The Obama speech: idealist or realist?
How should America respond to what's been happening in the Arab world? Or, to use President Obama's words in his major Middle East policy last night, how should it respond "in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security"?
Well, let's take "advancing values" first. Support people demanding self-determination? Yes. Demand that tyrants stand down? Yes again. Press for freedom of expression, and of religion? Ditto. Oppose violence and repression? Of course.
So, how about "strengthening security"? This is where it gets a bit trickier. "We must acknowledge," said Mr Obama, "that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of [US security] interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind."
And he repeated what he said in his Cairo speech two years ago: "We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals."
Which may be an admirable sentiment in theory, but can be rather more difficult to put into practice. (Is it, for example, why there was not a single reference to Saudi Arabia in the entire speech? How much public support is expressed in Washington for Saudi citizens, men and women alike, to be granted the right of self-determination?)
According to Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who used to be an adviser to President Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell: "The battle between realists and idealists is the fundamental fault line of the American foreign-policy debate."
Realists will tell you that sometimes a hard-headed assessment of national interests has to take precedence over advancing values. Idealists will insist that you can do both - safeguard national interests while remaining true to your core values.
So which is President Obama? Some analysts argue that while he often uses the words that make him sound like an idealist, his actions tend to be those of a realist.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, who was President Carter's national security adviser in the 1970s, and who more recently helped advise Obama during his campaign for the presidency, says: "I greatly admire his insights and understanding. (But) I don't think he really has a policy that's implementing those insights and understandings ... He doesn't strategise. He sermonises."
Barack Obama is now more than half way through his Presidential term. (Whether he is granted a second term will be decided by American voters in November next year.) And the experts are still searching for a definition of what his foreign policy vision really is.
"We must proceed with a sense of humility," he said last night. "There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision ..." Are those the words of a realist, or an idealist?
One of the biggest questions facing US foreign policy-makers now is how to adapt their thinking to take account of the emergence of new, and increasingly assertive, regional powers. India and China, of course, but also countries like Brazil and Turkey, both of which have begun to demonstrate their own foreign policy interests.
Should the US sit back and let them take centre stage? Is "leading from behind", the new buzz phrase in Washington, becoming the new foreign policy strategy? It seems to be the strategy of choice in Libya, but can it be applied elsewhere?
said something that intrigued me as she introduced President Obama ahead of his speech: "We have seen that in a changing world, America's leadership is more essential than ever, but that we often must lead in new and innovative ways."
I'd love to know more about these "new and innovative ways" -- and perhaps I'll find out next Tuesday, when I'll be in Washington to present a special edition of the programme in which we'll be discussing exactly how the US sees its role in this rapidly changing world.
Is it still a world leader, or does the "humility" that President Obama referred to last night imply that under his leadership at least, the US will tend more often to let others move out in front, just as it did over Libya?
Comment number 1.
At 20th May 2011, borisjapan wrote:I'm also intrigued to discover what will be new. "For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither.
Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people"
Obama's speech? No, Condoleezza Rice, Cairo 2005.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 20th May 2011, dceilar wrote:Is Obama's speech idealism or realism? Both IMO.
This is the first time that I know of when a sitting POTUS says he supports the creation of a Palestinian state based on the Green Line. This puts the USA with the rest of the world in supporting the two-state solution (now only Israel opposes it). Will this be reflected in the voting at the UN? At the moment I'm sceptical. When the US stopped supporting the racist South Africa at the UN in 1990 it's system of apartheid fell like a house of cards. The same could happen to Israel. I find myself agreeing with Hamas in regards to Obama's speech: he needs to back up his words with action.
If Israel continues to be an obstacle to peace and continues to bite the hand that feeds it then Obama should support the UN resolution on recognising Palestine in September. Moreover, if the Arab Spring continues then the US may have to 'dump' its support for Israel to win the backing of these new Arab democracies if it wants to remain 'in control' of the region. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, the US should have only one interest in foreign policy - its own!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 20th May 2011, quietoaktree wrote:#2 dceilar
---Obama said clearly that any Palestinian state should be de-militarized --Israel is deliberately ignoring that part of the speech --as are many others. The land grab is the main aim.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th May 2011, quietoaktree wrote:The US finds itself in a situation similar to that of Britain before WWll. The military might was still present but the respect after its blunders in attempting to maintain ´The Empire´ as it saw (and wanted) it ---was like flogging a dead horse.
