Much disillusionment with Obama is born of unrealistic expectations, writes DENIS STAUNTONForeign Editor
WITHIN six months of taking office, Barack Obama had already restored Washington’s image around the world to the levels it enjoyed before George Bush moved into the White House in 2001. A Pew Global Attitudes survey published in July found favourability ratings for the United States soaring almost everywhere but especially in western Europe, east Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
The change was most dramatic in Europe, where in 2008 only 13 per cent of people in France and 14 per cent in Germany expressed confidence in Bush.
In July more than nine out of 10 people in both countries said they believed Obama would do the right thing. However, by December, when the president accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, many of his admirers in the US and abroad were disillusioned, complaining he had not effected the dramatic change in US foreign policy they had expected.
The Nobel speech, an eloquent defence of war as an instrument for the promotion of peace and justice, was itself viewed as an affront by many. Others were outraged by Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan and his pressure on allies to follow suit.
By the end of the president’s first year, his critics pointed out, there were more US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combined than during most of the Bush years. The president’s efforts to promote a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians appeared to have stalled; his outstretched hand to Iran had brought no apparent dividends; North Korea continued to defy the international community; and the January 2010 deadline to close the detention centre at Guantánamo Bay looked increasingly implausible.
Much of the disappointment is born of unrealistic expectations before Obama took office. Anyone who listened to him closely on the campaign trail knew that, although he opposed the war in Iraq, he was determined to escalate the US military effort in Afghanistan, even tacking to the right of Hillary Clinton by endorsing unilateral US attacks on militants inside Pakistan.
On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama elevates Israeli national security above most other policy goals in the region.
Crucially, the global challenges Obama faced on taking office were years in the making and no single action or gesture was likely to resolve them. Besides, as Obama has said repeatedly, the greatest challenges cannot be addressed by US action alone and one of his first tasks has been to restore trust in Washington as a partner for multilateral action.
In fact, Obama’s shift of tone and his early efforts to reshape US foreign policy have already borne fruit, notably in US relations with China and Russia. American commentators criticised the president for taking a modest, non-confrontational approach during his recent trip to Beijing but the visit was followed by China’s announcement of a target for controlling greenhouse gases and Chinese support for an International Atomic Energy Agency vote to censure Iran.
Moscow has also shown a greater willingness to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and Obama’s decision to cancel a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic helped to restart nuclear non-proliferation talks with Russia.
Even in the Middle East, he has made some progress, persuading Israel’s right-wing prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to publicly embrace for the first time a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Washington’s engagement has also helped to shift Middle East policy within the EU, as the union’s recent, explicit call for Jerusalem to be shared as the capital of two states showed.
The appointment of Catherine Ashton as the EU’s high representative for foreign policy was met with near-universal derision but that choice may prove less significant than the establishment next year of a new European External Action Service. This diplomatic service will not only enhance the union’s representation around the world but could be an essential resource for developing a common EU foreign policy. A more coherent EU approach could reinforce Obama’s diplomatic efforts where there is agreement on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, as Philip Gordon, top US state department official with responsibility for western Europe, said recently, the administration doesn’t expect always to see eye to eye with its European friends.
“We want to see a strong and united Europe, speaking with one voice. In the best of all possible worlds, that one voice will be saying what we want to hear,” he said. “If it is not . . . then we would rather that voice was less united.”