President Obama’s Diplomatic Outreach

The U.S. has for long sought to define and relate to its allies in unambiguous terms. President Bush epitomized this approach in his famous ‘either with us or against us’ speech and through his policy of pre-emption. The Obama Presidency appears to have opened with the objective of de-categorization of countries in U.S. foreign policy. President Obama is challenging the traditional tags for casting friends, enemies, competitors or facilitators while discarding the rigid criteria of ‘either with us or against us’. President Obama’s foreign policy approach puts Lord Palmerstone’s contention into action: “We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies, we have only permanent interests.”  This change of policy goes beyond a simple transition from Republican to Democratic administrations; it involves a transformation of global relations.
The U.S. has traditionally viewed China as an emerging economic competitor; Cuba’s links with erstwhile Communist Russia still dominate the official U.S. psyche; the Iranian hostage crisis continues to be a defining feature of U.S. – Iranian relations; Pakistan’s poor record on democracy and nuclear proliferation has been continually off-set by the its critical geo-strategic position; Latin America has been the conventional backyard of hemispheric influence and European allies are considered customary ‘yes-men’. The Obama Administration has overlooked these categorizations and sought to implement a refurbished and updated version of American diplomacy.
First time since 1960, a U.S. Secretary of State visited Asia as the first official overseas destination. Secretary Clinton’s visit to the region signaled that “the U.S. is not just a trans-Atlantic power, but also a trans-Pacific power.” President Obama’s willingness to reset relations with Russia and ‘listen to Europe’ are marked departures from the traditional doctrines of U.S. foreign policy. The operational value of the medium range missile defense system planned for Europe is highly doubtful and President Obama has tactfully hinted to trade-off the abandonment of this untested system for better relations with Russia.  The offer of a ‘new beginning’ of engagement with Iran in a video message to the Iranian people was one of the most unexpected networking acts by President Obama. The ‘direct to people’ approach was long overdue following President Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American people in 2006 explaining the views of the Iranian government. The unannounced visit to Iraq earlier this month was a low-profile pre-transition act. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama did not sound victorious in Iraq; on the contrary he urged the Iraqis to ‘take responsibility for their country and their sovereignty.” The domineering message that U.S. has made democracy available for the Iraqi people was replaced by more sober interactions between two equal sovereign nations.
President Obama has defended his recent interactions with the Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as a diplomatic courtesy that the U.S. can afford.  The decision to lift travel restrictions on Cuban Americans, without suggesting any concrete pro-Cuba policy reflects the President’s cautious positivism. President Obama has agreed to explore a new dimension in U.S. – Cuba relations given Fidel Castro’s willingness to engage in dialogue. Through his diplomatic openness President Obama appears to be pursuing a balanced policy of ‘engaging without conceding’.
This phase of positive diplomacy can in no way be termed as appeasement; President Obama’s defense of American strategic interests is as strong as his opposition to ‘imperialist’ diplomacy.
Though non-military aid to Pakistan has increased, the country’s performance has been put under the scanner. Officials continue to assert the threats of ISI-Taliban links, drone attacks have continued despite opposition and Richard Holbrooke has elaborated on the security challenges facing Pakistan. The long-standing practice of securing Pakistan’s support on the condition of impunity is being discarded under the Obama Administration. The passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill has been subtly delayed to an extent that it will be too late to include its recommendations in the budget for the next financial year. Pakistan’s position has changed from an ally in the Global War on Terror to a major front on the counter-terrorism campaign.
While President Obama explores his options with regard to N. Korea, he has avoided any unilateral commitment with regard to punishing Pyongyang. There has been a candid realization on part of the Obama Administration that merely getting the Security Council to approve sanctions against N. Korea would not solve the problem. Russia and China would oppose such sanctions and coercive diplomacy with regard to N. Korea has not yielded positive results yet. Though President Obama remains opposed to N. Korea’s nuclear weapons program, he is in favor of being part of a meaningful multilateral response rather than make a reflexive rhetorical statement.�
In recognition of Iran’s potential to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton had invited Iran to the Conference on Afghanistan. This invitation and Iran’s subsequent participation did not imply that President Obama would henceforth agree to share all diplomatic forums with President Ahmadinejad. President Obama, rightly, refused to participate in the U.N. Racism Summit, as a continued protest against the strong anti-Israel comments of President Ahmadinejad at the 2001 Summit meeting. Secretary Clinton’s recent statements with regard to Iran and Pakistan establish beyond doubt that President Obama’s foreign policy is not just about carrots, the stick shall be employed when required.
President Obama is judiciously choosing the time, place and intensity of his diplomatic outreach; his policies can neither be classified as dovish nor hawkish, it’s simply pragmatic. President Obama has emerged as the one-man public diplomacy army for the U.S. The President’s style of uncategorized and unconditional diplomatic outreach would excel even the best designed public diplomacy campaigns of the State Department. Hopefully the ‘yes we can’ magic works for the U.S. foreign policy as did for Obama’s Presidential campaign.