Obama's Foreign Policy Philosophy

Senator Barack Obama's approach to foreign policy rests largely on repudiating the Bush policies of unilateralism that have "broken" American foreign policy, while embracing multilateralism, targeted American aid and, when necessary, exercising military power far more judiciously.
American power "has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence," reads a memo issued by Samantha Powers, one of Obama's advisers.
Obama intends to replace this with "effective diplomacy and muscular alliances" such as NATO, an approach designed to reflect the "change" mantra Obama's domestic campaign repeatedly invokes.
But how different are his positions from the post-World War II, pre-Bush/Cheney foreign policy outlook promoted by the American governing establishment? In short, they seem to be similar to those who created policy in the immediate post-war era, Marhsall, Acheson and Kennan. Of them, Obama said "what impresses me is not just the specifics of what they did but the approach they took to solve the problem, which is, if we have assets or tools to deal with foreign policy, we know that the most costly is the military tool, particularly in a nuclear era, so we want to apply all the other tools that are less costly."

In the Powers memo released in August 2007, Obama's staff focused on the failures of "conventional wisdom" (or, more accurately, the Bush/Cheney "wisdom") in not engaging diplomatically with one's opponents, such as Syria and Iran:
"For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:
* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary."

Certainly, this is a change from the Bush Administration's approach. But, as Obama acknowledges, an emphasis on diplomacy is not without precedent. In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) he referred to "the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests." Diplomacy obviously has been a useful tool in international relations. Perhaps what's new here is Obama's willingness to engage in diplomacy with states George Bush has marked as members of his "Axis of Evil."
Still, while embracing multilateral institutions such as NATO, Obama is clear on his willingness to use unilateral force in specific instances. In August 2007, Obama advocated such a unilateral application against Taliban and al Qaeda forces within Pakistan if the Pakitani regime was either unwilling or unable to do so itself. "Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
Next door in Afghanistan, however, NATO is present and could be a part of the effort in dealing with Pakistan's unstable northwest region. In an article in Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007 issue), Obama called for "constant cooperation and revision" with and among US allies and alliances:
NATO has made tremendous strides over the last 15 years, transforming itself from a Cold War security structure into a partnership for peace. But today, NATO's challenge in Afghanistan has exposed, as Senator Lugar has put it, "the growing discrepancy between NATO's expanding missions and its lagging capabilities." To close this gap, I will rally our NATO allies to contribute more troops to collective security operations and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization capabilities.
(Although Obama didn't cite here a major reason for the "discrepancy" referred to by Sen. Lugar--European unwillingness to do away with "caveats" that have kept their troops from combat operations in Afghanistan--he did note elsewhere "as we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts.")
In this particular context, then, Obama has articulated a unilateralist response to a situation that might warrant a broader, collective approach and it is unclear why he prefers here the former to the latter.

One of the frequent charges made against Obama is his lack of foreign policy experience. This, his critics argued, was highlighted by his decision to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists. The Wall Street Journal, following an AP story that had inaccurately quoted the Illinois senator, said "given the Senator's consistent opposition to the war in Iraq, it may seem peculiar that he should now propose invading a nuclear-armed Muslim country--all the more so since Mr. Obama let slip Thursday in an interview that as President he would rule out the use of nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance.'"
Although later clarified by the AP that Obama ruled out the use of such weapons with the words "to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan," his opponents did not refrain from raising questions about his thinking on this. Sen. Clinton said that presidents had used "nuclear deterrence to keep the peace" and rejected "blanket statements" about nuclear weapons.

Obama has called for negotiations with Iran and Syria as part of a broader effort to bring to an end the Iraq war. In an August 2007 speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, he referred disparagingly to "the diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries," and described the Bush Administration's policies as predicated on "a rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state." Presumably, he was referring here to Iraq and not Afghanistan, an invaded (albeit failed) state of which he said "I was a strong supporter of th[at] war."
Sen. Clinton, by contrast, said Obama's willingness to talk with states such as Iran, Syria and North Korea was "irresponsible and frankly naïve." But in a 2006 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations she said "direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they’re a sign of leadership," that direct talks demonstrated that "our quarrel is with their leaders, not with them" and let the world know "we are pursuing every available peaceful avenue."
As part of his diplomatic strategy, Obama in his AIPAC speech called for "the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy. This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners."
This address pre-dated the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, but "Obama claimed that the NIE vindicated his more dovish approach, which calls for greater engagement with Iran," as The Nation put it. Said Obama, "the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy."
Another major component in Obama's Middle East policy, aside from ending the Iraq war and negotiating with Iran and Syria, is working toward the "two-state solution" with Israel and the Palestinians. In his AIPAC address, he used standard phraseology in underscoring his support of Israel, such as the "strong and lasting friendship between Israel and the United States," "when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself," and the American "commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point."
Obama treads dangerous ground here, of course, given the inclination in the United States to parse every syllable on Israeli/Palestinian issues. But it seems he has chosen to take the rather traditional plank in this issue and add it to his foreign policy platform.

In his address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Obama said "in the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy. We need to deepen our knowledge of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism. A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. Some believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. Others embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care, trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War." In like fashion, though he disdains the argument for democratization that informed the first Bush term, Obama said in the NY Times article, "we have to be focused on what are the aspirations of the people in those countries. Once those aspirations are met, it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes that we want."
It's an important distinction. Where Bush flexed military muscle in a failed effort to produce westernized democracy, Obama would use the "soft power" of education, health care, trade and investment in harness with continued support for political reform.

Those advising Obama on foreign policy include former Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, Powers and others. Lake believes the international post-war institutions like the UN are "something we can live without," that "we need to rethink the premises."
Similarly, Power said she and Obama "talked a lot about the phenomenon of throwing the baby out with the bathwater," “Whoever takes over in 2009 is . . . [the] same person is going to be making a case for a wholly different approach to diplomacy and international institutions."
These comments are of a far greater scope than anything Obama has outlined so far. How, exactly, "rethink[ing] the premises" of institutions such as the UN, or Powers' "wholly different approach" might be implemented is decidedly unclear, and how far Obama would be willing to move in this direction remains to be seen.