Gerald M. SteinbergGerald Steinberg is professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor
BLOGS EDITOR
No, this is not another Obama-bashing oped — quite the contrary. I count
myself as an admirer of the US leader’s oratory, as well as his
determination to do the right thing. He is not locked into an
ideological straight-jacket, but rather approaches each issue on its
merits, looking for rational answers, confounding his rigid supporters
on the Left, as well as angry opponents on the Right.
Indeed, Obama’s speech before the General Assembly on Tuesday was
another tour de force. When talking about the need to punish Syria, or
responding to Iran’s charm offensive, the President struggled with the
complexities, seeing the potential costs and benefits of each option.
Using the cadences and rational arguments of an inspirational professor,
he forcefully denounced the immorality of tyrants, and demanded
principled as well as effective responses from the United Nations and
its member states (specifically Russia).
As a professor, I can identify with these struggles and complexities.
But, despite these positive dimensions, I am unconvinced by Obama’s
arguments and job performance in dealing with the real world. The
speeches not withstanding, international relations and issues of war and
peace are not his forte, and even in his fifth year as president, Obama
makes the mistake of extending his previous experience to problems that
are far outside this limited scope. This is a common problem, including
for brilliant academics who assume that their expertise is unbounded
and can be applied to every issue.
Before entering American politics, Obama’s world was rooted in
constitutional law and social work. As both Senator and President, his
policies and speeches have continued to invoke the vocabularies,
perspectives and tools from these professions. He shows no sign of
differentiating between communities in conflict and domestic American
agendas, on the one hand, and the power-based laws of gravity that
govern relations between states, on the other hand. Thus, in his UN
speech, he again spoke about the importance of engagement and dialogue
with opponents. And, re-enacting the part of a constitutional law
professor, Obama emphasized international agreements, enforcement
mechanisms, and the duties of “the international community”.
In contrast, international political realities, as exemplified by the
behavior of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and many others are far from
reflecting a community united by common goals and norms. Obama’s
academic and political references omit basic texts in international
politics, including the core observations of British political
philosopher Thomas Hobbes (16th century).
Hobbes wrote extensively on the “state of nature”, in which every group
seeks power and must defend its own vital interests, or risk
annihilation by others doing the same. In this anarchy, weak states are
swept away by stronger ones, often accompanied by mass killing and
genocide. International institutions function only to the degree that
they serve the interests of their powerful members, and international
law is merely another arena for political conflict, lacking a duly
constituted court system to ensure justice, or a consistent police force
for enforcement. Unlike neighborhoods or even cities sharing a
democratic framework, and can solve problems together, Obama’s reliance
on an ”international community” is a dangerous illusion.
As a result, Obama’s attempts at deterrence and his threats of
punishment have failed. While he has repeatedly condemned the atrocities
of the Syrian regime – particularly the August 21 chemical weapons
attack that killed “more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of
children” — his threats lack credibility. And although his appeal to
Russian President Putin was eminently logical in a social-psychology
framework — “let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We
are no longer in a Cold War”, this is not in Moscow’s Hobbesian
vocabulary. From Obama’s perspective, as he said in the UN, “There’s no
Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond
the well-being of its people…” But Putin, as well as every Middle
Eastern leader, speak an entirely different political language.
Similarly, while Obama repeated his insistence “that the Iranian
government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions”, and offered a number of
carrots, the stick that might lead to a last-minute policy change was
largely hidden. Iran’s new President is a master of charm and
time-consuming diplomacy, as he proved ten years ago as Iran’s chief
nuclear negotiator, when he ran circles around the Europeans. As a
result, Obama hedged his bets, warning that “conciliatory words will
have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable”, but
these words are not matched by actions – a fatal flaw in a Hobbesian
world.
In his UN speech, Obama also restated his faith in Israeli-Palestinian
peace, declaring that “All of us must recognize that peace will be a
powerful tool to defeat extremists, and embolden those who are prepared
to build a better future.” This is another eminently logical conclusion,
but it is not backed by the day to day realities of Palestinian terror,
incitement and wider Jihadist threats. In today’s Middle East, a
Palestinian state could quickly become a failed state and yet another
base for the “extremists” whom Obama imagines as defeated.
It is in a spirit of constructive criticism that I offer these
observations. By now, Obama has probably realized that words, regardless
of their eloquence and inspirational impact, are not the same as
decisions on the most difficult issues of war and peace. With over three
years remaining in his second term, each of the global threats
addressed in the President’s latest speech will require decisions
involving major risks, including the risk of doing nothing. To avoid
failure and a legacy of disaster, the myths of an “international
community” and self-enforcing international rules must be replaced by
the recognition of global realities.
No comments:
Post a Comment