Sunday, July 27, 2008

Foreign Policy of the Obamessiah

Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton deconstructs Obama's Berlin speech in Saturday's Los Angeles Times:
Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. . . Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama's rediscovery of the "one world" concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War's realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side -- our side -- defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively "tearing down walls" with our adversaries.
The greatest threat to American liberty is naive foreign policy. As NY Times columnist David Brooks observed:
Obama’s tone was serious. But he pulled out his “this is our moment” rhetoric and offered visions of a world transformed. Obama speeches almost always have the same narrative arc. Some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness. But then people of good faith unite and walls come tumbling down. Obama used the word “walls” 16 times in the Berlin speech, and in 11 of those cases, he was talking about walls coming down. . .

The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.

When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. Kennedy didn’t dream of the universal brotherhood of man. He drew lines that reflected hard realities: “There are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.” Reagan didn’t call for a kumbaya moment. He cited tough policies that sparked harsh political disagreements — the deployment of U.S. missiles in response to the Soviet SS-20s — but still worked.
Breaching the Berlin Wall signaled the end of the cold war. But, importantly, it was evidence of victory over Soviet communism, as well as a consequence of knowing, hard-line policies that challenged the other side to exceed our risk to blood and treasure. This was uncertain at the time--we didn't know whether it would work, or even what policy was best. But, the bottom line was that d├ętente didn't fell the wall--defiance, backed by force did. As Brooks says:
Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.
Agreed. So, here's hoping Obama's "only fooling."

BTW, don't miss Gerard Baker's London Times take on Obama's visit to Israel and Palestine:
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.


OBloodyHell said...

> Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts

Actually, I've heard this was due to an error in the German by Obama's speechwriters.

What he really meant to say was "I, too, am a doughnut".

OBloodyHell said...

It is simply amazing that anyone takes Obama seriously. The man's either a lying charlatan or a complete idiot, and it doesn't matter which he is, either would be a disaster.

bobn said...

"The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This guy is beginning to make me very, very nervous! NO walls between natives and immigrant? And how does he propose to "take down the walls" betrween Islamists and everybody else?

Too "one-world" for my liking, for sure.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Obama has crossed over into a territory where people no longer take his words coldly and examine what bad thinking might be behind them. Instead, people listen warmly, hoping that his words might mean some good thing. If there is 90% certainty that there is some problem, large or small, with his connections, his past statements, or his choreographed events, many people - a worrisome number of people - cling to the 10% chance that it might be innocent.

10% x 10% x 10% ...

Anonymous said...

Let's change the Constitution to allow Paris Hilton to run for President. It really is time for a genuine change. Obviously, she's right about the energy issue. She may be right about a lot more. In part, Hillary didn't make it to the Democratic nomination due to age discrimination. Let's not repeat the age discrimination with Paris.

Let's just change the Constitutional age requirement for President. While we're at it, we may as well let a President serve as many terms as WE THE PEOPLE want her or him to serve.