialogue with the world.”
I hope that Senator Obama would go beyond that and create a foreign policy that incorporates a global worldview back into American public life. Most importantly, there is a very real and very dangerous gap in resources and opportunity that exists for American citizens that is denied to those both close (or within the United States, in the cause of the Latin American immigrants doing so much of our work today) and far away.
On Saturday, Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times reported on the heartbreaking starvation in Somalia, not far from Obama’s father’s homeland of Kenya:
Somalia – and much of the volatile Horn of Africa, for that matter – was about the last place on earth that needed a food crisis. Even before commodity prices started shooting up around the globe, civil war, displacement and imperiled aid operations had pushed many people here to the brink of famine.
But now with food costs spiraling out of reach and the livestock that people live off of dropping dead in the sand, villagers across this sun-blasted landscape say hundreds of people are dying of hunger and thirst.
This is what happens, economists say, when the global food crisis meets local chaos.
“We’re really in the perfect storm,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia economist and top United Nations adviser, who recently visited neighboring Kenya.
Around 3 million Somalis require immediate food assistance, and this at a time when the United States Congress once against preserved its regressive and wasteful agricultural payment system for large farms that drives up farm prices and destroys local food production across the world.
Starvation in the Horn of Africa will not remain a contained “humanitarian crisis,” but will likely feed anger and resentment at the continued gap in economic power between the United States and the rest of the world. Our ability to consume 1/4 of the world’s fossil energy resources and food consumption cannot continue without tremendous repercussions for our security and credibility in the world. This is a challenge, among many others, that the next President must take up and Senator Obama is certainly the right candidate to do it. But even Senator Obama, showing his “James Baker” side, voted in favor of continuing large agricultural subsidies, no doubt for fear of alienating farm states in this fall’s general election. Let’s hope that the vision of global cooperation he wrote so beautifully about in Dreams of My Father emerges if he becomes president, as he is surely the only candidate this year capable of creating a new foreign policy to help those starving in Africa and mollify those seething in locales throughout the rest of the globe. “James Baker” simply will not do in 2008.
http://politicaldissonance.blo…
borisevicius617 says
Being a Vetran of Bosnia, I admit I want nothing more then this war to end. My service was nothing compared to what these young brave Americans see each day. I only fear that if McCain wins, we will continue the Bush Doctrine and end up in a three front war with Iran.
<
p>Iran is a different picture from a military perspective. The terrains is mountainous like Afghanistan, but the military is better equipped. I also fear that a confrontation with Iran would cause other larger powers like Russia to take a side. The last thing we need is a three front war coupled with a sleeping giant.
<
p>I like what Obama says about increasing our military numbers and rebuilding. I don’t think people realize how vulnerable we are, especially domestically. Our National Guard is depleted and the current war has made the next generation of soldiers question their military.
<
p>I agree with them, but I feel that the military is something one should be proud of, not ashamed. My mother always told me stories about the great war and how her father joined the resistance. It instilled in my pride and courage. Difference was he was fighting a noble battle, were just slaughtering a defenseless opponent. Not to noble, especially considering the biggest flag wavers are those who hide behind desks and computers while the real Americans die and kill the innocent.
<
p>People should want to join the Army because they feel its their duty to protect their fellow Americans and uphold the values our country was founded on. Its a sad day when we become everything we stood against. I think Obama can use foreign policy as a major driving force to get normally right wing voters of he stresses the fact that he is not anti-military. If I were him I would say the opposite, noting that our military is the most important branch of our nations survival. It should be a place where the honorable and brave go to protect and serve their country, not to protect and serve the interests of a faceless coporation.
<
p>To all of my fallen comrades, your spirit will live on and the people of this nation will wage a new battle against those who have no regard for this land and your lives. If Obama shows that he will make America strong and respected, I will be willing to set aside some of my issues with him and support him. Americans foreign policy plain and simple should be one that rebuilds the void left in our military, rekindle our strained relations, yet at the same time letting the world know that we won’t back down when pushed.
mplo says
have been strained for the past 50 some odd years; the United States hasn’t had the respect of the rest of the world since around World War II. Frankly, I honesetly don’t see how any of the three candidates who’re running for POTUS this election year will be able or willing to improve our standing in the world. We’ve got three know-nothings running for POTUS, and one in power right now, if one gets the drift.
joshvc says
While it might be true that we have much respect to earn back from the world, our relations with Europe, India, Africa and Latin America were markedly better in the 1960s under John Kennedy than they are today. Obama is, if anything, not a “know-nothing” and will set us on the right path on Iraq, global warming, torture, immigration, and nuclear proliferation. Perhaps not perfect, but Obama would be a much better start than McCain, or Clinton.
mplo says
Here’s why:
<
p>First of all, we have a long history (dating back to 50 years) of having an interventionist foreign policy. What we did ini Korea, Latin Americ, Africa, India, Indo-China and Iraq was utterly destructive. The U. S. Government has toppled or attempted to topple foreign governments that we don’t like when they don’t correspond with or suit our interests. It’s amazing that more people don’t hate the United States anymore than they do.
<
p>Also, this:
<
p>
<
p>is not something I can agree with, really. Obama really isn’t very experienced, plus, imho, as I’ve pointed out on other posts, there’s something quite phony about him. His seductive charisma and smiling manner just doesn’t sit well with me, nor does it sit well with a lot of people. Sorry, but i’m not going to be gullible enough to join you all in drinking the Kool-Aid for Obama, as much as I dislike McCain or H. R. Clinton. Obama knows nothing about how to even get started on things, and, imho, is just as capable of furthur screwing up our goivernment as McCain or H. R. Clinton.
<
p>Ralph Nader, who may well be an opportunist, is the only one saying stuff that’s of real substance, and is not necessarily any more oportunistic than either McCain, H. R. Clinton or Barack Obama. I’m thinking of voting for him in November, because I don’t like the way this campaign has been shaping up…at all.