Obama: a world changer?
So, will Barack Obama change the world? Er, probably not.
Will he radically change US foreign policy? Well, maybe he will, but there again, maybe he won't.
If you heard our special edition of The World Tonight from Washington last night, you'll have heard four of Washington's most respected foreign policy analysts discussing the likely future shape of US foreign policy once Obama takes office next month. And what struck me about them was how uncertain they were. (If you missed the programme, it's available on the website, as is an extended version, including a question and answer session with our invited audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.)
Will Obama keep his promise to pull US combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of moving into the White House? Probably, yes.
Will he make any headway in reviving the Middle East peace process? Probably, no.
Will he sign up to a new global agreement on reducing carbon gas emissions to combat climate change? Possibly, but it's far from certain.
And so it goes on. During the Presidential election campaign, Obama promised "change you can believe in". But beyond the rhetoric, there weren't that many concrete policy proposals, especially in the field of foreign policy. Which is why even the best informed analysts here really have little clear idea what he's planning to do.
And here's the key issue: the over-riding preoccupation of the incoming administration will be how to revive the economy. Peace in the Middle East, forging a new relationship with Moscow, breathing new life into nuclear non-proliferation - all that may have to wait.
So what should we expect? Well, the rhetoric will certainly change: you won't hear so much about the US ending tyranny and spreading democracy around the world. There'll be more of an emphasis on negotiations, and on building international alliances. But will it be, in the words of a New York Times columnist,"continuity we can believe in", or, in the words of another New York Times columnist, "a sweeping shift in foreign policy"?
Our panellists couldn't agree. Is a change of tone the same as a change of policy? Or do US national interests always eventually over-ride Presidential ambitions? We're about to find out - and the answer could well shape the world we live in.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Robin,
You remember John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963). You will also recall that the same things were said about him. The reality was rather different - as will the reality be with Barack Obama.
The 'hope' that Barack Obama brings may possibly raise the expectations of the World (but only in the sense of the country that has a 'World Series'!)
Arithmetic will constrain Barack Obama - the 'trillions' will condemn him to a struggle with sums. Faith may more mountains but dollars buy earth moving machines!
The USA is broke - Barack Obama will be forced to constrain his actions by the lack of cash!
Complain about this comment
There is an apparent will for a fundamental internal change within the United States, i.e. vastly increasing the base of those who participate in and share in the enterprise- the nation.
There is a painfully evident need to change the relationship of the United States to the World.
Rather than resources (see #1 above), I think that the limitation will be that of internal politics- the resistance and cabals of those who seek to conserve their especially privileged advantage and those who are fundamentally mentally conditioned to authoritarianism.
As this first Forum has indicated, the discourse will follow three main lines:
techniques of assuring continuity;
questions that challenge assumptions;
new initiatives.
Complain about this comment
Robin,
Should they not be the same? And has the problem not been that the Bush/neocon perception of US national interest has been seriously disconnected from our true national interest.It is certainly true (imo) that for eight years the personal ambitions of the ruling cabal have over-ridden US national interests....
Even a change of rhetoric will reap benefits
Peace and soft words
ed
Complain about this comment
Robin,
In my opinion the long-expected change in the US foreign policy under Obama would not amount to much. After all, a withdrawal of troops from Iraq is not a real change. The USA has more or less achived everything it hoped to achieve by invading Iraq and there is no need for further presence of US combat troops there. The country is relatively stable now, with a friendly goverment which more or less has to rely on US financial and material support to stay in power. Even if there is a low-level fighting with the insurgency, the new Iraqi military should be able to at least contain it and not allow it to spread. The new defence agreement betwen Iraq and USA (with all its secret clauses) will probably allow for some kind of US military presence in the country and the possibility for a troop build-up in case of trouble with Iran. The bulk of troops will be shipped to Afganistan instead, where the situation is far more unpredictable and requires attention. Afganistan is of a great importance to the American interests, and more troops there will only confirm that Obama is following in the same path as Bush before him.
The change of policy towards Russia is still not clear and at present no signs of that have yet appeared. At the end of the day the US missile shield will soon be build in Poland and the Czech Republic, and a 'softening' of tone towards Kremlin will not make it dissapear. Even if some sort of assurances are given to the Russians (vis. Russian observers at the sites), those will not change much. The end result is that the military potential of USA on the Russian borders has changed dramatically, and Russia will not be satisfied with some lukewarm assurances. After all, in case of further disagreements the Russian observers could easily be asked to leave the radar sites and any resemblance of cooperation withdrawn. In this region the only real change of policy will be the complete abandonment of the missile shield plans and review of the notion of driving Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. Anything less will just be the same old 'stick and carrot' policy.
As it is, a real change of policy will require a radical re-thinking of the American interests abroad and since those do not change with the coming of a new president, I do not think we will see any major differences under Obama.
Complain about this comment
The selection of Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen yet. A return to the policies prior to 9-11-01 will allow another attack on the US. This is the kind of mistake you'd expect from a tyro like Obama. Feel good brainless policies that win friends abroad while allowing America's enemies freer reign to plot and execute their terrorist schemes will only lead to disaster. When it comes, don't say I didn't tell you so. There hasn't been a single successful attack on American soil since President Bush instituted his much hated but effective policies. When the next one happens, Obama will be impeached...or worse. If it's a nuclear attack, Constitutional democracy in America could be one of its casualties. Then you will really see what a malevolent hyperpower which cares nothing for the world is all about. Just as with the removal of the measures Congress passed in the 1930s to prevent another stock market crash and depression led to one, so removal of the kind of leadership which roots out terrorists and thwarts their plans will inevitably lead to more. Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. Santyana.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, I see we're all still second guessing (some of us (#5) contradicting our earlier predictions in the process).
For the sake of the world, lets hope BO follows the desires of #1 rather than those of #5, who seems to jump at any chance for the USA to start a war (real, or more often imagined).
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS