Does anyone want to be Mr Obama's new friend?
When you were at school, did you ever want to be friends with someone who just didn't want to be your friend? However nice you were to them, they simply ignored you?
Now, I wouldn't dream of comparing Barack Obama to a friendless school-child - after all, he's probably one of the most popular men in the world, and a former Harvard law professor as well - but he doesn't seem to be having too much luck at the moment making new friends among the people who count.
Iran, China, Cuba - you name it, he's tried to be friendly. But wherever he goes, whomever he talks to, they all seem to be disciples of the 19th century British statesman Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Take Iran, for example: what do its leaders think are their nation's eternal and perpetual interests? To do what Washington (and, to be fair, many other governments too) wants them to do? Or to plough on with what looks to many like a secret nuclear weapons programme in order to emerge as a regional nuclear power?
Or take China. Where do its interests lie? In forming a strategic alliance with the US, or with continuing its economic development while keeping a firm lid on political pluralism?
If you were sitting in Beijing, or Tehran, or even Pyongyang, and the message came from Washington: "Hey, we've got a new guy in charge, and he wants to be friends", what would your immediate reaction be?
Would it be: "Oh, that's nice, let's tell him we want to be friends too", or would it be: "Hmm, how can we get something out of this?"
I don't want to over-simplify: it is perfectly possible, of course, for leaders to act in what they perceive to be their national interest and also to form alliances, or friendships, with former adversaries. But Palmerston's view was that it's the interests that come first, not the friendships.
Now, if you're the man in the White House - and you passionately believe that it should be possible to find common ground even with former adversaries - it can be a challenge to work out what to do if your faith in the power of shared interests isn't reciprocated.
What do you do about Iran, for example, if they seem to be stringing you along, saying that they might, one day, like to be your friend, but not just yet. What do you do about China, which seems to be making a lot of the right noises about reducing carbon gas emissions, but - again - not just yet.
"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war," was Churchill's too-often quoted maxim. But if the other lot don't fancy jaw-jaw, do you perhaps need a Plan B that stops short of war-war?
The Obama line is that it's still early days. It takes time to create a new global diplomatic discourse; no one should expect new friendships to be formed overnight. And the White House can claim some success: there's little doubt now that there will be a useful US-Russia nuclear stockpile reduction agreement soon, and Moscow seems to be closer to Washington than it used to be on the idea of some tougher sanctions against Iran.
We'll be returning to some of these questions in January, when we'll be taking stock of Obama's foreign policy achievements on the first anniversary of his inauguration, with the help of some of Washington's leading public policy pundits.
More on that nearer the time, but meanwhile, just a very brief toot on the trumpet: I wrote a month ago that I didn't think Tony Blair was going to be chosen as President of the EU Council. And last night, he wasn't.
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"More on that nearer the time, but meanwhile, just a very brief toot on the trumpet: I wrote a month ago that I didn't think Tony Blair was going to be chosen as President of the EU Council. And last night, he wasn't."
Robin really is the "Mystic Meg" of Radio 4. He even predicted the housing crash: I've lived to regret that buy to let in Aberdeen (bought at the end of '07, although I think Robin's prediction came just that little bit too late to warn me).
Complain about this comment
Nations don't have friends, they have interests. Obama's mistake like all others of his ilk is that because of his success in getting into the seat of national power, he has the hubris to think that he can persuade leaders of those nations who have chosen to be America's adversaries that it is in their own self interest to rethink their position and reach the opposite conclusion. Eventually when he fails, he will come around to President Bush's way of seeing the world. But what price will America pay in the interim? Tuition is expensive in this world of realpolitik. The time it takes him to come to understand the way the world is and not as he would like it to be only gives America's enemies more time to become stronger. Nor should he harbor hopes that he will get any substantive support from Europe. Europe proved early in this decade that when push comes to shove, many of its leaders and most of its populations see no common interest in issues of vital national importance to the United States. A rational response would be to go it alone. America has done this successfully in the past, that is up until WWI. Entering WWI was the worst mistake the US ever made and it has paid a heavy price for it ever since. Things the US should do immediately after reassessing its interests and how other nations likely actions relate to them is to withdraw all military forces from Europe, tell China, Japan, and South Korea if they want the US to continue to play the cop in the Western Pacific they will have to pay for it and accept that it will be done on American terms, not theirs, withdraw from WTO, NATO, and the UN. It is time America's leaders woke up to its real national self interests and stopped worrying about the rest of the world. If they want to kill each other, America should let them, it can't really stop them anyway. If they threaten us, America should not hesitate nor seek approval from other nations to defend itself with whatever force it deems appropriate for a completely effective response. Wake up America, it's later than you think.
Complain about this comment
"...passionately believe that it should be possible to find common ground even with former adversaries..."
I'll leave aside my position on Obama's foreign policy, but I'm not sure this quote is an accurate representation of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama spends a lot of time talking about interests, especially U.S. interests, rather than ideals. Typically, however, interests are better served if: (1) common ground is found with adversaries; (2) adversarial opposition to diplomacy leads to stronger alliances against the adversary; or (3) the internal dissension within adversaries is heightened by the prospects of a potential new alliance. Applied to Iran, one can see glimmers of (2) and (3), if not (1). It remains to be seen how the dissension ultimately plays itself out in Iran, but even China has made small noises toward a stronger line on Iran's nuclear program.
Complain about this comment
Russia and China might be more convinced that protecting their economic interests in Iran is best served by cooperating with overwhelming economic sanctions to induce Iran to stop its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons if they were convinced that failing the effectiveness of sanctions, there will be an overwhelming military response which will do far greater damage to them, and that as with Iraq there will be nothing they can do to stop it. That is the unambiguous message President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton should be sending the leaders of Russia and China.
Complain about this comment
To Marc Aurelius II: "Nations don´t have friends" - that´s actually wrong, just look at the close relationship between the US and the UK with deep historic roots. They are strong allies and they trust each other, a milestone is their alliance during WWII. There is a strong collective memory in terms of this, it is not just a technical partnership without a soul or emotions or without sharing common basic political values.
The UK developed early in Europe a culture of democracy and parlamentarism, much earlier than continental Europe. Since the middle ages the King has been obliged to act according to the laws (Bill of Rights). A strong factor that has been in favour of this development is the fact that Britain is an island, so there has been a less threatening in comparison to continental countries that could be attacked more easily.
The US shares this tradition of democracy, also relatively ahead of continental Europe.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS