Foreign policy is the process of the government of one state engaging with other states and it’s a very important field of international relations. This paper has the purpose of critically assess the foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration on his two terms in the white house. Firstly it will explain the Barack Obama doctrine; what were his plans when entering the white house; is there such thing has Obama doctrine? Does Obama have a ‘grand strategy’? Secondly, it’s important to look at Obama foreign policy and compare to his predecessor. Thirdly, with will assess accomplishments and failures of his foreign policy; and lastly, with will critically assess specific foreign policy priorities/decisions that marked Barack Obama foreign policy.
The foreign policy of Barack Obama has received criticism among the political field, most would assess his foreign-policy approach as weak’ or inefficient in some areas. When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in January 2009, ‘he was already a historic figure on the day that he entered the oval office’ . His election took place in a period that the world was facing economic crisis, Middle East in chaos, revolutions in the Arab world, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and rising China required more attention than ever. He inherited these problems, he had a lot of work to do and he would have to show that he was capable of playing foreign policy differently from Bush.
While campaigning he created this idea that he was going to bring hope and change to America. He was determined to prove to the American people that he was going to refurbish the American image domestically and abroad and also that his strategies were different from the Bush administration, in fact at that time , the American people wanted everything but Bush. Obama focused is foreign policy in ending both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and he was willing to engage in the roles of diplomacy and he also changed for a multilateralist approach opening the chance for America to engage with states, Obama recognised that the world had changed and that America was no longer at center of world affairs, these aspects where crucial and appealing to American people, which were tired of Bush doctrine characterized by wars, use of hard power and with the war on terror. The Obama concept of ‘yes we can’ was determined by creating ‘new American story’.
‘Obama doctrine ‘- ‘Pragmatist and progressive’
Political analysts can’t define the Obama doctrine in terms of foreign policy; there are two important speeches that cause difficult when trying to define what kind of foreign policy Obama has. On his speech in regards to Libya situation (Obama’s address to the nation on Libya) President Obama provided a good explanation of the American intervention with air strikes with the aim of protecting Libyan population against Qaddafi regime. The media defined this speech as a key moment in his foreign policy performance, saying that it was so far ‘the clearest explanation of an ‘Obama doctrine’ of humanitarian military intervention.’ From this point of view political analysts define the moment as’new foreign policy strategy’, different from the one practiced before this one opted for use of soft power, efficient and it marks the return of soft power. Obama was very successful in the intervention in Libya it was definitely an example of the use of smart power.
Another remarkable speech in Obama foreign policy is the speech held at Un nations general assembly ‘Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly’ ,this particular moment has an unusual importance, from this speech two points stands out: first , president Obama mentioned ‘U.s Core interests ‘ in the middles east and state that American has the right to use military force in order to de he laid out certain U.S.’Core interests’ in the Middle East and claimed the right to use military force to secure such interests; and secondly, he claim that the U.S. is an ‘exceptional’ country which therefore has exceptional rights. What is visible in this second speech is the turn of the Obama doctrine into a ‘Bush-Obama doctrine’, he resorts to the use of force just like the bush. He not only gave more ground to those who were cautioned in saying that he borrowed the bush doctrine but also contradict himself by putting united states at a unipolar stage once again.
Is there really an Obama doctrine in terms of what Obama calls ‘smart power’, that is to say a coherent approach of how president Obama responded to the global challenges, and protect/promoted American interests abroad? What instruments of power (military, economic, political, and diplomatic, etc.) has Obama used in the foreign policy area?
Obama doctrine is hard to define mainly because his performance was a mix of successes and setbacks in both mandates. There were moments that he demonstrated his strong military side, while other times he performed soft power, if one had to grade his performance, this grade would be a C.
In the book bending history , which is an assessment of Obama foreign policy, Obama is described has progressive pragmatist. He is progressive in a sense that Obama came to office brimming with optimism to turn U.S. foreign policy . He had this vision of changing America but also changing the world. Like it was mention before Obama spend a lot of time of his campaign, promoting the progressive vision ‘of multilateralist America, in a one way more humble; he accepted that the world had changed and that he had adjust to the change in the balance of power but at the same time protect the liberal international order. This side of him go him elected by the American people but what is visible now at the end of his mandate is that the majority of his goals weren’t successful like the American and world thought it would be. Perhaps President Obama had dreams for America and he didn’t realise how hard it would be translate them to reality , also the election period wasn’t the best due to economic crisis and all the changes going on at the time, his speeches is the prove of his progressive side but in action he wasn’t so progressive but just rhetoric. On the other hand Obama is considered pragmatic because he never stops looking for occasions to improve this vision but dealing with in sensitive and realistic channelled by practical experience and reflection rather than theory. Mike Indyk explains in the book that he is pragmatic because at one time he is realistic his actions and approaches but he not only adjust o events but he did the best he could to protect American interests.And what has emerged in his first three years is that there is a considerable gap between the vision and the result. But it could be argue that he protected American interested fairly well but from what he envisioned for America only few of those goals where accomplish and the rest still in ‘under construction’. What was expected from the man that won the Nobel Prize was inspirational events, and witness that ‘progressive vision’ transformed into reality. The truth is that his entire mandate is a slow progress and his doctrine undefined.
