Discussion: (0 comments)
There are no comments available.
As Barack Obama finishes up his second major foreign tour, a pattern in his
approach to foreign policy seems to be emerging. On pressing matters of obvious
importance, he has made responsible decisions that have not been far out of line
with the policies of his predecessor and current necessities. But when it comes
to seting priorities for the future, he has chosen to emphasize initiatives that
seem more appropriate to situations America faced in his college years, the late
1970s and early 1980s, than to the threats America faces today.
Candidate Obama campaigned as the man who would lead us out of Iraq.
President Obama, admitting belatedly and begrudgingly the success of George W.
Bush’s surge strategy, decided to keep large numbers of troops there for another
19 months and an unspecified number after that. Responsibly, he decided not to
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. On Afghanistan, in line with his
campaign rhetoric that this was the good war Bush was neglecting, he has decided
to send in more troops, and his envoy Richard Holbrooke has pressed the
Pakistani government to fight the Islamist terrorists too.
On Easter Week, confronted with the seizure of an American ship captain by
Somali pirates, he authorized negotiations but apparently insisted that no
ransom be paid and that the pirates not be set free. And he authorized the use
of deadly force, with the happy result that three Navy SEAL bullets killed three
pirates and the captain was set free. Some critics grumbled that he had no other
course. But I give him credit here, as on Iraq and Afghanistan, for making
responsible choices under considerable pressure.
His choice of priorities for the future is another thing. The climax of his
European trip was his speech in Prague on April 5 (don’t look for it on the
White House Web site; the latest speech text there is dated Feb. 27) on “the
future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century” in which he called for “a world
without nuclear weapons.” A noble goal, and one shared, incidentally, by Ronald
Reagan. And how did he propose to start? By negotiating a new nuclear arms
control treaty with Russia, getting the Senate to ratify the nuclear test ban
treaty, and stopping U.S. production of fissile material.
That’s all Cold War stuff. Disarmament talks with the Soviets were a central
feature of American foreign policy from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, a time
when a U.S.-U.S.S.R. nuclear war would have produced enormous destruction. But
the prospect of a U.S.-Russian nuclear war today is pretty much nil. It’s
worthwhile to continue the Nunn-Lugar program of corralling Russia’s loose
nukes–one of the few issues Obama worked on as a senator–but making
disarmament talks with Russia a first priority is a policy out of the distant
To be sure, Obama did talk about nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran,
with talk being the operative word. But he promised to defend against the
wayward states with “a missile defense system that is cost-effective and
proven”–code words indicating that he shares most Democrats’ hostility to
missile defense left over from the Cold War era when they feared it would
destabilize the U.S.-Soviet balance of terror. The real need today is a system
robust enough to repel and deter the much smaller but much likelier threats from
North Korea and Iran.
And what was Obama’s major policy announcement before embarking on his trip
to Latin America? Lifting restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. In
1961, the year Obama was born, Cuba was a central preoccupation of American
foreign policy. Today Cuba (population 11 million) is not a major problem.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration violates the North American Free Trade
Association treaty by banning trucks from Mexico (population 109 million),
refuses to ratify the free-trade agreement with Colombia (population 44
million), and, despite our need for alternative fuels, makes no move to rescind
the 54-cent tariff on sugar ethanol from Brazil (population 191 million).
Obama campaigned as the candidate of hope and change. But on pressing matters
he has, responsibly, not produced as much change as many of his supporters
expected. And in setting priorities, he seems to be heading back to the distant
past, to the disarmament debates of the 1970s and 1980s, to the frenzy over Cuba
in 1961-62. Is that the change we need?
Michael Barone is a resident fellow at AEI.
There are no comments available.
1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
© 2014 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research