Obama’s Foreign Policy One Year Later

By Judy Somberg

If there was much to be excited about during Obama’s campaign for the presidency, it was certainly not because of his articulated foreign policy views.  Although he said the Iraq war was a mistake and that he would withdraw US troops as soon as possible, he was clear that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan.  Obama was going to continue what Bush had called “fighting terrorism,” but he was sharpening the terminology and speaking of the particular groups the U.S. would be targeting. Nonetheless, many of us hoped – and somehow believed – that there would be a new approach to foreign policy, a relinquishment of the belief that the US was entitled to be the sole arbiter and enforcer of justice in the world.  Would the U.S. begin to work multilaterally with other countries?   Within the UN?  Would it begin to look to international law and human rights law instead of corporate interests as a basis for our foreign policy?

The high point of our short-lived hopes for Obama was perhaps his June speech in Egypt, where he spoke of respect for the Muslim world and did seem to be articulating a desire to end hostilities and to adopt a multilateral approach to regional conflicts.  Obama had raised hopes for the people in Latin America with his speech at the Summit of the Americas in April 2009 when he said the U.S. would seek an “equal partnership” and begin “engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values.”  This took place shortly after Obama had eased restrictions on Cuban Americans’ ability to travel and to send remittances back home.  Then, in June, the US yielded to demands for Cuba’s readmission to the OAS after a 47-year suspension.  There seemed to be some real action to back up the noble orations that Obama was known for.

But by October 9, when it was announced that Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, many people had already become disaffected. There was a general feeling of “How could this be?”, since Obama had proven himself to be a president of war, not of peace.  And if any hope remained it was certainly dashed by his Nobel speech on December 10, when he articulated clearly his defense of war and was lauded by many leading conservatives.

Hopes for a rapid de-escalation of the war in Iraq proved futile with the announcement in February that U.S. combat troops would be withdrawn slowly over the next 18 months. At the same time the troop buildup in Afghanistan was increasing rapidly.  Just nine days before his Nobel speech, Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. And missile strikes in Pakistan, carried out via unmanned drones, caused hundreds of deaths of civilians and unknown numbers of new recruits to join the anti-American insurgents.  What exactly are our foreign policy goals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Will fighting “terrorism” help the people of the region, lead to democratic governments, or make Americans safer? And now it appears that Yemen may be the next country where our harsh and ineffective interventions are likely to lead to an increase rather than a decrease in anti-US attacks.

Obama’s policy in Israel/ Palestine began with some promise. In his first days in office, Obama signaled his intention to make rapid progress toward achieving peace with high-profile phone calls to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He quickly appointed former Senator George Mitchell to be Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.  Obama followed these initial moves by demanding that Israel stop all new settlement activity.  But he soon backed off when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for only a partial freeze on settlement building and by his actions made clear that he had no intention of negotiating a peace in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, in Gaza, the U.S.. took no action to ease the plight of the 1.5 million Palestinians living there in horrendous conditions, almost totally cut off from food, medicines, and building supplies. Now, Obama refuses to acknowledge the validity of the Goldstone Report.

What about Iran? Obama seems to be engaging in serious diplomacy to reach our stated goal of keeping Iran from developing and using nuclear weapons. But how can that goal be met when the U.S. is unwilling to reaffirm and seriously carry out its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and when it won’t challenge Israel – a known nuclear power – about its refusal to sign?

Perhaps the biggest disappointment has been Obama’s policy toward Latin America. Here, real opportunities exist for working alongside the countries with oil and other natural resources we so desire –– or for that matter, with all countries — rather than continuing our typical demonization with false claims of human rights violations to soften up the American public for possible military and economic intervention.  If there are any questions about whether this is our tactic, consider the fact that we choose to ignore the human rights records of our “allies”, for example, Colombia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.  And when a real opportunity came along for Obama to refuse to accept the overthrow of a democratically elected government – in Honduras – Obama instead threw away the opportunity after making small, ineffective gestures to reinstate the democratic government.

It’s true that there are reformers in the Obama government who are trying to change our foreign policy.  There have been some appointments of more progressive voices and some decent appointments held up in Congress. But with foreign policy very much established by the president, we can and should expect much more.

The April issue of Mass Dissent will be devoted to foreign policy issues, and that will be a chance to explore this topic in greater depth.  Please contact us if you are interested in writing an article.

Judy Somberg, a Cambridge solo-practitioner, is a member of the NLG International Committee and serves on the Chapter Board.