Fumbling Foreign Policy

Posted on March 4, 2009
Filed Under Dmitry Medvedev, Europe, European Union, Hillary Clinton, Russia, Soviet Union, US, US President, US State Department, Uniterd States, Vladimir Putin, foreign policy, historical revisionism, political fumbling | 2 Comments

In an effort to signal real change and the flexibility to adapt to new circumstances, the Obama administration is sending proposals to one and all even when such would require throwing a few allies under the bus.

Michael Rubin, over at Middle East Forum, writes:

Obama Shouldn’t Sacrifice Allies To Please Russia

On March 2, “The New York Times” reported that U.S. President Barack Obama had written to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggesting that reconsideration in Moscow of the extent of its support for Iran’s nuclear program might result in a U.S. suspension of plans to establish a missile-defense system in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. The Russian leadership rebuffed Obama’s outstretched hand. Moscow, Medvedev said, would welcome discussions about missile defense, but would not link such talks to its policy toward Tehran.

Too often, new U.S. administrations assume that the reason for the failure of engagement lies more with their predecessors than with their adversaries. Obama is no different, but rushing into diplomatic initiatives, however well intentioned, can be costly.

The impact on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of Obama’s proposed quid pro quo with Russia could be profound. Founded in 1949 as a collective-defense pact against the Soviet Union, NATO spanned continents and the Atlantic Ocean.

In their rush for change they have so far put this country on course to become a third rate, financial has been. And if their latest foreign policy moves are any indication, this administration will soon succeed in making us politically irrelevant as well, while endangering our own shores! Obama has extended an open hand to Russia’s Medvedev only to receive a slap in exchange.

Equal Protection

For collective defense to work, however, President Harry S Truman determined that all NATO members should enjoy equal defense. Western Europe would not simply be strategic depth for the United States, but would enjoy the same level of protection. NATO expanded over the years. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952; West Germany in 1955; and Spain in 1982. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO moved eastward. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined in 1999, and Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic states five years later.

Central and Eastern Europe have always been sensitive to the perception that they retain second-class status within both the European Union and NATO. As the Russian government grew more belligerent in its opposition to the radar station and antiballistic-missile base, some U.S. diplomats floated the idea of placing the facilities in older NATO members, such as Italy or the United Kingdom. Former President George W. Bush rightly opposed such a compromise in order to signal that every NATO member was equal, and that Eastern Europe was not simply strategic depth.

It was to cement this point that both Prague and Warsaw agreed to host such facilities despite sizable domestic opposition. Scrapping the European antiballistic-missile coverage altogether would, in effect, relegate first-tier missile defense to North America, which maintains its early warning radar and missile defense in Canada, Alaska, and the continental United States.

While Obama and his aides campaigned for a return to realism in foreign policy, their approach to diplomacy suggests dangerous idealism. The Obama era may have begun on January 20, but neither Moscow nor Tehran abide by the U.S. political calendar. It is not possible to simply “reboot” relations.

If America wants European cooperation it cannot be more equal than the rest, such a move would only create mistrust and a feeling of that we are political opportunists. When you wish to negotiate with potentially dangerous adversaries you do not start with your best offer. Instead you talk, you cajole, you compromise. In a radical departure of the rules of logic, in a radical turn around (which shows a woefully naive misreading, a total lack of understanding of our enemies and potential enemies mindset) America has now made its best offer, the new departure point!

Common interests

For Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, realism means maximizing Russian power. He does not seek good relations with the West; he seeks the resurrection of Moscow as the leader of an informal empire corresponding to the borders of the former Soviet Union. Putin appears to see Russian aid to the Iranian nuclear program as a win-win situation for Moscow. On one hand, Russian nuclear assistance to Iran has netted Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear-power agency, billions of dollars. Russian military sales — either direct or channeled through Belarus — are icing on the cake. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that the United States strikes Iran militarily, the price of oil will shoot up, pulling the shaky Russian economy out of recession.

Iranian officials, likewise, see the United States’ back against the wall. On February 11, 2008, commemorating the 29th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad announced: “I officially declare that Iran has become a true and real superpower…. I say with a loud voice that the era of imperialism and [U.S.] bullying has come to an end.”

In fact, the time for a deal such as the one outlined in Obama’s letter to Medvedev may already have expired. On February 27, delivering the Islamic republic’s official sermon, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, among the most powerful figures in Iran today and himself once a target of U.S. engagement, declared, “Even if the Russian experts don’t complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iranian experts will finish the job.”

Obama may see his offer to Russia as pragmatism, but gestures create precedent. U.S. allies who fear that Washington is willing to sacrifice allies for the sake of diplomatic convenience may question whether alliances remain built on today’s interests only, or also on shared values and history. If, after all, Russian antagonism forces U.S. concessions over Poland and the Czech Republic, why not increase Russian belligerence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, or on the Korean Peninsula? If the Obama administration signals that Poland and the Czech Republic are on the table, why should Ukraine and Georgia not be? Why should China not expect to deal over Taiwan, or why should Iran — another target of Obama’s desire to engage — not demand concessions on Israel?

Diplomacy should always be a strategy of first resort. But Obama should realize that diplomacy with dictatorships is not the same as diplomacy among democratic nations. If democracies can be swayed with values and incentives, altering autocrats’ behavior often requires far more complex coercion, not simply idealistic letters. If Washington is to remain strong, its alliances must remain strong. The White House must learn that the best security comes from supporting allies, not cutting deals over them.

“I officially declare that Iran has become a true and real superpower…. I say with a loud voice that the era of imperialism and [U.S.] bullying has come to an end.” Wittingly or unwittingly, Obama’s latest effort only reinforces Iran’s bragadoccio. We no longer follow Teddy Rooseveldt’s dictum, “talk softly and carry a big stick.” Instead we talk softly and offer the enemy our very own stick in an effort to appease him.

During the eight years of the Iran/Iraq war, the Iranian Ayatollahs have shown their utter disdain for the lives of their own citizens when they sent, barely trained, boys in their early teens to fight the Iraqis. That war cost almost one million lives on both sides between soldiers and civilians. Though it was started by Saddam’s aggressive acts against Iran, the total disregard for human life (the enemy’s as well those of one’s own people) was equally and despicably displayed by both sides.

The unrealistic Realpolitik practitioners over at Foggy Bottom, now under the nominal direction of Hillary Clinton, are rushing us headlong into a disaster of epic proportions. Only an unequivocal rebuff by Russia may change our direction and return some sanity. As of these moment, there is no question that the EU has some urgent, anxious, questions for Hillary as she’s been meeting with them since last night. Will she able to reassure them? Will they keep their confidence on us? Can they continue to trust us or will they wonder who will be thrown under the bus next?

Chaim

Digg it!

Share and Enjoy:

Sphere: Related Content

Comments

2 Responses to “Fumbling Foreign Policy”

Kate from Mississippi, United States on March 4th, 2009 8:35 pm

If we don’t find a way to get that clown out of office, and quick, I fear we will be totally sunk, with no hope of recovery.
James Biga from Colorado, United States on March 5th, 2009 12:57 am

Putin is enjoying every minute of this. He went from havinf an adversary he had to be wary of to having a toy to play with and manipulate. If it were up to Vlad he would have the county back under the control of the Polit Bureau. He can sit back and watch as America, at least the next 4 years, joins the socialist club. I have often stated that the Cold War never ended it just changed tactics. Unfortunately, the US has decided it wants to be a member of the communist elite as opposed to a beacon of freedom.