Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Obama Foreign Policy Confirms Realist Expectations
It is a fundamental tenet of realist theory (and I identify as a classical realist, though I have a healthy and pronounced respect for the notion that international anarchy also causes nation-states to place interests over ideological considerations) that while domestic considerations–such as a change in the nature of a nation-state’s government, or a change in the head of government or governing party–may play some role in determining the shape and nature of a nation-state’s foreign policy, the primary influence on their conduct of foreign affairs is the permanent interests of the nation-state in question; interests that persist regardless of the type of government a nation-state possesses, or the specific person or party running the government.
As such, most realists assumed that a change in administrations from Bush to Obama would do relatively little to change American foreign policy. And in many ways, they have been proven right.
Indefinite detentions continue at Guantanamo. There have been noises to close the detention center there, and, to be sure, there has been pushback against Obama Administration’s efforts to close the center, but Team Obama has never really made it that much of a priority to end detentions there anyway. Military tribunals have been brought back into service by the Obama Administration. And, as we now know, Team Obama has taken Bush Administration surveillance programs and ramped them up.
Now, we learn that the Obama Administration has also endorsed spying on American allies–France and Germany, to be precise. To be sure, the French objections to American spying are more than a bit Captain Renaultesque (and if readers will be so kind as to forgive this lapse into pedantry, it is “Renault” and not “Reynaud”), but the German ones seem a bit more sincere:
German and French accusations that the United States has run spying operations in their countries, including possibly bugging Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone, are likely to dominate a meeting of EU leaders starting on Thursday.
The two-day Brussels summit, called to tackle a range of social and economic issues, will now be overshadowed by debate on how to respond to the alleged espionage by Washington against two of its closest European Union allies.
Representatives of both Merkel and French President Francois Hollande said the two would hold a one-on-one meeting ahead of the 1500 GMT start of the summit to discuss the espionage issue.
For Germany the matter is particularly sensitive. Not only does the government say it has evidence the chancellor’s personal phone was monitored, but the very idea of bugging dredges up memories of eavesdropping by the Stasi secret police in the former East Germany, where Merkel grew up.
Now, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that none of the Germans who showed up for candidate Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin back in 2008 thought that President Barack Obama would be spying on the Germans, bugging the German chancellor’s mobile phone and evoking memories of the Stasi. They probably thought that was more of a Bush Administration thing—and heck, Candidate Obama probably thought that was more of a Bush administration thing. Obama probably aimed to bring it to an end once he became president.
But here we are in 2013, and, in the eyes of many Germans and French, Barack Obama is doing a fantastic imitation of George W. Bush.
He also appears to be doing a fantastic imitation of George W. Bush in the eyes of some in the Middle East. Consider this story by David Ignatius, which discusses how the Saudi-American relationship is fraying. And consider some of the reasons why, from the Saudi perspective, the relationship with the United States has hit hard times:
What should worry the Obama administration is that Saudi concern about U.S. policy in the Middle East is shared by the four other traditional U.S. allies in the region: Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Israel. They argue (mostly privately) that Obama has shredded U.S. influence by dumping President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, backing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, opposing the coup that toppled Morsi, vacillating in its Syria policy, and now embarking on negotiations with Iran — all without consulting close Arab allies.
Yes, realists are probably a bit confounded by the Obama Administration’s policy on Egypt; we might have expected the Obama Administration to have backed Hosni Mubarak more strongly, and to lend at least tacit support to the coup that ousted Morsi. Supporting Mubarak and opposing the Muslim Brotherhood have traditionally been in line with the thrust of American policy vis à vis Egypt. But note the “without consulting close Arab allies” bit of the excerpt above. That sounds an awful lot like . . .unilateralism. And am I dreaming, or didn’t Candidate Obama tell us that he would end unilateralism, work more closely with our friends and allies, and make America more liked around the world?
I could, in fact, swear that he told us just that. And it’s not happening when it comes to Saudi Arabia.
Clearly, American policymakers–including those that remain in the government regardless of which party is in charge of the White House–have determined that a robust national security state and pronounced displays of unilateralism are in the interests of the United States. Whether they are right or wrong to think so is beside the point; what is important is that these particular policies transcend partisanship and ideology, and are practiced with roughly equal enthusiasm by both Democratic and Republican presidents. And this confirms just about everything that realists have said about the conduct of foreign policy.
The people who have to be really, enthusiastically ticked off about this entire state of affairs are Obama supporters. They voted for their man thinking that he would bring Change We Can Believe In to foreign policy just as surely as he would bring it to domestic policy. Somewhat inconsistently, some members of the Obama Fan Club also maintain that they are realists and that the 44th president is as well. I don’t quite see how this latter group have kept from having their heads explode over the past five years.Published in General
Good post. I agree, it’s remarkable that Obama’s supporters are able to overcome the inconsistencies between his words and his actions. Just yesterday, Ann Althouse was writing about how, looking back now at what candidate Obama said in 2007/2008, she feels duped. Some Obama supporters, or people who, like Althouse, voted for him, are now realizing what a charlatan he has always been. It’s frustrating, because I, and I’m sure many other people here at Ricochet, figured out way back in 2007/2008 what a mountebank he was. Oh, well.
Albert, did she say that if she knew then what she knows now she would’ve voted for McCain or Romney?
“Albert, did she say that if she knew then what she knows now she would’ve voted for McCain or Romney?”. Of course not. Furthermore, most Obama supporters are so invested in their guy that they would deny all the points made by Pejman. On what basis, I can’t imagine. My mind just doesn’t work that way.
I’m pretty sure that Althouse voted for Romney in 2012. It certainly seemed like she was leaning that way. She’d probably claim that given what she knew at the time her vote for Obama in 2008 was the right thing. She has this thing about being “clear headed” and “analytic.” And yet, now she’s all like, “wow, I got duped.”
In my view the truly catastrophic one is the handling of all of the issues relating to the 5 key allies we have in the Middle East. We have a 100% failure rate with the Saudis + the insult of insufficient consultation. How difficult is it to pick up the phone or send someone to explain/Listen energetically every 2-3 months? As a result, we may well be put in a position of losing the most important piece of our reserve currency extraordinary privilege, the Petro Dollar. The alternative is rapidly becoming war for oil/dollar. Any way you look at it, it is a disaster with no cover except the media. While the media may provide domestic coverage, in real terms the country is significantly damaged.
I keep asking myself: tsunami of hubris? Astounding incompetence? Malicious intent? Combination of all?
Or perhaps they’re all for being multilateral, just not with the same partners.
First the Egyptians realize what BHO is. Now the Saudis get it. I think what is going on over Merkel’s cell phone is more related to our Greece like economic behavior that anything else.
All over the world they have had it with BHO. The American LIV is Barry’s last stand.