The Washington Post writes today about the limits of Obama's biography in foreign policy. The paper's story notes that Obama talked extensively about his biography and personal experiences in Asia, then asks:
But is his biography-as-diplomacy approach beginning to show its limits?
Obama does not fly home with any big breakthroughs or any evidence that he has forged stronger personal ties with regional leaders. Even at the ground level, there was no Asian equivalent of the Cairo speech -- when he spoke to the Muslim world in the summer, invoking his father's Islamic heritage.
During the presidential campaign, Obama's narrative helped catapult him into the Oval Office as a leader who could bridge racial and regional divides. Since becoming president, he has used that message to greatest effect abroad -- talking about his African roots in Ghana and infusing remarks about race relations in Latin America with his own experience, among other examples.
At home, critics have accused him of being self-indulgent by viewing the world through such a personal lens. The question that may soon follow, however, is whether his "only in America" tale will yield the cooperation he seeks from foreign leaders, rather than just popular goodwill and curiosity.
Fair questions, and ones about which own Leon Wieseltier has been frustrated for some time. I sympathize here, but it's also important to differentiate between two points.
The first point is that a wide gap exists between the expectations and the reality of what Obama has delivered. It's true that Obama mania blinded sensible people to some long-entrenched limits of domestic and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton was on to something when she cracked wise about those celestial choirs.
But that complaint is often blurred together with another one, which blames Obama personally for a lack of tangible U.S. foreign policy achievements since January. His empty-handed departure from China is a good case study. Okay, he didn't achieve breakthroughs on global warming and Iran sanctions. But you just can't snap your fingers and win concessions from a nation with enormous financial leverage over us. Sure, Obama soft-peddled human rights while there. But while you can argue with that calculation, it's a matter of strategy that has little to do with the beef about his biography-centric foreign policy. I would like to see someone credibly argue that a President McCain or President (Hillary) Clinton or President Romney would have come home with a bagful of "deliverable" goodies. (The same goes for Arab and Israeli leaders deadlocked on the peace process.) It's not Obama's fault that America's global power is at a low ebb. And while repairing it will take a lot more than charm, a little charm doesn't actually hurt. As David Axelrod told the Post, "One of his strengths on the world stage is that he is breaking down the sense that America and America's leaders don't have any understanding of or identification with the rest of the world." Better than the alternative, right?
So, give the man some more time. Obama has major decisions ahead on issues over which he has more control: Afghanistan, Iran, and where he will finally draw the line on Israeli settlement policy. Judge him by those landmarks, not the hollow staged diplomacy of the past few days.
Follow me on Twitter: @crowleytnr
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (17)
It might help if he stopped peddling the Chinese financial leverage myth. Let's just ignore the fact that the Chinese have no choice but to hold those foreign reserves if they want to keep their currency fixed to the dollar.
If the Chinese exercise their leverage, dump all of their dollars, what happens? The dollars price falls, and interest rates rise? But, this same administration wants the dollars price to fall, I mean they talk about it all the time, they want to boost exports. That can't happen without a dollar drop.
Interest rates rise. The Federal Reserve has the power to set interest rates, including long term rates, which it has been doing by purchasing longer term bonds on the m ... view full comment
It might help if he stopped peddling the Chinese financial leverage myth. Let's just ignore the fact that the Chinese have no choice but to hold those foreign reserves if they want to keep their currency fixed to the dollar.
If the Chinese exercise their leverage, dump all of their dollars, what happens? The dollars price falls, and interest rates rise? But, this same administration wants the dollars price to fall, I mean they talk about it all the time, they want to boost exports. That can't happen without a dollar drop.
Interest rates rise. The Federal Reserve has the power to set interest rates, including long term rates, which it has been doing by purchasing longer term bonds on the market, why couldn't it do this some more?
Yeah, China has enormous financial leverage over us in the same way Britain has enormous military advantage over us: they could theoretically hurt us via MAD, but there's no plausible scenario where they do so.
Yeah, China has enormous financial leverage over us in the same way Britain has enormous military advantage over us: they could theoretically hurt us via MAD, but there's no plausible scenario where they do so.
Err, that should read "enormous military *leverage*" not "advantage"
Err, that should read "enormous military *leverage*" not "advantage"
Thanks, Mr. Crowley. When I read the Wieseltier post early this morning I thought I was reading something in the Weekly Standard, not TNR. I know TNR has its share of neocons, which doesn't discourage me from reading it, but Wieseltier's post went over the top, saying Obama would be a communist sympathizer but for the fact that "there is no longer any communism". Maybe Sully is right about Wieseltier!
Thanks, Mr. Crowley. When I read the Wieseltier post early this morning I thought I was reading something in the Weekly Standard, not TNR. I know TNR has its share of neocons, which doesn't discourage me from reading it, but Wieseltier's post went over the top, saying Obama would be a communist sympathizer but for the fact that "there is no longer any communism". Maybe Sully is right about Wieseltier!
