Government, History, Politics, Society, United States

Barack Obama and foreign policy

UNITED STATES

barack-obama

President Obama gave his valedictory speech on Tuesday 10 January, 2017. Despite critics, he has achieved much on foreign policy.

Intro: Critics of Mr Obama’s foreign policy also often fail to acknowledge some of the significant accomplishments the President has achieved

Barack Obama has given his farewell address as US president from McCormick Place in Chicago, the venue for his election victory speech in 2008. This is the first time in US history that a president has returned to his hometown to deliver a valedictory speech to the nation, and Mr Obama vacates office on a seven-year high approval rating of 56 per cent (according to a poll conducted by Gallup).

Traditionally, farewell addresses have represented a legacy-defining opportunity for presidents to set out their accomplishments and by articulating a vision for the future. In many cases, the outgoing head of state has focused in large part upon foreign affairs, especially in the post-war period of US international leadership. This, too, became a central point of Mr Obama’s speech.

Harry Truman, for example, used his address in 1953 to talk about the emergence of the Cold War on his watch. On his departure from presidential office he said not a day had passed which had not been dominated by the conflict between those who love freedom and those who would have us return to the days of slavery and darkness. President Truman also outlined his rationale for using atomic weapons in Japan.

George W Bush defended his foreign policy and wider national security legacy in 2009. Despite approval ratings of just 34 per cent on leaving the White House, Mr Bush included in his triumphs that Afghanistan was no longer ruled by the Taliban. He also cited changes to the US security apparatus that he said contributed to the homeland avoiding attack in the seven years after 9/11.

Referring to some of his controversial calls, including the highly contentious decision to invade Iraq, Mr Bush said that he hoped people would understand that he was willing to take tough decisions.

Mr Obama’s farewell speech has been given at a time when there is rising criticism of his administration after Russia’s successful intervention in Syria to shore up the Assad regime, and the unravelling of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which has caused angst with allies in the Asian Pacific. Critics have asserted that Washington has become significantly diminished on the world stage with weak presidential leadership responsible for the collapse of the TPP.

Others, however, will argue that this is too simplistic. For instance, while Mr Obama has not advanced his Asian “pivot” as fully as he would have hoped, it is actually President-Elect Donald Trump’s opposition to TPP that looks to have consigned the trade deal to history, not the Obama team (which has tried to cultivate it for years).

While Mr Obama has made multiple mistakes in the Middle East, his strategically political decision to downsize the US presence in the region was taken in the context of the mandate he perceived himself to have won after his election victory in 2008 – when a war-weary nation seemed to endorse his call that the Iraq conflict had been a costly mistake, and that the United States was militarily overstretched during the Bush presidency.

Critiques of the Obama doctrine on foreign policy also tend to omit that, whilst the United States is still regarded as the most powerful country in the world – certainly in a military sense – it is not by any means an all-powerful hegemonic power. This core fact has been demonstrated recently in Ukraine and Libya, but was also true of America following Somalia in 1993 and of Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

Current geopolitical fault lines – where there are no easy, quick fix ways for the U.S. to enforce its policy preferences – are wide and varied. They include tensions with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea; the nuclear stand-off in the Korean peninsula that may yet intensify following impeachment proceedings of South Korea’s president; continuing instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya; the bleak prospects facing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and terrorism remaining a significant international concern a decade and a half after 9/11.

Critics of Mr Obama’s foreign policy also often fail to acknowledge some of the significant accomplishments the President has achieved, particularly given the backdrop of the high-risk political and economic landscape in which he has operated. One big positive, for instance, was the leadership taken by the United States in tackling global warming. Mr Obama’s efforts led to the climate change deal agreed in Paris in 2015 which was signed by more than 170 countries. Crucially, the deal will form the basis of a new post-Kyoto framework, essential if global warming is to be properly tackled. The Paris agreement was ratified and came into effect last November.

Another example is the 2014 nuclear deal with Iran and six other powers. The agreement, which Mr Trump has criticised, could enhance global nuclear security, as well as constituting an important win for longstanding efforts to combat nuclear non-proliferation.

Despite the incoming president’s rhetoric, there are many senior Republicans on Capitol Hill, including the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who openly recognise the benefits the nuclear deal with Iran will bring. They are calling for it to be more strictly enforced, rather than being scrapped.

The resetting of relations with Cuba was also instigated on Mr Obama’s watch. In December 2014, the two countries announced they would restore diplomatic relations, and Mr Obama became the first US president to visit the country in 90 years. He announced a new suite of measures that further eroded the bilateral sanctions regime introduced during the Cold War era. The President-Elect has threatened to reverse all progress that has been made with Cuba.

In his speech on exiting the White House, Mr Obama robustly defended his foreign policy record at a time of growing unease and criticism. The outgoing president has achieved significant accomplishments, but, he knows much of his legacy now risks being rolled back. Mr Trump will have a very different vision and agenda to how he sees America shaping the world order.