The US has had the same in South America, Asia and now in north Africa and the Middle East.
Britain began to cut its losses and had a similar ´reality/idealism´ dilemma. Some Colonies became more ´dispensable´ than others.
--Obama´s speech (as Robin noted) -- also displayed this direction.
---- Rhodesia (the white bastion) eventually became more trouble than it was worth --
America will be forced to make similar (unthinkable) decisions --ask Britain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 21st May 2011, ghostofsichuan wrote:What are considered the interests of a nation, are nothing more than the interest of big business and banking. The people of any nation, on either side of the equation are of no importance. The foreign office types are looking to maintain their jobs and with people talking about getting along...well, that just won't do...so they start with all their "what if's." Seems the media finds the idea of a peaceful middle east counter to their interest as well. It is a cynical world because that creates the conditions upon which governments are free to posture both internally and externally. It is mostly a charade of the powerful to create diversions while they continue to consolidate wealth. If governments started being response to the people...where would that lead. The changes in the Arab world may bring an entirely new set of people into power for oil companies to bribe. Very unsettling, they like the status quo. If you don't know who calls the shots of governments by now you just haven't been paying attention.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 23rd May 2011, quietoaktree wrote:Obama´s speech suggesting Israel should return to the 1967 borders with land swaps
(for Israel´s security) is a long way from allowing Israel to escape ´rogue´state status.
Germany returned the land and/or gave reparations for the land and property stolen by first the Nazis and then (in East Germany) --the communists.
--- the Palestinian refugees also have a right to reparations --as did the Jews who fled the Nazis.
---Similar laws have been passed in Israel and must be corrected.
Here are some of todays prices --
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 24th May 2011, quietoaktree wrote:Netanyahu has given his speech -- Idealist or Realist ?
---or only dreaming ?
--- sounded a bit like Mubarak --before reality caught up with him and more died.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 25th May 2011, BluesBerry wrote:May I complement you on your ability to even write this article. How's your brain' is it spinning?
Here is a truth spoken by Obama: How should the US respond to change(s) "in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security".
That's right; the American military/industrial complex and its President don't give one hoot about the Arab spring just as long as it springs in accordance with American needs.
Support people demanding self-determination? No, only if the tyrants have served their purpose.
Press for freedom of expression, and of religion? No, at least I have seen it where orthodox Islam is concerned.
Oppose violence and oppression: Don't make me laugh. Does this appear to be happening in Libya? What about Bahrain where's there's a huge American military base to protect?
Not a single reference to Saudi Arabia in the entire speech? Well, where do you think Obama plans to replace the Libyan crude until he can once again access the Libyan crude? And don't forget that all of the 19 perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis. We don't want to remind the world about that, do we?
There is no battle between realists & idealists in America's foreign-policy debate. It's all about realism. The United States first, the entire world second. Core values? Are we talking about the Patriot Act, the Constitutional stomping, the War Measures Act...the detention camps, Guantanamo...?
So what is Obama? Obama very sadly has become a puppet of the American military/industrial complex, a war pusher, an oil stealer, a conspirator in the killing of innocent men, women and children. Did anyone every tell you that the President does not run the United States; the banks and corporations do, and all Presidents must march to same beat or else.
Obama sermonises because he dare not do anything else but sermonize.
If you want to know his foreign policy, do not ask him. Ask the Pentagon, Ask the Department of Defence, even ask the contractors.
And while you're walking around asking questions, remember this: those voting machines in the United States can make or break a President. There is no paper trail. There is no guarantee that you will even appear on the voting list.
I for one am so glad to see the US fading. It's time for a breath of fresh air.
America's leadership has given us nothing but endless war and endless suffering, a global financial meltdown, propaganda...
So, did you find out anything new on Tuesday?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 26th May 2011, quietoaktree wrote:Here is what TIME thinks about Netanyahu´s speech to Congress and Senate --misleading and lying is the conclusion.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)