Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson writes of President Obama’s new approach to diplomacy “Shared interests define Obama’s world. Wilson starts:
President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he once used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, constructing appeals to shared interests and attempting to bring the government’s conduct in line with its ideals.
Obama’s approach to the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest, has elevated America’s standing abroad and won him the Nobel Peace Prize. But on the farthest-reaching U.S. foreign policy challenges, he is struggling to translate his own popularity into American influence, even with allies that have celebrated his break from the Bush administration’s emphasis on military strength, unilateral action and personal chemistry.
Of course as a community organizer he could claim that all sides shared the same goals, but if he was organzing against a business, the business likely had self interest involved. Its goals would not have been shared with those Obama was representing, but the business likely would have preferred to cede some of its own interests rather than getting labeled as insensitive or uncaring.
We actually get some wisdom from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch:
“There’s an appropriate reaction to the crusading moralism of the Bush administration, but it sometimes goes too far in the direction of hoping that reasoned and quiet persuasion will convince cynical and self-interested authoritarian governments to change their ways,” Malinowski said.
Thought I don’t agree the first part, he has the second part exactly right..
In September, taking a tangible step to improve relations with Russia, Obama abandoned Bush-era plans to station a ballistic-missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland designed to protect the United States from Iran’s arsenal. The Russian government had for years complained that the system posed a security threat to the country, already squeezed by NATO’s expansion, in a region it has long considered part of its sphere of influence.
Obama announced a scaled-back system that he said would better protect Eastern Europe from attack. The Czech and Polish governments accepted the new plans last month, but conservatives argue that the shift only rewarded an aggressive Russian government to win its help with Iran.
“This was a clear signal that Washington is more interested in currying favor with its strategic competitors than in building or even maintaining its alliances with its traditional allies,” said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is no evidence the Obama doctrine is reaping benefits. On the contrary, the United States is increasingly viewed as weak and unreliable by some of its traditional allies.”
U.S. and Iranian officials held the highest-level talks in three decades in early October, and later that month they agreed to a plan that appeared to mark a victory for Obama’s approach.
Under the draft agreement, Iran would ship most of its low-grade nuclear fuel to Russia for further enrichment so it could be sent back to Iran later for use as medical isotopes. The deal, conceived by the Obama administration, would leave too little uranium inside Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in the short term.
But last week Iran’s government reversed course in a sign that its own domestic calculations are still exerting more influence than Obama’s brand of international diplomacy.
In other words it didn’t work.
Towards the end of an article Wilson writes:
Obama also has spoken candidly to Israel’s government, calling its West Bank settlements “illegitimate” while asking Arab nations to make a series of diplomatic and economic gestures toward the Jewish state. His call for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction — a Palestinian condition for opening peace talks — has so far been ignored.
This inaccurate. Barry Rubin writes:
In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement–often called the Oslo accord–in 1993, that’s 16 years ago–Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.
It only became a condition because President Obama made it one. Barry Rubin again:
Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out–though only indirectly–why things got even worse:
“However, Obama’s election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”
More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.
Similarly, Meryl wrote:
But if you look at those words, and the words of Obama’s Cairo speech, there is a cognitive dissonance that explains why the Palestinians continue to use the lack of a freeze as a reason to halt negotiations. Because the Obama administration opened the door for it use. And the Palestinians have never, ever not used an excuse to refuse to negotiate with Israel.
Later on Barry Rubin observes in regard to events in the Middle East:
And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.
It is quite probable–and this is extremely important to understand–that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.
After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.
How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?
If the conclusion of Wilson’s article is any indication, not at all.
“Our interests are the same with our allies and our adversaries,” Rhodes said. “We’re saying the same thing to everybody. Our interests are the same no matter what country we’re talking to.”
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
