Is Obama on the Gorbachev Path-I?

Indeed, the international situation is still complicated. The dangers to which we have no right to turn a blind eye remain. There has been some change, however, or, at least, change is starting….A new, democratic philosophy of international relations, of world politics is breaking through… Considering that world public opinion and the peoples of the world are very concerned about the situation in the world, our policy is an invitation to dialogue, to a search, to a better world, to normalization of international relations.

The above is an excerpt from Mikhail Gorbachev’s speech in 1987. The words have an uncanny sense of semblance to the recent foreign policy speeches of President Obama. The foreign policy vision of Gorbachev and Obama share a commonality: the acknowledgement that challenges persists yet there room for change. This post explores what makes President Obama’s foreign policy objectives challenging and promising.

One of the most important ‘reforms’ in the area of foreign policy is the willingness on part of President Obama to de-categorize foreign relations. President Obama is challenging the traditional tags for casting friends, enemies, competitors or facilitators. 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 is claiming to discard these categorizations and mplement a refurbished and updated version of American diplomacy.
Secretary Clinton’s visit to China in February and the just concluded U.S.- China Economic summit demonstrate the efforts to take bilateral dialogue beyond the competitor paradigm. The ‘reset’ of U.S.-Russia relations, lifting travel restrictions on Cuban Americans and measured responses to results of Iranian Presidential elections bear witness to President Obama’s willing to define America’s foreign relations in new light.
Emerging from the ‘de-categorization’ reform is the greater insistence on interest promotion rather than value promotion in foreign relations. Simply stated this implies that rather than ‘exporting’ democracy the U.S. foreign policy would seek to achieve its national interests by opening dialogue with ‘electoral authoritarian’ regimes like Iran. President Obama categorically stated that “America in no way seeks to impose any system of government on any country. Each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions.”
President Obama has sought to recognize and highlight the distinctiveness of each country, culture and geo-strategic region in his foreign policy approach. The three major overseas foreign policy speeches have all begun with and emphatically emphasized the uniqueness of experience and heritage in Islam, Russia and the African nations. In the words of President Obama, the U.S. should “forge partnerships instead of dictating solutions”. Appreciation of this distinctiveness rather than abhorrence of differences has emerged as the hallmark of President Obama’s foreign policy rhetoric.�
Sympathetic approach, promise of dialogue, recognition of crisis faced by other countries, avoiding contentious politics, smart power and special envoys are the defining features of President Obama’s foreign policy. But so far it’s been a policy of postures and rhetoric, implementation of this vision faces three specific obstacles: first, convincing the Americans that such an approach would work; second, is the challenge of credibility- will President Obama deliver in policy what he has promised in speeches; finally, is it feasible – will other countries respond favorable to President Obama’s overtures.
President Obama faces the challenge of not only convincing the Republicans but also his own Party and the American people with regard to his foreign policy approach. The problem facing President Obama has been perfectly captured in the words of E.J. Dionne Jr., “He loves to engage conservatives, yet few of them have chosen to engage him. He is seen as too moderate by parts of the left, but the right thinks he has a radical, statist agenda.”  Many Americans find President Obama’s diplomatic outreach defensive and apologetic. President Obama’s Iran policy is widely opposed as a policy shunning responsibility in the garb of neutrality and non-interference. Even while Obama espoused a soft approach, the House of Representatives had adopted a resolution condemning the violence in Iran after the elections. In a recent setback to plans for closing Guantanamo Bay, Senate Democrats rejected President Obama’s request for funding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and vowed to withhold federal dollars until the president decides the fate of the facility’s 240 detainees. Domestic response to the President’s foreign policy ranges from skepticism to opposition.�
The next important test for the President is actual policy change apart from the promise of it. The drone strikes in Pakistan have continued as have the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Lakhdar Boumediene, a prisoner recently released from G. Bay, claims that mistreatment at the prison facility continues after President Obama had assumed office. The promise of troop withdrawal from Iraq appears meaningless as the President announced the surge in Afghanistan. Moreover, Obama’s plan would keep a force between 35000 to 50000 troops well after August 2010 to advise Iraq’s local forces. US Forces are not primed to withdraw from Iraq until Dec 2011 according to the Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA), but even this date can be extended indefinitely. The security of Israel continues to be the primary pillar of President Obama’s Middle East policy. The U.S. objectives in Afghanistan listed on White Paper on Intra-Agency Policy Group’s Report include “promoting a more capable, accountable and effective government in Afghanistan.” It appears that President Obama is merely paraphrasing the U.S. drive for democracy promotion in Afghanistan. The U.S. positions on important international issues like climate change, non-proliferation, U.N. Security Council expansion, fighting terrorism, defeating and dismantling the al-Qaeda are much the same.�
There is every possibility that countries around the world view President Obama’s diplomatic outreach as sign of American weakness and pursue policies that could be detrimental to American interests. Whether it’s Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba or Venezuela, it’s difficult to expect that any of these countries will actually alter their respective foreign policy approaches following President Obama’s speeches. Admiration for President Obama may not necessarily transform into a favorable international milieu for the U.S. President Obama may, for example, have had approached President Dmitry Medvedev and President Ahmadinejad in good spirit but neither of these men really control the Russia or Iran’s foreign policy. Despite all the charisma, President Obama was not able to secure the desired troop numbers from NATO members for the surge in Afghanistan. NATO countries had only committed to civilian help in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan had decided to shut the Manas Air base irrespective of the change in leadership in Washington. It was only due to efforts to Robert Gates and enhanced monetary incentive that U.S. retained rights over the Manas Air base. The North Korean missile tests clearly demonstrate that countries around the globe will continue to pursue foreign policy options irrespective of who occupies the Oval Office.
The only change in U.S. foreign policy under President Obama is one of demeanor. President Obama has put himself in a perilous situation by promising to alter the U.S. foreign relations. Any reference of change in foreign policy, even rhetorical, is bound to generate opposition at home and expectation abroad. Gorbachev had thought that ending the Cold War would allow the Russians to set their house in order and re-emerge as a strong country. By re-defining America’s international image, President Obama is aspiring for much the same. Gorbachev made two fatal errors: he overlooked the fact that issues of domestic economy are more compelling to the people than concerns of foreign engagements. Second, the international milieu is impacted by several stimuli and cannot be directed by the policy approach of any one country. President Obama can steer clear of the Gobachev path if he avoid these mistakes.