Standard
Donald Trump, Government, Politics, Society, United States

The 58th presidency of the United States looms

UNITED STATES

donald-trump

President-elect Donald Trump will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017, at the United States Capitol.

Intro: Donald Trump now needs to be presidential. From January 20, what he says and how he acts will soon no longer be a preamble or rehearsal in garnering support.

DONALD TRUMP made some extraordinary pronouncements during the U.S. election campaign. Alongside his current Twitter feed, one which gives insight into his thinking and intentions, Americans will be awaiting his anointment as president with a mounting sense of either delight or dread.

The Trump show will shortly begin. As the most powerful man in the world he will be under the spotlight as never before, holding centre stage, with everyone watching. From January 20, what he says and how he acts will soon no longer be a preamble or rehearsal in garnering support.

Following the announcement in November of his election victory, the president-elect gave a surprising reaction after meeting the man he will replace at the White House.

He spoke of his “great respect” for Mr Obama and said he very much looked forward to taking his counsel in the future.

Fine words, and we should hope they are true. Mr Trump would do well, too, to pay equal deference to the US’s top intelligence officials who have briefed him over Russia’s interference in the presidential election.

Many observers, not just in America, but elsewhere, will have reacted with dismay and disbelief to Mr Trump’s previous attempts to rubbish the case as a political witch hunt by people smarting from being “beaten very badly” in the election. If this is a sign to come, Mr Trump needs to battle against his own instincts.

Being president is entirely different from being a presidential candidate, when the objective – as we have clearly seen – is to discredit your opponents and come out on top.

The Oval Office is all about nurturing allies and building alliances. Whilst the Republicans will hold more of the cards than the Democrats did under the current administration, a position in which Mr Trump is likely to get all his policies enacted, he will soon find out that no one person can do it all.

The new White House communications director Sean Spicer has pledged that the incoming president will listen to intelligence briefings with a “100 per cent” open mind. We trust that will be the case. Mr Spicer implicitly stated that Donald Trump would be prepared to listen and understand how the intelligence services reached their conclusions. He also stressed that a rush to judgment was not in the US’s best interest.

Many will hope that the president-to-be will also take that counsel. Standing up against the establishment and the political machine during the election campaign is one thing, which might win a few votes from the disaffected; but, as president – or more importantly commander in chief – Mr Trump is going to have to work with these people.

Trust will need to go both ways. Otherwise the world will undoubtedly become a more dangerous place.

There have already been many questions over Mr Trump’s relationship with Russia, no more so than the business interests he and other members of his government have there. There is expectation that Mr Trump will do things no previous president has done.

But, he must also understand there are things he has to do and ways he has to act. Mr Trump will have many advisers, though many will wonder whether he can take their advice on important matters of the state.

As global insecurity increases, Mr Trump cannot be allowed to be a loose cannon.

Standard
Arts, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Technology, United States

The terrifying era of internet warfare

CYBER WARS

russian-hackers

America’s CIA says Vladimir Putin was behind Russian hackers’ bid to swing the U.S. presidential election. As the fallout continues, cyber wars are only at the infancy stage of the internet-war era.

SINCE the presidential election result was announced in November, America has become an embittered battlefield. The role of Russia in securing Donald Trump’s victory has caused fierce controversy.

The CIA, America’s intelligence agency, has asserted with “high confidence” that Kremlin-directed hackers were responsible for the revelation through Wikileaks of thousands of Democratic Party emails, derailing the Hillary Clinton campaign wagon just at a crucial moment during the election when Trump was in trouble over his misogynistic attitudes and appalling treatment of women.

In sensational developments last month, intelligence officials said that Russia’s President Putin was personally involved in the hacking campaign.

If that was not enough to spark intense unease in Western capitals, a spokesperson for President Obama launched an extraordinary attack on Mr Trump, saying that it was “obvious” he knew about the Russian interference in the election.

The President-elect dismisses as “ridiculous” the charges that the Russians helped to place him, their avowed friend, in the White House. Few even among his foes suggest that he won solely thanks to the hackers. But the 2016 U.S. election has highlighted the extraordinary influence now wielded by the internet upon every aspect of our world.

The former U.S. Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, wrote presciently in his 2014 book World Order: ‘Presidential elections are on the verge of turning into media contests between master operators of the internet . . . whose intrusiveness would have been considered only a generation ago the stuff of science fiction.’

What is most chilling, however, is the speed with which cyber conflict is now evolving.

America’s Information Operational Technology Centre was created in 1998 to spy on actual and potential enemies, corrupt their digital networks, and even by controlling their computers. Its early operations were unimpressive. During the 1999 bombing of Kosovo, its geeks made Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s telephone ring incessantly, which seems merely to have annoyed him.

Before one anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Americans took down an Al Qaeda website, blocking the planned release of a propaganda broadcast by Osama bin Laden. Afterwards, however, counter-terrorist officers bitterly protested that all that had been achieved was to alert Al Qaeda to the vulnerability of its communications.

Continue reading

Standard