Obama’s Foreign Policy: Is it a Change?
By Samier Saeed
Westminster , CA
Foreign policy was where Obama’s overused mantra of “Change” actually seemed to mean something concrete; he talked about ending torture, about rebuilding America’s soft power, and about speaking with countries with which America has no diplomatic relations. But do Obama’s policies thus far represent change?
Among the first things Obama did was issue an Executive Order closing Guantanamo Bay. The fact he actually followed through on this promise was, admittedly, rather surprising. Regardless of how one feels about the torture of terrorists, suspected terrorists, and/or people defamed by their friends so they could get some CIA money, it seems as though the Obama Administration was actually recalibrating America’s standard of legality to match the standard of legality accepted by the rest of the civilized world.
But, as many of you know, the Obama Administration is taking a somewhat contradictory stand as regards the case of Guantanamo inmate Binyam Mohamed. If you haven’t heard of the issue, here’s the important part:
The Obama Administration is refusing to disclose evidence of illegal activity (the collusion of the CIA and MI5 in the torture of British citizens) on the part of the Bush Administration. That is, to put it mildly, incredibly odd, considering that Obama was supposedly opposed to torture and criticized Bush over it. Allegedly — and this is somewhat difficult to believe — Obama himself is unaware of any evidence having anything to do with Binyam Mohamed and his torture, as the information was hidden from him by officials in his own government. The head of the organization representing Mohamed, Reprieve, sent Obama a letter pointing out that he is being denied access to information by his own subordinates. Apparently, an attached two pages outlining the evidence was blacked out so Obama couldn’t see it. Again, difficult to believe. The only definite fact which emerges from this episode is that Obama may not be as keen to part with the Bush-era policies as many thought.
Another one of Obama’s major policy moves was that of increasing the number of American troops in Afghanistan. This is also not particularly groundbreaking. Not only is it somewhat unclear whether (and how) the move will be effective, but one seeking “Change” must ask why Obama hasn’t committed the US to increased nation-building. While it is true that doing so would cost money at a time when the government is already spending nearly one trillion dollars to “stimulate” the economy, it is also true that a little bit of money can go a long way in a country like Afghanistan, especially considering that the Bush Administration limited American nation-building in that country to a minimum. Instead, the Obama Administration is hoping that the Europeans will focus on rebuilding the country while the Americans continue to fight the resurgent Taliban. Obama is also supposed to be applying increased pressure on Karzai, whose government is viewed domestically as corrupt, weak, and incompetent. While that makes some sense, it only exacerbates the problem by further weakening a weak government and giving Karzai less room to maneuver. Besides, Karzai’s control barely covers Kabul and, if the US withdraws its support, he might lose Afghanistan’s forthcoming election. To be fair, Obama might be awaiting a report from a committee chaired by Bruce Riedel, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, reviewing American policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan before formulating a more coherent, specific, and different plan. Nevertheless, he doesn’t need that report to realize that sending more troops to Afghanistan isn’t a significant departure from the Bush Administration policy and that it probably isn’t going to yield significantly different results either.
America ’s policy towards neighboring Pakistan also remains unaltered. Obama criticized Bush for supporting Musharraf, who, despite his several successes, was judged by Obama wholly on his failures and seen as nothing more than a military dictator. Fortunately for Mr. Obama, he hasn’t had to risk not supporting Pakistan’s government at a time when America needed its help, because by the time he got into office Musharraf was long gone and replaced by Asif Ali Zardari, whose questionable past Mr. Obama is committed to forgetting. And Obama has continued to use unmanned US drones launched from within Pakistan to occasionally bomb Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. These attacks have, for the most part, been huge failures. Firstly, the simple fact that the vast majority of the strikes’ victims are civilians, while terrorists are only occasional victims — and even then only in small numbers, makes it a failure. Secondly, it uselessly increases the desire of Pakistanis to quit the “War on Terror”, and of course compels the sacred few to join the traveling circus of “Jihad”. This puts pressure on the Pakistani government which is already viewed by a large segment of its citizenry as corrupt and incompetent. While American policymakers and analysts constantly express worry that Pakistan will become destabilized, and fear the country’s collapse, the US itself contributes to the scarce likelihood of such a scenario by attacking Pakistani territory. Obama could easily avoid this; all he has to do is part with a flawed Bush-era policy.
It would be wrong to forget that Obama did reach out to Iran, however. This was not only a true departure from Bush’s rather childish policy of non-engagement, but a wise move. Iran should be reintegrated into the international community, especially economically, if it is to cooperate on issues of concern to the United States. It has already shown the capability and willingness to do so in Afghanistan, and it’s reassuring to see that Obama realizes that traditional American foreign policy is not always the best way to reach traditional American goals. Now if only he would feel that way when it comes to every other foreign policy issue.
