Foreign policy commentators, with their penchant for coining cute catchphrases, have waxed eloquent about “the Obama doctrine”. Yet, few agree on what it is. A quick dose of cold-blooded realism? A shrewd realization of the limits of American power? Or just a healthy mix of pragmatism and balance?
Those characterizations don’t seem very original to me. At times, the Bush administration displayed shades of all those tenets: pursuing a realist approach to United States-China relations, negotiating with its allies on Iran and North Korea, and enlisting multilateral assistance in Afghanistan. True, unilateral excesses and bellicose rhetoric did eclipse these initiatives. But the point is that they are hardly novel ideas.
So, what’s so new about the Obama doctrine? In my view, what’s innovative is not the measures it pursues, but how it balances and sequences them. Reeling from the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush administration decided to embark on an ideological crusade for freedom and against extremism. It saw the world in black and white terms and placed an emphasis on unilateralism, military power, and regime type. And this assertion of US dominance has alienated some of Washington’s allies, emboldened its enemies, and overstretched its capacities. The main thrust of the Obama doctrine is that this foreign policy is no longer sustainable. The philosophy is simple. Today, Washington’s power is burdened by the weight of rampant international opprobrium, a raging economic crisis, rising powers and rusty international institutions. Rather than recoiling back into its isolationist shell or resuming its sweeping unilateralism, America must revert to a more sustainable, cost-effective, and globally legitimate method of leading the international system it created after World War II.
Doing so does not mean we should abandon war. But we should place multilateral cooperation and narrow bargains before potential war, and international support and regional pacts alongside current military operations. To do so, Washington must share responsibilities with allies in wars it is embroiled in, rework and work with international institutions to increase the prospects for future collective action, and at least try to reach accords with adversaries and competitors before resorting to conflict. Because, as Obama eloquently put it in a Foreign Affairs magazine article, while “America cannot meet this century’s challenges alone,” “the world cannot meet them without America”.
Take Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, Obama has fused international aid with hard-nosed deals and tough military maneuvers. His Iraq strategy, unveiled in February, calls for reinvigorated international diplomacy to deal with the refugee problem, a regional dialogue that includes Iran and Syria, and a remaining 50,000 troops to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests. And, last week, his Afghanistan-Pakistan plan spelled out increased responsibilities for NATO, a commitment to negotiate with moderate elements of the Taliban, and a 4,000 strong troop surge. The goal here is to share, and hence reduce, the cost of pricey U.S. interventions by marshaling international and regional support.
On Russia, the Obama Doctrine counsels carving up areas of mutual interest to further Washington’s goals without papering over profound ideological and security differences. The 19 paragraph U.S.-Russia joint statement signed last week highlights Obama’s willingness to reconsider a missile defense system in exchange for Moscow reining in Iran’s nuclear program and signing a nuclear arms reduction treaty that will strengthen the global non-proliferation regime. But Obama also bluntly told President Medvedev to forget about the independence of Abkhazia or South Ossetia and protested the beating of a prominent human rights activist.
Applied to rogue regimes, the Obama doctrine suggests trying engagement and international pressure to garner greater benefits and international backing before deciding on military force. For instance, the administration has dispatched officials to Syria to iron out a potential Israeli-Syrian deal and invited Iran to talks at the Hague on the future of Afghanistan. The rationale here is not dovish but sensible: Iran and Syria are central to Middle East stability, and greater stability will allow Washington to gradually scale back its military commitments. On North Korea, Obama has decided not to provoke the hermit regime by shooting down its rocket but instead work within the six-party talk framework toward tougher sanctions. This, he thinks, will increase the pressure on Beijing to rein in Pyongyang.
It’s still too soon to tell if the Obama doctrine will work. True, it has delivered some impressive early successes, with NATO agreeing to shoulder more responsibilities in Afghanistan, Moscow willing to sign a nuclear arms reduction pact, and the Syrians welcoming renewed American engagement. But what happens if the olive branch to Iran falters and it continues to gallop toward a nuclear program? If international institutions and allies fail to back America’s defense of its vital interests? If military intervention becomes inevitable? Will Obama be willing to carry out that last resort, and will he do so convincingly?
But up till that point, there’s nothing wrong with trying to boost global support and engage with our allies and adversaries at a time when we simply can’t afford to lead the world unilaterally. We tried the latter, but to no avail. What’s wrong with trying the former now? And won’t a sincere attempt at this strategy actually strengthen the case for unilateral action later on when we do need it? That is the fundamental premise of the Obama Doctrine. And only time will tell whether this attempt goes down in history as prudence or naivete.
Prashanth Parameswaran’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
