With underway today between representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran and six powers in Geneva, a review of the Obama foreign policy thus far is in order. Though in many respects the foreign policy of this administration has been a disaster of his own making, President Obama deserves credit for tackling foreign policy issues early in his presidency. That there will be between and several major powers is a step forward. However, this will all but certainly be in the long term due in no small part to the ineptitude of the current U.S. administration.
By orchestrating what could well be the third betrayal of Poland, President Obama has thrown under the bus U.S. allies for the sake of U.S. foes. This author noted an alarmingly similar trend by the Obama administration with respect to which continues unabated, thus enhancing the misfortune of concerned. While it is true that the missile defense plan had its flaws, the Obama administration hindered U.S. credibility by eliminating a bargaining chip it held in any discussions with the government of Iran, and likely cemented further mistrust from .
With respect to Afghanistan, there has been no consistent message or signal coming from the Obama White House. Assurances from the new leader of NATO are nice, but they are meaningless if Congress, President Obama, , , and General McChrystal are all saying different things about the future role of western military forces in Afghanistan. Certainly, the recent frustrations with respect to the in Afghanistan were only enhanced by the antiwar character of Obama presidential campaign. Fortunately, President Obama has exercised rather more sound judgement in matters pertaining to Iraq.
In terms of trade, President Obama has shown an unsettling hostility to the world. His irritation of the mainland over tire imports was both unnecessary and damaging to relations between Beijing and Washington. Canada has too been given cause to worry that President Obama has no intervention of respecting existing international agreements. Nonetheless, with respect to Canada, the Obama White House has since fortunately backed down.
The by Chancellor Merkel’s governing coalition in Germany, and the latest by Britain’s unpopular Labour government demonstrate a real concern about the current trajectory of affairs in the world. Americans more than in the past are too. Perhaps this is why and continue to lead in the gubernatorial consts set for this fall in Virginia and New Jersey respectively.
In a before the United Nations this time last week, President Obama talked about his foreign policy goals. Nuclear disarmament is a stated goal of the current President of the United States as a means to foster greater peace and understanding in the world. To this end, aminst the pagentry and fanfare at the U.N. last week, President Obama a panel on the topic of disarmament. His aims are noble, but partially lacking in priority.
Nonproliferation should be the priority. If nations ignoring the norms of nuclear protocol in the world are the only ones with nuclear weapons capability, then they will have an unnecessary advantage in the world. This is why President Obama did the right thing in allowing U.S. participation in the talks in Switzerland. However, progress on disarming rogue regimes requires having clear advantages they lack. Disarming Iran and North Korea only becomes a real possibility not when the United States and Russia commit to arms reductions, but when the incentives exist for smaller countries to not develop nuclear weapons programs.
Total nuclear disarmament is a noble aim. However, pursuing this goal blindly is irresponsible. The of the Obama foreign policy will be whether it leads successfully to disarmament in the developing world, not among the industrialized states. So far, the record of success is lacking. But, as President Obama reminded the United Nations, he is only nine months into his term.
If peace among nations is the goal of the Obama administration, then the right road to take is towards greater free trade. The resulted in a commitment among those present to the of international trade negotiations. There is no better way to incentivize peace than to promote trade. Sadly, on this front number Forty-Four seems unlikely to deliver.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
- On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
- Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
- A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
- Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010