Britannia Radio

Brzezinski Says Obama's Got
Everything Under Control
Obama Adopts New Foreign Policy During
First Year In White House
By Jim Fisher-Thompson
Staff Writer America.gov
1-1-10

Washington - In his first year in office, President Obama tackled an impressive array of foreign policy challenges, adapting a response focusing more on cooperation than confrontation, say foreign affairs specialists. Threats to world peace ranging from nuclear proliferation to war in Afghanistan are being handled "remarkably well" by Obama, says Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser from 1977 to 1981. Brzezinski, who managed tough challenges for the Carter White House like the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, wrote recently in Foreign Affairs magazine that President Obama has "redefined the U.S. view of the world" outside the boundaries of the war on terrorism and "reconnected the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century." Obama defined the new context as inclusion, cooperation and what diplomats call multilateralism in his first major foreign policy speech in Prague in April. Citing nuclear nonproliferation as a top priority, he said we live in a more "interconnected world," in which global threats to peace "demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not on occasional differences." http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/ April/20090406115740eaifas0.9701763.html Multilateralism is a move in the right direction, says Ambassador Rust Deming, a retired Foreign Service officer who served as a senior adviser in the State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Deming now teaches Japanese studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. "One of the most important things the president has done," Deming told America.gov, is "to reshape the tone of American foreign policy by emphasizing the fact that we need the cooperation of other countries and we need to use international institutions, including the U.N. I think he's done that very effectively by things like speaking at the U.N. and presiding at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council, and I hope that continues." Deming said his main concern was the Obama administration's lagging emphasis on trade. "The Asian region is very interested in expanding world trade. However, moving forward with free trade agreements with South Korea and other countries has not been perceived to be a high priority of this administration. Obama is off to a great start, but words need to be followed by concrete deeds in opening markets, and I look forward to that in the years ahead," he said. On the political front, the Obama administration differs from that of his predecessor in "where you think conflict comes from in the world," says Alex Weisiger, assistant professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, where he specializes in decisions relating to the use of force. Weisiger spoke recently on a panel sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania's political science department that assessed Obama's first year in office. Obama, says Weisiger, takes less of an ideological approach to problems than did the Bush administration. "He seems more concerned about allaying concerns of potential opponents" than categorizing them in groups of good or bad. For example, he "has been more willing to alleviate Russian concerns ... by pulling the missile shield in Eastern Europe that the Russians were worried about." But as commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, Obama has also shown mettle in helping the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan battle extremist insurgencies, the scholar said. While Obama's recent decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan may have surprised some members of his own party who oppose further U.S. involvement, according to Weisiger, it was quickly matched by a European commitment of 7,000 additional troops. This illustrates Obama's less confrontational and ideological approach to foreign affairs, he said. http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/ December/20091201205642esnamfuak0.7319147.html In the long run, this cooperative tack may strengthen some of the alliances and goodwill toward the United States that are needed to maintain global leadership, the scholar said. But pulling the missile defense from Europe may not be such a smart idea, says Kim Holmes, former assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs under President George W. Bush. Holmes, who is now a vice president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research group, told America.gov that cancelling the U.S.-sponsored system of missile defense stationed in Eastern Europe was "a serious mistake on all levels, including our own security." Holmes said removing the missile interceptors and radar "put the United States as well as Europe at risk from a long-range Iranian [missile] threat" and also "signaled the Russians that they get concessions like this with nothing in return." Though Holmes sees Obama's first year of foreign policy efforts as "overrated," he said, "I'm at least partly happy about what he did about Afghanistan. I wish he had not taken so long to make up his mind, and frankly I wish he had provided more troops and I don't like the idea of a timetable." In a December 1 speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama pledged a build-up to around 100,000 U.S. troops for the conflict in Afghanistan, adding that he would begin bringing them home in 18 months. Holmes said signaling a withdrawal may limit Obama's policy options in Afghanistan. "I think a timetable will make it hard for him because in a year's time he probably will find [the war is] not improving as much as he would like and he will have to make even harder decisions" about whether to continue supporting the Afghans militarily. Differing with Holmes and offering a European perspective, Dieter Dettke, a German-born adjunct professor in international relations at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, commended Obama for a better working relationship with America's NATO partners, including Germany. Dettke told America.gov most Germans and Europeans believe Obama has had a positive influence in world affairs due in large part to "his cooperative approach to international relations and to other countries." This is especially apparent in the war in Afghanistan, Dettke said. "The Obama administration has wrapped its arms around the complexity of the war and discussed its intricacies with NATO in a way the previous administration did not, making it easier for NATO governments and publics to support the [7,000] troop escalation." Because of Obama's multilateral approach, Dettke said, "I'm cautiously optimistic that the allies will come around and chip in more troops to Afghanistan, at least for the short term." At the same time, Europeans do not view all foreign affairs against the backdrop of the war on terror, Dettke emphasized. "We don't want a clash of civilizations, and Obama understands this as displayed in his June 4 speech in Cairo reassuring the Muslim world of America's friendship." http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/June/ 20090603171549eaifas0.6576807.html Obama's positive approach to other countries and emphasis on multilateralism has "really changed public opinion more favorably toward America and that is one reason his approval rating is between 88-90 percent in Germany," Dettke said. Share your thoughts and learn more at the Obama Today blog http://blogs.america.gov/obama/ This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. http://www.america.gov