US foreign policy: principle and pragmatism
|
Version 0 of 1. When American presidents go to speak at the United States Military Academy at West Point, it is normally to launch a new armed campaign. Twelve years ago, George W Bush used the occasion to lay out the global reach of the "war on terror", which nine months later took the US and its allies into Iraq. When Barack Obama last came to the campus in up-state New York in 2009, he announced the launch of the "surge" in Afghanistan. This time, the backdrop is different. America is in retreat. It has pulled out of Iraq, and is rapidly leaving Afghanistan. The US "led from behind" in Libya and opted out of direct intervention in Syria, or any military aid to Ukraine. At West Point on Wednesday, the president claimed that the country was emerging from "a long season of war". The trend is in line with American public opinion, which is at its most isolationist in 50 years. But public opinion is a fickle compass for foreign policy. Extricating the country from foreign quagmires has not made Mr Obama any more popular, and he is under attack now for failing to provide global leadership. In his speech, Mr Obama showed he is well aware that simply staying at home is not an option. Failed and failing states abroad can eventually pose a mortal threat to the US homeland. Mr Obama is striving to steer a middle course between the isolationists and interventionists and the outcome is inevitably something of a fudge – a varied toolbox for dealing with foreign challenges: unilateral military force, if necessary, to defend against direct threats to Americans, US core interests and allies; in all other circumstances, America will not go it alone, and will prefer nonviolent means if possible. The president struggled to make this sound inspiring. It is hard to pick out a neat "Obama doctrine". But that is a good thing. The world is a messy place and, as Mr Bush demonstrated, clear doctrines make for rousing speeches but – too often – disastrous outcomes. As Mr Obama put it: "War rarely conforms to slogans." As sensible as it is to have a extensive toolbox, however, the real challenge for a US commander-in-chief is knowing when to use each tool. On that measure, Mr Obama has a reasonable scorecard. His vigorous engagement with Iran on its nuclear programme has a good chance of success. Russian adventurism in Ukraine appears to have run out of steam in the face of concerted US-led diplomatic resistance. The greatest failure so far of Mr Obama's foreign policy lies in Syria. His light touch has failed to stem the bloodshed. Over 160,000 people are dead, mostly at the hands of the regime, while radical jihadist groups have won territory at the expense of less well-armed moderates. Humanitarian interventions aimed at preventing mass atrocities are among the toughest foreign policy calls a leader has to make. Intervening means being held accountable for everything that happens afterwards. That can present an ugly picture, as Libya is demonstrating. But those who stand on the sidelines cannot avoid accountability either. Many former US, British and French politicians are still haunted by the failure to act in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90s. Bill Clinton has admitted that US intervention in Rwanda could have saved 300,000 lives. That is a lot to have on your conscience. In his West Point speech, Mr Obama showed that the Syrian dead are beginning to haunt him. The problem is: how to banish the ghosts. There will be more support for moderate opposition groups, but it will almost certainly not include anti-aircraft missiles and is likely to have a negligible effect. The opportunity to curb Bashar al-Assad's sense of impunity was arguably missed last August as Mr Obama's "red line" was crossed without response. The best prospect now is perhaps a "grand bargain" with Iran, off the back of a nuclear deal, that would begin to impose a peace deal. That currently looks a remote prospect. A nuclear settlement is far from a done deal, and Tehran's appetite for any further engagement with the west has yet to be tested. But there are few if any options. Everything else has been tried and failed, or not tried in time. |