Raylward, please remind me what it is between Sullivan and Wieseltier? They really go after one another in their respective musings, but it seems something like the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, or maybe the Lilliputian wars over which end of the egg to break. I mean, Sullivan wasn't the editor anymore when Stephen Glass was on the scene, so he can't be accused of that journalistic malpractice?
Raylward, please remind me what it is between Sullivan and Wieseltier? They really go after one another in their respective musings, but it seems something like the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, or maybe the Lilliputian wars over which end of the egg to break. I mean, Sullivan wasn't the editor anymore when Stephen Glass was on the scene, so he can't be accused of that journalistic malpractice?
This reads a bit like a disappointed parent trying to make excuses for a child who is failing in school. "It's not his/her fault." "He really is a good kid." "Just give him/her some more time."
Nothing wrong with any of this, I guess, but at the end of the day, he is still the President and even if nothing is his "fault" it is still his responsibility. You can rationalize that he needs more time, but how much more? Seems to me that the "give him more time" mantra has a shelf life.
This reads a bit like a disappointed parent trying to make excuses for a child who is failing in school. "It's not his/her fault." "He really is a good kid." "Just give him/her some more time."
Nothing wrong with any of this, I guess, but at the end of the day, he is still the President and even if nothing is his "fault" it is still his responsibility. You can rationalize that he needs more time, but how much more? Seems to me that the "give him more time" mantra has a shelf life.
acria, simon, sorry but I disagree, you seem to view this as an either/or option, but the Chinese have a lot more options than holding onto or dumping US securities. China is looking to move towards fixing their currency to a basket of currencies, instead of just the US dollar, with a certain percentage based on the dollar, on the eurodollar, and the yen, what percentages will have an impact on the dollar. beyond that, what do you all think China is planning on doing with all those dollars? They are using them to secure mineral rights in Africa, the Middle east, etc. The interest on the debt that is flowing into China is being used to purchase oil from Sudan.
Vis a vis China, the US is in a ... view full comment
acria, simon, sorry but I disagree, you seem to view this as an either/or option, but the Chinese have a lot more options than holding onto or dumping US securities. China is looking to move towards fixing their currency to a basket of currencies, instead of just the US dollar, with a certain percentage based on the dollar, on the eurodollar, and the yen, what percentages will have an impact on the dollar. beyond that, what do you all think China is planning on doing with all those dollars? They are using them to secure mineral rights in Africa, the Middle east, etc. The interest on the debt that is flowing into China is being used to purchase oil from Sudan.
Vis a vis China, the US is in a difficult position with unforeseen outcomes no matter what the choice. From my perspective, I think he is doing a good enough job regarding Asia. North Korea has not tested anymore nukes, and on the whole the whole region is pretty stable. What can anyone expect?
I, for one, would love to see the Chinese be able to re-invest those dollars in the US, (and they actually want to) but the Republicans in Congress have put up a ton of roadblocks to prevent that from happening.
I'm mighty curious about the major foreign policy successes of the first ten months of the Bush and Clinton administrations, respectively.
Don't all shout at once, please!
I'm mighty curious about the major foreign policy successes of the first ten months of the Bush and Clinton administrations, respectively.
Don't all shout at once, please!
Irony, I don't recall Clinton and Bush running on the idea that their predecessor had ruined American relations with allies and enemies alike (Bush more guilty than Clinton on that score. No, Barack Obama was going to rebuild all our tattered relationships with our allies (did that include Israel?), and convince our enemies to at least bargain in good faith.
So far, his foreign policy has been as feckless as Carter's. Disaster may be too strong, but the trends are not going in the right direction. Iran, NKor both tell us to go to hell on a regular basis, neither the Israeli nor the Pals believe a word he says, and the Chinese seem to shaking their heads in amusement.
Irony, when France tell ... view full comment
Irony, I don't recall Clinton and Bush running on the idea that their predecessor had ruined American relations with allies and enemies alike (Bush more guilty than Clinton on that score. No, Barack Obama was going to rebuild all our tattered relationships with our allies (did that include Israel?), and convince our enemies to at least bargain in good faith.
So far, his foreign policy has been as feckless as Carter's. Disaster may be too strong, but the trends are not going in the right direction. Iran, NKor both tell us to go to hell on a regular basis, neither the Israeli nor the Pals believe a word he says, and the Chinese seem to shaking their heads in amusement.
Irony, when France tells you to get a spine, ya gotta take stock. Hope it gets better, but I note the Afghan decision (after the incoherence over whether Karzai is legitimate or not) will not be made until after the holiday. He has a number of options, which range from bad to worse. Pick one.
I don't recall that either Clinton or Bush had a predecessor that had ruined relations with allies and neutrals alike (and helped recruit a few more enemies for good measure).
I think my original question still stands, butchie, sorry.
I don't recall that either Clinton or Bush had a predecessor that had ruined relations with allies and neutrals alike (and helped recruit a few more enemies for good measure).