But is it true that President Barack Obama has no ‘grand strategy’? And even if it has, is that such a disaster? The George W. Bush administration, after all, developed a clear, coherent, and well-defined grand strategy after 9/11. But those attributes did not make it a good one and its implementation led to more harm than benefit.
Regardless of what political analysts think about the Obama administration grand strategy, he has a ‘grand strategy ‘. The core point of is strategy is for sure the multilateral approach, that had the intention of reducing United States commitments abroad. Obama argued that the previous administration focused too much on fighting against terrorism that forgot about other issues, it was important to restore America image abroad and like it was mentioned before the power balance has change and was important to accept that change. , restore its standing in the world, and shift burdens onto global partners. Engage with rising states was, crucial in this globalized world. Power was confronted by new actors and it was necessary to recognized the end of unipolarization of America but rather engage in partnership promoting democratic values, rather than pre- emptive war . It’s important to note that Obama didn’t gave up from the use of force at all, the controversial use of drones is a major fact in his foreign policy, it could be said that the use of drones in Pakistan and Yemen and etc in one hand reduced the number of dead of American troops abroad, saving millions of lives, the use of drones clearly marked a new way of going to war show once again remnants of the bush doctrine, onewould say that ‘Obama is, in effect, a wartime president of a peacetime country’ . At the end Obama strategy is was rhetoric elaborated, but it hasn’t been delivered in the best way.
Obama vs. bush
It’s very common to compare Obama foreign policy to the Bush doctrine. September, 11. 2001 terrorist’s attacks marked a shift in the American foreign policy. Bush doctrine, marked this change, with the concept of ‘war on terror’. Similar to Bush, Obama had no foreign policy experience, but in one side Obama embraced a much more multilateralist position than Bush – that strongly believed in a unipolar world ,where the USA was in the centre of international affairs – Obama on the other hand was focus on emphasizing global institutions and America’s role in promoting democratic values, rather than defensive war, he sought for the use of smart soft power , He was willing to engage in roles of diplomacy with rough states instead of fighting with them. Bush differently was marked but the greater use of force (hard power) unilaterally and decisively, with a highly assertive diplomatic style .The George W. Bush foreign policy doctrine was based on three principles – first, challenging radical Islamist havens abroad secondly ,building democratic institutions as a moderating influence in tyrannical states that harbour radical Islamic factions and deterrence (attacking those who intent on doing harm to us before that harm is inflicted).
Did Barak Obama accomplish is foreign policy priorities? When assessing the whole performance there is no success or failures but in an overall evaluation there are yes, efforts to accomplish his agenda priorities. His agenda was sought end both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tackle the al-Qaeda and make peace in the middle east, to offer an open hand to Iran, Reset relations with Russia as an action towards the removal nuclear weapons, build cooperation with china on both regional and global issues .
When he entered the white house he was left with two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. One of is success of foreign policy was the end of the war in Iraq. In 2011 all the US troop were fully removed and this marked the end of an expensive war, economy and in human lives. Also a new strategy was step up for Pakistan and Afghanistan. This had the purpose of defeat al Qaeda plus it would decline of the number of troops in Afghanistan by 2014.
The Asian pivot could be one Obama most important accomplishment if he carry on in this path. Obama attempted to extent his allies, and engages with the rising powers such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia. This also marked a shift of the constantly emphasis on the middle. In regards to china Obama wanted to launch ‘US-china Strategic and dialogue’ china was fairly handled as well most of Asian states. China marked an important step, economically political and in balance of power specially when in Africa china has carrying out major in investments and in one way it concerns USA. On the other hand the administrations failed when it comes to control East Asian territorial disputes and its most important ally, Japan, which continues to affront its neighbours
In regards to Russia the ‘reset ‘of the relationship it wasn’t successful especially with Russia disturbing peace in Ukraine with Putin is revisit to power. The only agreement between both nations was the strategic arms reduction treaty in 2010 which decreased nuclear arsenal by about 30 % also both of them agreed and benefit from the removal Syria’s chemical weapons.
Syria will forever remain an embarrassing moment in his foreign policy, with almost 100, 00 dead why had Obama not acted. If we compare to the situation in Libya where Obama decided to act to protect civilians in oppressed by Qadhafi regime For what reason hasn’t he intervene in Syria to protected them from Bashar al-Assad killings. It’s seen that he has no reasonable solution for the conflict and he just remains silent.
He was a major key player in the dead of al Qaeda leader Osama bin laden ordering the strike to kill him. Osama Bin Laden represented an enemy for America and his death marked a turning point. Like it was mention early in this paper the involvement in Libya was very successful in helping the population defeat Qadhafi regime with minimal casualties and economical burden.
To conclude, the Obama foreign policy despite of the claims of transformational innovations with Obama in the white house didn’t impress at all. One could say that he did the minimum to accomplish. His lack of knowledge in foreign policy could be a major factor that made in not so popular as commander-in ‘chief in regards to foreign policy. But for sure the death of Osama bin laden, removal of the troops in Iraq and the defeat of Qadhafi regime will forever remains in his doctrine. Syria could have been handled in other ways as well Russia but president Obama is better at rhetoric than in practice. In some moments Obama be hard in power and be like George W Bush and on the other hand he is able to move away from the use of force and exercise ‘soft power’ to solve problems such as the situation in Libya. Perhaps if Obama had another mandate, it would be possible to see some serious accomplishments in foreign policy.