Barack Obama & US Foreign Policy

 Introduction

The historic election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States represents an opportunity to shift from the unsettled and controversial policies that marked President George W. Bush’s stewardship of US foreign policy. There is a near universal perception that Obama’s message of hope and optimism will supplant the politics of fear that governed US foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. However, a question begs: How does hope translate in international affairs? Additionally, how do we characterize the evolution of Barack Obama’s knowledge of US foreign policy? Significantly, has that evolution brought him to a point whereby he can manage the diverse set of foreign policy issues that confront the new president during a period of war? The opening portion of this introduction provides the reader with a brief review of Obama’s foreign policy evolution, followed by the strengths and weakness that emerged after the conclusion of the presidential election. Finally, the introduction concludes with an assessment of the issues that demonstrate the opportunities for a change in the direction of US foreign policy, and a separate set of issues, that if mishandled, that could produce a presidential tenure marked by disaster.  

Obama’s Evolution In Foreign Policy Knowledge

On numerous occasions throughout the presidential campaign, much like on the domestic front, Obama’s magical oratory skills symbolized his intensions to reorient US foreign policy formerly guided by a unilateralist impulse to one governed by liberal internationalist traditions. Implicit in most of his foreign policy addresses concerned the need for hope and an accompanying word: optimism. In the candidates’ address to The Chicago Council on Global Affairs on April 27, 2007 Obama observed that as the world’s singular great power, how we lead is a critical barometer in determining the world’s respect for the United States: “Many around the world are disappointed with our actions. And many in our own country have come to doubt either our wisdom or our capacity to shape events beyond our borders. Some have even suggested that America’s time has passed.”  In a sweeping and declarative statement Obama made it clear that a new era is US foreign policy is emerging.

So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free the world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.    

   For the Obama campaign the speech had another consequence. That is for the media, and among elements of the Democratic Party establishment, a question swirled quietly in the background: could Obama manage the always difficult and fluid demands of foreign policy where issues are often shaped by rouge states and transnational entities. In the view of senior foreign advisors within the Obama campaign the answer was a resounding yes. To deal with the remaining detractors the campaign planned future addresses. 

In a clear demonstration of his self confidence, Obama ventured into the Aberdeen proving grounds of American foreign policy: he penning an article in Foreign Affairs. Senator Obama used the journal to further illustrate his competence in foreign policy. The subject of Obama’s essay was “Renewing American Leadership.” In what the campaign viewed as the most authoritative statement that identified Obama’s objective of changing the course of US leadership, the senator offered these words:   

Today we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century’s threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts. To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century—a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. 

This statement is very much consistent with words used in Barack Obama’s domestic speeches: he tells a story. Unlike his Chicago address, Senator Obama’s foreign policy article induced criticism from liberal and conservative quarters. On the left, in a piquant critique of the article Amitai Etzioni observed the senator’s essay proved to be “vacuous.” Moreover, according to Etzioni, “Obama’s favorite term, repeated ad nauseum, ad infinitum, is vision. What we need, the Senator writes, is “vision.” What we need is a “visionary leadership” and “a new vision of leadership.” This is, of course, all too true but also tells us very little as to which vision of foreign policy this new leader would ask us to follow.”

  As one would expect the Republicans were dismissive of Obama’s