I think my original question still stands, butchie, sorry.
blackton: If I understand you correctly, I don't think I agree. You're saying that China has leverage because they're using their interest to invest in other things. First, US Treasury Bonds are one of the lowest-interest investments they could make, so compared to the alternatives they have *less* money to throw around. If they actually were investing in America, for example, they'd have much more interest to spend co-operating with tyrants in Africa. Second, China investing in other things doesn't really reflect any kind of leverage at all- US bond holdings represent leverage America has over China. The Fed has complete power to choose how much money China makes, or to make its holdin ... view full comment
blackton: If I understand you correctly, I don't think I agree. You're saying that China has leverage because they're using their interest to invest in other things. First, US Treasury Bonds are one of the lowest-interest investments they could make, so compared to the alternatives they have *less* money to throw around. If they actually were investing in America, for example, they'd have much more interest to spend co-operating with tyrants in Africa. Second, China investing in other things doesn't really reflect any kind of leverage at all- US bond holdings represent leverage America has over China. The Fed has complete power to choose how much money China makes, or to make its holdings completely worthless. That's why China's so desperately looking for other assets.
Simon: "The Fed has complete power to choose how much money China makes, or to make its holdings completely worthless."
I'm not an economist or a monetary expert, but this sentence leaped out at me. If this is true, why would anyone worry? Either in a political or economic sense?
Simon: "The Fed has complete power to choose how much money China makes, or to make its holdings completely worthless."
I'm not an economist or a monetary expert, but this sentence leaped out at me. If this is true, why would anyone worry? Either in a political or economic sense?
No Irony, I'm merely judging the President on his own terms. Bush and Clinton didn't promise foreign policy success in their first 10 months. Obama's promises were very different. His predecessor was SO bad, he would have to right the listing ship of US f-p.
My criticism stands.
No Irony, I'm merely judging the President on his own terms. Bush and Clinton didn't promise foreign policy success in their first 10 months. Obama's promises were very different. His predecessor was SO bad, he would have to right the listing ship of US f-p.
My criticism stands.
Butchie, what specifically would you like to have seen Obama do differently?
Butchie, what specifically would you like to have seen Obama do differently?
I don't recall Obama promising f-p successes in the sense I think you mean, butchie, but in terms of a slow rebuilding of connections that (I believe) will stand us in good stead in the future, I'm not sure what everyone is complaining about.
I am also of the opinion that the evidence (what I can infer from events, at least, I don't have special knowledge) shows that Obama's approach to Iran has sown considerable confusion in and between the various regime circles in Teheran. I regard that as one distinct success, at least.
I don't recall Obama promising f-p successes in the sense I think you mean, butchie, but in terms of a slow rebuilding of connections that (I believe) will stand us in good stead in the future, I'm not sure what everyone is complaining about.
I am also of the opinion that the evidence (what I can infer from events, at least, I don't have special knowledge) shows that Obama's approach to Iran has sown considerable confusion in and between the various regime circles in Teheran. I regard that as one distinct success, at least.
You know butchie, I've noted that on more than one occasion you've listed the US' popularity in some countries (while specifically excluding others) as some of Bush' FP "successes".
So now that US popularity is higher than it was at any time under Bush (and substantially higher than when China was more popular than us, a highlight of 2005) in every country surveyed, I would assume that according to your own curiously selective criteria you agree that Obama has done a bang-up job so far?
You know butchie, I've noted that on more than one occasion you've listed the US' popularity in some countries (while specifically excluding others) as some of Bush' FP "successes".
So now that US popularity is higher than it was at any time under Bush (and substantially higher than when China was more popular than us, a highlight of 2005) in every country surveyed, I would assume that according to your own curiously selective criteria you agree that Obama has done a bang-up job so far?
Good point, Nari, but let's see if it lasts. Everyone wants to like Obama, and rightly so.
I believe that it was a mistake to undercut the Czechs and Poles in order to appease the Russians over missile defense. I believe it to be a mistake to single out what Israel must do (freeze settlements) while not telling the Pals what they must, resulting in Abbas refusing to negotiate until the Israelis freeze settlements, which won't happen. I believe we should have supported the Iranian opposition as we did Solidarity in the 80s.
That's not everything, but it's only been 10 months today.
Irony, what connections were severed and which are starting to be rebuilt?
Good point, Nari, but let's see if it lasts. Everyone wants to like Obama, and rightly so.
I believe that it was a mistake to undercut the Czechs and Poles in order to appease the Russians over missile defense. I believe it to be a mistake to single out what Israel must do (freeze settlements) while not telling the Pals what they must, resulting in Abbas refusing to negotiate until the Israelis freeze settlements, which won't happen. I believe we should have supported the Iranian opposition as we did Solidarity in the 80s.
That's not everything, but it's only been 10 months today.
Irony, what connections were severed and which are starting to be rebuilt?