 |
| A Peruvian shaman perfromed a ritual of predictions for the new year in front of a picture of President-elect Barack Obama
in Lima, Peru. Enrique Castro-Mendivil /Reuters |
Great expectations for Obama abroad
Team Obama is more pragmatic and less ideological than its predecessors, say diplomats and campaign advisers. Afghanistan will be a foreign-policy priority.
from the January 5, 2009 edition
Page 2 of 3
Can we expect dramatic, immediate changes?
Probably not. The Obama honeymoon allows versatility and leverage. But for at least two years under President Bush, changes have been under way and US policies revised. The US did eventually negotiate with North Korea and sent an envoy to Iran, both part of President Bush's "axis of evil." The mutual disdain with Paris and Berlin over "old Europe" has returned to a robust exchange, with caveats on Afghanistan troops. The Bush team set the table for an Iraq drawdown. The era of neocon heavyweights like Doug Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz has given way to greater pragmatism.
In 2009, Obama's approach will likely be cautious, focusing on rebuilding, attempting what Strobe Talbott at the Brookings Institution in Washington calls the "art of the possible" – doing significant symbolic things: Closing the Guantánamo Bay detention center and stopping torture; grass-roots diplomatic "listening"; participating enthusiastically in the global climate change conference next November in Copenhagen, Denmark, and finding apt messages for the Muslim world.
But the few clues offered so far suggest that Job 1 in Year 1 will be Iraq, Afghanistan, and the financial crisis.
What are Obama's key international concerns?
The list is long. Obama told Time magazine that nuclear proliferation keeps him up at night. But in the 21st century that means less concern about mutual destruction of nations, and more about rogue weapons.
Also high on the list: working with a nationalist Russia that could challenge Western ideas of progress; a China more connected with the US and open, but energy hungry and not transparent. (Beijing traditionally prefers Republicans.) Then, there are transnational terror cells; food and energy costs for already strapped nations in developing regions; and the Middle East.
Two issues loom, at this point: an Israeli-Hamas cease-fire, and fears in Israel over a growing pile of low-level plutonium in Iran that can be reprocessed into weapons. But Afghanistan is the immediate matter. By some estimates, the Taliban control 75 percent of the country now. The next White House does not want Afghanistan to be "Obama's quagmire." Mishandled, the result could be a fractured Pakistan, a war between Pakistan and India, as well as damage to the NATO alliance and European relations. Obama's national security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, will be a key player. In a World Security Network interview in February, he outlined a five-point plan, starting with stopping narcotics funding for the insurgency, called for a regional solution, and said that a military answer alone isn't adequate.
What specifics are known about the incoming Obama team strategy?
Actually, very little. After Nov. 4, Team Obama went into a near blackout on foreign-policy information. The team has moved faster on appointments than either Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's. The plan is to hit the ground running, but the tight-lipped, disciplined approach so far has "amazed" one campaign adviser and "impressed" a well-connected foreign diplomat. "If you talk, you don't get a job," says one former high-level Clinton administration diplomat. By late January, when more of the foreign-policy team is announced, a clearer picture may emerge. Some press reports suggest splits already between realist and idealist camps – between a Defense chief Robert Gates and General Jones wing, and a Susan Rice-Tony Lake wing that wants more attention on Darfur and human rights. But some diplomats warn this is speculation.
Watch Mr. Gates's trip to the Munich Security summit, in February. It is likely to suggest how Obama wants to deal with Russia, NATO in Afghanistan, the status of Georgia and Ukraine. There's talk of a new security architecture for Europe – which would include the concerns Poland and the Baltics have about Moscow.
RSS feed
