Game Changer
by Jacob Heilbrunn
It's a truism that for decades the Democratic Party has been on the defensive when it comes to foreign policy. Whether it was George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, or John Kerry, Democrats were, we're reminded again and again in the press, unable to counter the charge that they were squishes when it came to dealing with America's foes. With his speech yesterday at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, however, has begun to put an end to that tradition. Obama hasn't simply launched a broadside against Bush- administration foreign policy. He's also started to make the case for reviving American power.
This is new. Rather than allowing himself to be painted as too weak to stand up to terrorism, Obama is redefining the terms of debate that have prevailed in recent decades. His most fundamental point is that the Iraq War isn't simply a sideshow, but worse than that. It's a ruinous conflict that is inimical to America's true interests. Even the surge has been met with something of a yawn by a public that discounted any progress in Iraq several years ago. Obama thus got it exactly right when he declared, "This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the twenty-first century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."
By contrast, Obama correctly noted that the war in Afghanistan is, by any measure, going badly. Numerous press reports indicate that al-Qaeda is regrouping in the remote and barren tribal areas of Pakistan and that it poses a potent threat to Europe and the United States. As Bruce Hoffmann and Seth G. Jones sagely note in the latest issue of The National Interest, "If the United States wants to prevent a doomsday scenario from occurring, it needs to start making the stabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan a higher priority." Obama agrees. He is calling for adding as many as ten thousand troops to combat the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces lurking on the Afghan border. Obama will have to spell out his program in coming months. It's easy enough to talk about addressing nuclear proliferation, energy dependence and global warming. But what policies will he endorse? Until recently, Obama has been longer on exhortation than on specifics. That shouldn't be surprising. But his speech today marked a decisive shift from the havering that has marked his public pronouncements in the past weeks. Obama has made it abundantly clear that there is no alternative to leaving Iraq and that he is espousing this position because it would strengthen, not weaken, the United States.
His position could not be more welcome and will force Republican candidate John McCain to sharpen his own stance. McCain has, by and large, appeared to adopt the World War IV approach to terrorism championed by many neoconservatives. But at a time of economic distress and public distaste for crusades abroad, McCain's adoption of the neocon program would spell disaster for his campaign. A fiscally crippled America is hardly in a position to continue its exorbitantly expensive efforts to shape Iraq in its own image, let alone expand the conflict to Iran by bombing its nuclear facilities. McCain should reassess.
America's difficulties have hardly gone unnoticed abroad. Indeed, in a recent appearance at the Nixon Center, Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin made several analogies to America's plight and that of the British Empire. In my view, however, Rogozin was being too mild. Were the Bush administration's policies to be continued by McCain, the United States would not resemble the British Empire. Instead, it would have numerous and unsettling parallels with the Soviet Union: contempt for human rights abroad and civil liberties at home even as it professes a universalist liberation ideology, a bloated military, a crumbling economy and a sclerotic leadership that has mired its country in feckless conflict abroad. The proposed construction of anti-ballistic missile radar sites in Eastern Europe is simply the most recent and shocking sign of a superpower glutted on its past triumphs and unable, or unwilling, to recognize that it's not only heedlessly antagonizing Russia, but also becoming a reckless spendthrift, blackmailed by its putative allies for greater funding of a chimerical project.
Will Obama change all this overnight? Maybe not. But his latest speech suggests that he, not McCain, is laying out the terrain for the foreign-policy battleground in the 2008 election. Unlike George McGovern or other Democrats from yesteryear, Obama isn't flaying America for its sins. Instead, he's appealing to its best traditions to make a fresh start. Obama' s stress on restoring America's alliances, then, could not be more timely. He's trying to make it respectable to respect America's allies and neighbors. By focusing on the future rather than the past, Obama is sidestepping the sterile and old formula that force, and force alone, is the only true measure of American might.
Jacob Heilbrunn is a senior editor at The National Interest.
Back to Reality
by Nikolas Gvosdev
Both candidates talk a great deal about American leadership and multilateralism. Senator Obama, for instance, has declared, "I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America-once again-to lead."
Yet those hopeful that U.S. global leadership can be easily restored when the Bush administration leaves office received a rude wakeup call this past Saturday, when the UN Security Council failed to enact sanctions against Zimbabwe and the joint U.S.-British resolution was vetoed. This setback follows on the heels of acrimonious behind-the-scenes arguments earlier this year between the Western powers and "the rest" about what to do about Burma in the wake of the catastrophe that followed Cyclone Nargis.
It is tempting-especially since Vietnam and Libya joined Russia and China in voting against the Zimbabwe resolution-to see this as an example of the predicted clash between "the democracies" and "the autocracies." But South Africa's "nay" vote and Indonesia's abstention points to a more complicated divide-a divergence not simply between democrats and dictators but a growing chasm between the developed north and west versus the rising south and east. On a whole host of issues, from climate change to governance, a debate is playing out between "the West's" desire to universalize its norms and standards and "the rest's" wish to preserve and protect state sovereignty.
And many of the "southern democracies" are tilting more toward the rest instead of the West. India and Brazil, linked with South Africa in the IBSA forum, do seem sympathetic to Praetoria's claim that Zimbabwe is best handled as a regional matter. Earlier this year, in Yekaterinburg, New Delhi and Brasilia joined with Moscow and Beijing in endorsing a view of the international system more protective of states' rights (including, implicitly, a higher barrier for approving intervention into the internal affairs of a country) than may be the preference, certainly in Europe.
None of this impedes the possibility of a consensus position emerging-but it means that American diplomats, in the future, may need to be prepared to compromise much more than they have been prepared to do up until now. More ominously, last week's vote puts pad to the claim that when Europe and America work together, they can prevail in setting the global agenda. Yes, a decade ago, Russia and China, when faced with NATO's unity, ended up reluctantly and retroactively legitimizing the Kosovo mission. Now, they seem much more prepared to stick to their guns, even in the face of a joint Anglo-American resolution that enjoyed strong transatlantic support. So, one of the leading priorities of both presidential candidates-repairing the relationship with Europe-may still be insufficient to catapult the American agenda forward in the face of growing opposition from other rising and resurgent powers.
If there is a silver lining, it is whether the Zimbabwe vote might galvanize democracies to take collective action in implementing sanctions-and test the real-world salience of the various proposals, especially those advanced by advisors to both Senators Obama and McCain, for a "league of democracies" where the members would more consciously coordinate their foreign policies together. If Sudan is any guide, though, we may see a number of countries express their righteous indignation at the Russians and Chinese but use the deadlock in the Security Council as an excuse for their own inaction. Indeed, after its African neighbors, the United States is still a major market for Zimbabwean products.
The recent inaction in New York, and the inability of the expanded G-13 format to achieve any real consensus on climate change, makes it clear that simply changing the guard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will not be sufficient to reverse these trends. Haggling may become the order of the day in future international meetings. The next U.S. president better become much more comfortable with horse-trading if any agenda is to move forward-and this is going to require more than simple platitudes.
Nikolas Gvosdev is a senior editor at The National Interest and is joining the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are his own.
