After Bipartisanship at home, its multilateralism abroad

“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

With these words was inaugurated the Presidency of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. The promise of change that had dominated President Obama’s election campaign was expected to graduate as America’s new political philosophy at home and abroad. The emphasis on changing partisan bickering to bipartisan dialogue and hard power based unilateralism to cooperative multilateralism arrived with the new President to re-define America’s image and conduct.  

[Photo courtesy: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque]

The first test of President Obama’s new political philosophy was discussions on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the US Congress. All attempts at reaching out across party lines failed to garner the slightest modicum of Republican support to the proposed Bill. President Obama’s Bipartisan Problems were a precursor to the tough challenges confronting his credible yet contended brand of politics. The Democratic majority in the House allowed President Obama to sway over partisan differences and move on with his economic recovery plans. Challenges to his call for dialogue based multilateralism are more formidable and have already assumed a confrontationist mode. President Obama will soon have to devise a strategy that ensures the success of his foreign policy in the face of gathering opposition.

Dialogue, reconciliation, partnership were the proposed hallmarks of President Obama’s foreign policy. During his election campaign President Obama expressed favor for open negotiations with all nations without pre-conditions. Soon after his inauguration, President Obama signed three Executive Orders for closure of Guantanamo Bay, shutting down of CIA prisons and banning the use of torture. This was President Obama’s first attempt at turning his confidence generating rhetoric into concrete action. President Obama’s now famous “extended hand to unclenched fist” policy generated positive ripples across the globe. The constant reference to ‘smart’ power by the officials of Obama Administration sought to underscore the accommodative spirit in new foreign policy approach. The association of Prof. Joseph Nye with President Obama’s team, as the next probable Ambassador to Japan, reflects the conscious attempt to bridge the gap between concepts and policies. Prof. Nye had originally coined the term ‘smart power’ as a strategic combination of hard and soft power tools. Vice President Joseph Biden reference to “reset-button” in ties with Russia was another attempt at reinvigorating trans-national ties. The most recent and highly impressive gesture was made by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton during her trip to China when she emphasized on the need to build a positive cooperative relationship with China despite disagreements on issues like human rights.

President Obama is making all the right sounds and gestures to bring to life his nascent global partnership arrangement. Unfortunately, much like the attempts to build bipartisanship, President Obama’s foreign policy agenda is also being actively challenged. Recent trends have demonstrated continued skepticism regarding the U.S. approach to global politics. American allies have exhibited a variety of negative traits ranging from cautious affiliation to partial rebuff of President Obama’s New American Leadership proposal. These early reversals contain clues for contextualizing and rationalizing President Obama’s extraordinary foreign policy strategy.

The Government of Kyrgyzstan voted earlier this month to close the U.S. base at Manas. The base was important for the transit of NATO troops to Afghanistan and became highly critical following the decision to augment U.S. in Afghanistan. The bill for the closure of Manas base was approved by 78 of the 81 deputies present in the Kyrgyz Parliament reflecting the near unanimous stand on the issue. President Obama will do utmost harm to his foreign policy strategy if Russia is portrayed as the cause for the loss of Manas base; it needs to be realized that the Kyrgyzs had been complaining about the high-handed U.S. behavior for the past few years. According to Baktybek Abdrisaev, Former Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan to the U.S., the political costs of the base were too high. The U.S. is still luring Kyrgyzstan to reconsider its decision. The Kyrgyzstan case impinges upon the Obama Administration the necessity to address the micro concerns of its allies before embarking upon a macro strategy of realizing a self-willing global alliance.

The U.S. appeal for augmenting contributions to NATO troop surge in Afghanistan has not reverberated positively across the European capitals. At the recent NATO Defense Ministers Meet in Poland, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed U.S. commitment to enhance troops in Afghanistan while seeking expanded contribution from other NATO allies. The general response was one of non-commitment coupled with outright denial of the suggestion for deploying troops from NATO’s Response Force. President Obama’s most passionate appeals for multilateralism will fail to counter Morgenthau’s principles of power politics. Fostering national interest and enhancing national power will continue to dictate policies of all nations and will not be sacrificed at the altar of a new U.S. sponsored multilateralism. Likewise, power games in the international arena will continue unabated. This is precisely the reason why Russia offered the corridor for movement of NATO troops to Afghanistan via Russian territories after the closure of Manas base. No matter how much President Obama desires to redefine relations with Russia, the politico-strategic competition between U.S. and Russia will continue to remain feature of international politics. There are assessments that Russia might re-launch its Georgian offensive in the summer of 2009 and that would not only affect regional politics in Eurasia but also challenge President Obama’s foreign policy.

The Obama Administration is still undecided about going ahead with the missile sites in Poland and Czech Republic as an alleged counter to Iran’s nuclear threat. If President Obama goes ahead with building the missile sites his claim for non-threatening dialogue with Iran and Russia falls apart. On the other hand, the decision to call off the missile sites will not only raise concerns about America’s defense strategy but will annoy the Polish and Czech authorities. The Polish Government had bargained hard for securing an agreement for national military modernization in exchange of stationing missiles on its territory. President Obama will have to realize that multilateralism is not a linear approach and can prove counter-productive if trade-offs are not tactfully balanced.

The Obama Administration has to be cautious that the enthusiasm to implement multilateralism does not compromise on the key principles of U.S. foreign policy. Support for democracy and human rights cannot be compromised for the sake of alliance building even if it comes to vital partnerships like Sino-U.S. The alliance compulsions have to be balanced with principled priorities of U.S. foreign policy. President Obama’s political sagacity and ‘audacity of hope’ appear well equipped to accomplish this complex yet essential task. Though challenged, President Obama’s foreign policy strategy is the best option available to the U.S. in the given circumstances.