April 9th, 2009
After his first extensive overseas trip, President Obama left a largely positive impression on the international community. The media debate has mostly focused on the level and extent of success. From a broad strategic perspective, President Obama is heading in the right direction though legitimate debate can be had on some tactics. From a long-term substantive perspective, time will tell if the trip was a success since concrete results can only materialize gradually.
Differences with allies, partners and competitors will remain but it is also important to focus on points of convergence in light of global realities. The use of constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues of divergence is essential since it will permit for more positive engagement during negotiations. Attempting to tackle the issues in an environment where public animosity prevails will unnecessarily complicate existing challenges. Making a difficult situation even more difficult is simply pointless.
Much of President Obama's trip was about setting the stage for future initiatives and building a substantive rapport, including personal and rhetorical, with foreign leaders and the international community. For European allies, this means improving and restoring the transatlantic alliance without forgetting that the dynamics have dramatically changed in recent years. It can no longer be business as usual. For China and India, it largely means continuity while increasing collaboration and cooperation on issues of common interest and beyond. For Russia, this means trying to begin a new, improved relationship. Although Russian President Medvedev enjoyed a positive meeting with President Obama, Mr. Putin's input looms large in the background.
At the G-20 meeting in London, President Obama did not get all he wanted. In leading up to the conference, he became clearly aware of this. Considerable commitments were made on paper as expressed in the communiqué. Whether such commitments are maintained remains the outstanding question. Leaders at the November 2008 G-20 meeting in Washington, DC, unequivocally rejected the use of protectionist policies in dealing with the global crisis. Yet the overwhelming majority of the G-20 countries have engaged in protectionism in recent months and have not lived up to previously agreed commitments. Increased protectionist conduct in leading up to the next G-20 meeting in New York in late September should not be surprising. However, it will represent a significant achievement if G-20 countries deliver the desperately needed financial support to the International Monetary Fund to alleviate difficulties in the developing world.
NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg provided President Obama with the opportunity to reach out to allies, particularly on Afghanistan, but many believe he was short-changed. Although 5,000 additional troops will help security for Afghanistan's August 20th election, it does not meet the level of long-term support needed. In fact, more than half will be leaving after the election. To a considerable extent, the needs of President Obama's “new strategy” are too ambitious for what many NATO allies can realistically contribute. European leaders are struggling to strike a balance between domestic pressures and making the necessary contributions to demonstrate support for the international effort. Some strive just to make basic face-saving contributions and some allies have already announced withdrawal dates. At this stage, any contribution helps, but the bulk of the burden lies on America for the immediate, and long-term, future.
President Obama's speech in Prague focused on various issues but principally on creating a nuclear-free world. This remains an aspiration and unlikely to be achieved but demonstrates a commitment to arms reduction which provides a pretext to begin better relations with Russia on several fronts. Among the many critical issues, the safe and secure decommissioning of Russian weapons and thwarting rogue elements from possessing them is of supreme importance. Still, many observers saw Obama making promises he has virtually no chance of achieving.
The President's speech to the Turkish parliament was an important attempt to restore America's crucial strategic partnership with Turkey. Overcoming strained relations in recent years, principally over Iraq and other issues, is critical to the success of U.S. foreign policy on various fronts, including Europe, the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East, Central Asia and beyond. Turkish diplomacy and credibility can assist the U.S., and other allies, in resolving outstanding issues and conflicts that have endured for too long.
Furthermore, President Obama's speech represented symbolically important outreach to those of the Muslim faith around the world. The accompanying rhetoric on clarifying misconceptions was obvious but necessary. However, trying to present Turkey as a representative model for democracy in the Muslim world may be a simplistic aspiration for many American policymakers and not necessarily shared by others of the Muslim faith around the world. While Turkey can serve as an inspiration, it cannot serve as a model. The unique dynamics and historical context within which the modern Turkish republic emanated cannot be replicated. Contemporary Turkey is still evolving democratically, and the outcome of how it confronts its domestic and international challenges will determine its relationship with the U.S., its role in Europe and its status as a regional power and beyond.
Despite such challenges, Turkey's ability to confront them must not be underestimated, particularly with a young, ambitious and productive population. The reform process set out by the European Union for Turkish membership must be taken seriously. The importance lies not so much in Turkey becoming a member state of the European Union, but to become an enhanced society for its own citizens. The importance is not in following the letter of the reform process, but fully implementing its substance. After all, once the process is completed it may not be in Turkey's interests to become an EU member state. The goal is to become a better state.
Much ado was made of North Korea's missile launch and how it would test the crisis-management skills of President Obama. The reality is that North Korea is not an issue Mr. Obama can deal with single-handedly. It is a collective issue involving South Korea, Japan, China and Russia that can only be dealt with in a collective fashion. Presidents Clinton and Bush had to do so, and so will President Obama. Although the North Korean missile crashed, it travelled more than twice the distance of previous tests. This further increases the chances of a regional arms race in East Asia and underscores the need for a more aggressive collective approach.
President Obama's surprise visit to Iraq was not much of a surprise. President Bush and previous Cabinet secretaries often made visits unannounced due to obvious security reasons. Recent violence in Iraq was a reminder that the situation still remains reversible and far from certain. Mr. Obama's visit was important in pressing Iraqi leaders to accelerate the process of political reconciliation and boost morale among America's forces that they have not been forgotten just due to reduced media headlines. In emphasizing its commitment to eventual withdrawal, the Obama administration must calibrate its rhetoric so as not to embolden radical forces and creating the perception of an urgent need to withdraw regardless of circumstances on the ground. The word “responsible” must precede every reference to withdrawal from Iraq.
With mounting economic difficulties at home, a logical reaction may be for President Obama to reduce his globe-trotting and spend more time at home. However, this is underestimating how domestic difficulties are directly related to realities abroad. In fact, more presidential travels abroad should not only be expected, but more than ever are fundamentally necessary.
To view a television interview with Marco Vicenzino on the topic of this article (“Obama Abroad”), please visit The Global Strategy Project
Marco Vicenzino is director of the Global Strategy Project and a regular guest speaker and expert on global affairs at conferences around the world. He has served as strategic consultant to the World Bank and taught international law at American University. Mr. Vicenzino serves as a strategic advisor to entities seeking international expansion, particularly in the developing world. He is a graduate of Oxford University and Georgetown University Law Center. He has provided commentary for BBC, CNN, NBC Nightly News, Fox News, Al Jazeera and other media outlets worldwide. His writings have appeared in the Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, Le Figaro, Al Hayat, Folha de Sao Paulo, and many others. He can be contacted at mailto:msv@globalsp.org