I am ever amused/confused by the rhetoric surrounding President Obama's foreign policy.
I just ran across Abe Greenwald's piece about Obama's move to neo-conservatism, apparently reflected in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Obama recognized the potential necessity of using force to confront bad actors.
The recognition that the use of force is a necessary tool of diplomacy is traditionally called "realism."
Pundits such as E. J. Dionne know what they are talking about when they call Barack Obama a "realist." But I often wondered if dovish Democrats knew what "realist" meant in terms of foreign policy when they extolled Obama's realism compared to President Bush's approach to foreign policy. I suspected that they would have favored foreign policy liberalism.
So, does the average political liberal realize that if Obama is a foreign policy realist then he's closer to the traditional Republican position than to the one they probably favor?
It's hard to say, but I think I detect some of the confusion in a newspaper story appearing in the wake of Obama's speech:
Nobel Speech Places Obama Within Realist-Liberal Tradition
Uh, OK.
That's a bit like Obama's coin-flip tendencies falling within the heads-tails tradition. Or his footwear tendencies placing him within the shoes/no shoes tradition.
Neoconservatism, as a foreign policy approach, borrows elements from reallism and liberalism. It is, as a result, within the realist-liberal tradition. If Obama's foreign policy approach likewise borrows from both of the main recognized foreign policy approaches, we should try to note with interest how his approach truly differs from neoconservatism.
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama on Friday reaffirms that the world still looks to America for leadership and has high hopes for its young president.
Much of the world doesn't want American leadership. Rather, they want the United States to do the heavy lifting on policies they happen to favor, and for the United States to butt out on everything else. But the editorial pegs it with the "high hopes" part. President Obama looks like a pushover, and that suits all those who can get in on the pushing.
As the Nobel committee noted, in less than a year Obama has established a new tone in international politics that emphasizes engagement over isolation and consensus over ultimatums.
Unfair slaps at Bush aside (Bush did, in fact, emphasize engagement over isolation), Obama has at least partially fulfilled his campaign promise to meet diplomatically with Iran minus preconditions. Not that we've gained anything politically from it aside from a Nobel Prize. On the other hand, Honduras may feel a tad isolated by Obama administration policies. But such a tiny country can hardly count against The One's record, can it?
In the long term, Obama will be judged by his accomplishments rather than his aspirations. But this unexpected recognition reflects the power of a compelling vision and America's singular role in defending peace, human rights and democracy.
Compelling vision, eh?
Iran sends out its military and paramilitary thugs to quell peaceful protests of a sham election. The Obama adminstration will not interfere in that. It wouldn't be appropriate.
In Honduras, President Zelaya disregards that country's constitutional restrictions on advancing a referendum to stay in office beyond his term limits and is removed by the coursts in accordance with its own constitution. And the Obama administration labels this a "coup" and proceeds to interfere via sanctions and threatened sanctions. I suppose that's "compelling," in a sense.
We can also ask the Poles and Ukrainians if they feel that Obama is defending their democratic governments.
Obama was as surprised as the world to be awakened with the news Friday, and he reacted with characteristic grace and humility.
The characteristic humility that led him to address throngs in Europe well prior to his election as president, I suppose. I don't buy the "characteristic humility" part. But Obama's Nobel acceptance speech, at least, was appropriately humble.
After barely nine months in office, he has hardly amassed a long record of achievement on the international stage. While the war in Iraq is winding down, the fighting in Afghanistan is heating up.
Actually, the war in Iraq is heating up a bit, also. Obama is simply ignoring that in favor of following through on his promise to end American participation in the war. The fighting in Afghanistan has heated up based on Obama's promise to focus on our true enemies in that region. And he has promised U.S. strikes in Pakistan at high-value targets regardless of Pakistani approval. Part of the new tone, I suppose.
It's hard not to be a bit intrigued by the awarding of a peace prize to a guy who ramped up violence in Afghanistan. One would think President Bush eligible on that point.
The Palestinians and Israelis are as far apart as ever on a framework for peace.
True, but President Obama has preferred the Palestinian side of the argument--at least publicly--to a far greater extent than did his predecessors in office. And the world likes that, even if it doesn't have much to do with peace.
Iran is still pursuing its nuclear ambitions, and the administration has not yet brought Russia or China around as constructive global partners. America has not broken significant new ground on immigration, energy or global warming.
One wonders what represents the peaceful policy on each of those last three issues. As for Russia and China, if Obama had tried hard bargaining with either nation then it would be harder for him to look like he favored engagement over ultimatum. It's more peaceful, apparently, to weakly engage and accomplish nothing else.
But in announcing the award, the Nobel committee singled out Obama for his "extraordinary efforts" to strengthen diplomacy. The jab at his predecessor, George W. Bush, was unmistakable. By replacing confrontation with dialogue as the norm of foreign policy, Obama had "captured the world's attention" and made the United States "a more constructive" player in meeting global challenges, the committee said.
Whether awarding Obama the Nobel so early in his presidency is foolishly premature or remarkably prescient will not be clear for years.
Now that is funny. We can wait for years for any real evidence that Obama deserves the award before we can think it clearly premature. Let's say that Obama does something ... ten years from now that unquestionably deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. The Times would apparently ask us to think the prize committee prescient rather than premature. Why not both, eh?
The reaction from the Times is hardly a surprise. They think the same way politically as the prize committee, so a similar conclusion was inevitable.
*****
Update:
Steven Crowder's take on Obama's Nobel Prize seems like the perfect counterpoint to the Times editorial.
MOSCOW — If Hillary Rodham Clinton was hoping to win Russian support for efforts to use a threat of sanctions to pressure Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions, her first trip to Moscow as secretary of state got off to a rocky start Tuesday. (St. Petersburg Times)
Maybe we need another "reset" button. Unless it really was an "overcharge" button all along, and the Russians are overcharging us despite Secretary of State Clinton's assurance that would not happen.
Lavrov's announcement (pulling the rug out from under a serious sanctions regime--ed.) came despite President Barack Obama's recent decision to scrap plans for a ballistic missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, a system the Kremlin had strenuously opposed. While both sides denied that the decision about the missile defense sites was linked to a deal with Russia about Iran, observers had suspected otherwise.
So what did we get in return for ticking off our allies in Eastern Europe? Anything at all?
WASHINGTON - Libya's remarkable transformation from U.S. foe to friend is almost complete.
Despite unresolved terrorism and human rights concerns, the United States took another step toward ending decades of hostility with the North African nation on Thursday as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Libyan foreign minister in the highest-level contact between the two countries in Washington in 35 years.
Bush is so incompetent that his cowboy diplomacy is failing to make Libya hate us enough to forgo new political ties.
Or ...
The U.S. is so hated internationally that Bush is forced to make friends with nations nobody likes?
Give it time. If the next administration doesn't fumble the ball with Libya perhaps this will figure in as part of Bush's positive legacy.
As for being hated abroad, the United States is a bit like the New York Yankees. They have that incredible payroll, so few other than Yankee fans want them to win. I know I like the Yankees much better when they lose.
