President Obama’s Speeches are Aimed at Uncertainty Reduction

R.L. Health and J. Bryant in their book Human Communication: Theory and Research stated, “Interactions are expected to increase predictability with the goal that this will lead to the ability to predict and explain what will occur in future interactions.” This explanation is the core of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) of Communications. Simply stated the URT emphasizes that reducing uncertainty is the central motive of communication. The four major foreign policy speeches of President Barak Obama epitomize the central tenet of the URT. Contrary to popular perception, President Obama is not attempting to induce changes in behaviors of nation-states or other non-state actors. He is simply reducing uncertainty in international affairs by clearly explaining the basis and goals of U.S. foreign policy under his Administration. The stated goals are marked by an element of continuity and the speeches are merely contextual communication of the same. 
The first speech of President Obama, elaborating his foreign policy objectives was appropriately delivered on home ground in Washington. Among the other issues mentioned in the speech, President Obama clearly stated that “We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.” It may appear ironic that President Obama is carrying forth the Bush legacy in foreign policy. But President Obama’s approach is markedly different because according to him “we do not need to update our institutions to deal with this threat.” Al –Qaeda is a security threat for the U.S. not an excuse for institutional changes in the country.
The now famous Cairo moment, was utilized by President Obama to highlight the historical roots of tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The most important element of this speech was the complete absence of any reference to the disagreements between the ‘West’ and ‘Islamic Civilization’. President Obama refused to generalize the socio-political problems between the U.S. and Muslim majority states as a global clash of civilizations.
The Address at the New Economic School Graduation, Moscow, was an attempt at re-stating power dynamics among nations in the contemporary world order. In the words of President Obama “given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game — progress must be shared.” President Obama has realized that strains in bilateral relations with Russia can be approached and interpreted beyond the Cold War paradigm.
At the most recent speech in Accra on July 11, President Obama stated that “The 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra, as well.” By according urgent priority to the basic human challenges encountered by the people of Africa, President Obama has provided an assurance that concerns of Africa would not be over-shadowed by the more visible threats of nuclear weapons and terrorism.�
The larger goals of American foreign policy were unmistakably highlighted in all the above speeches. Among the more immediate challenges, President Obama identified the issues of violent extremism, policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan; Palestinian problem; rights and responsibilities with regard to nuclear weapons, policies towards Iran; democracy; religious freedom; women’s rights; economic development and opportunity.�
Given the basic premise of the URT what issues was President Obama attempting to address? What were the specific uncertainties that he was seeking to attend to?
The first obvious uncertainty was America’s role in democracy promotion across the globe. 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.” At Cairo, Moscow and Ghana, President Obama’s speeches were laden with the uniqueness of socio-political traditions of each region. The contributions of specific political legacies were commended rather than asserting American value supremacy. The first uncertainty put to rest by President Obama is that his Administration will not push for the universalization of the American (or some may say Western) value system.
The second uncertainty stems from the euphoria of President Obama’s assumption of political authority in Washington. There is a sense of heightened expectation that by merely adjusting a few policies President Obama will resolve most, if not all, problems across the globe. At every venue that he has spoken, President Obama has emphasized that the task at hand is not easy; future is distant; change is hard. The President has also referred to the responsibilities of other states in ensuring that mutual harmony prevails. Whether it’s the issue of the Muslim World understanding the American perceptions or the African nations working towards good governance, individual responsibility and joint effort is the core of President Obama’s global philosophy.
The third uncertainty relates to the nature of U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. Many domestic critics of the President have attacked him for following a ‘soft foreign policy’ and making the American people less safe. The decision to shut down Guantanamo Bay, initiating a new beginning in relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World based on mutual respect and openness to possibility of negotiations with Iran are among the few decisions creating a sense that President Obama would follow a pacifist approach in foreign affairs. In the very first speech, President Obama declared, “In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.” Again in Moscow he reiterated, “As President of the United States, I will work tirelessly to protect America’s security and to advance our interests.” President Obama has elaborated his national security approach in great detail. “We’re investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy.  We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.  And we’ve launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years.  We’re better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster.  We’re building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
The final uncertainty is with regard to the contours of the Obama Doctrine. The speeches clearly establish that there is nothing of a doctrine yet; President Obama is employing individual strategies for each issue. As Clifford D. May rightly observes punditry is easy, policy is hard. President Obama appears to be dealing with specific problems ailing America’s relations with other countries rather than employing sweeping generalizations of containment or war on terrorism. With Russia it’s the issue of global power politics, while with the Muslim world it’s the dominance of misperceptions. President Obama’s foreign policy is a case-by-case approach rather than application of a pre-conceived doctrine.�
In terms of objectives, President Obama’s approach is a continuation of the traditional American foreign policy. The change is evident in the rhetorical statement of the strategy for achieving these goals; the practical dimensions of the strategy are yet to emerge.�
President Obama needs to be conscious of R.L. Health and J. Bryant’s illuminating advice: “Too much certainty and predictability can deaden a relationship; too much uncertainty raises its costs to unacceptable level. Relationship building is dialectic of stability and change, certainty and uncertainty.”