Obama’s Foreign Policy

March 6, 2009 by ISM KHAN

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Obama’s foreign policy challenges
By: ISM KHAN

One key word associated with the presidency of Barrack Obama is … change. This change was reflected when Americans overwhelmingly voted for him, ousting his predecessor George Bush. But the desire of change is not confined within the national boundaries. Obama’s rise to power was followed, meticulously, by the globe and we need not go into how Kenya, a developing country, announced national holiday celebrating his victory or how the mainstream media in Muslim countries would refer to Obama by his second name, Hussain.

Today, Obama not only inherits a shattered economy, but also a misplaced foreign policy. On the economic front, while the fiscal package is being announced to address the national concerns, the global concerns are there. Being a president of the most important country, Obama’s domain includes the whole of the world. But it is some important countries and regions from Asia, which are a challenge to Obama’s foreign policy.

1) The two wars:

It was George W. Bush, who moved U.S. troops in Afghanistan and later, Iraq. Legally, war within Afghanistan can be justified – the then ruling Taliban regime provided sanctuary to al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of deadly 9/11. But war in Iraq was a lack of international consensus. It was this war which hit U.S. of its global image and Bush of his popularity. Despite war in Afghanistan being an immediate response to 9/11, many more troops were stationed in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

Critics argue that war in Iraq lost America of its original target of moving against militants in Afghanistan. The fleeing Taliban made it to the adjoining tribal areas, and would hit back across the region – Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus, for a shorter period of time, Pakistan was given the sole responsibility to handle the Afghan war. Soon, the Taliban re-emerged; the allies back tracked; even Afghanistan held talks with key Taliban figures – with the active involvement of Saudi Arabia.

From his speeches during the presidential contest, Obama gave a signal of dealing with Afghanistan, bracketed by Pakistan. At a larger extent, there was an understanding of differentiating between the two war zones. Interestingly, this present realization of dichotomy between Iraq and Afghanistan came in the last days of Bush’s office. It was General David Petraeus whose “surge” operation as well as “Arab Awakening” worked by identifying the tribal people off the militants. Presently, Petraeus is the commander of CENTCOM, in-charged with looking the region that includes Afghanistan.

That Obama has announced withdrawal of forces from Iraq and deployment of additional troops, 17000 in number, to Afghanistan shows his priority. Within the administration too, there has been a realization that the term Taliban might have become broad enough – not much to the detriment of U.S.’s interests.

However, it not be forgotten that the popular plank on which the war was waged in Afghanistan also revolved around the inhumane principles of the Taliban. Their suppression of women, children, and minorities was widely condemned. Their lack of health facilities and education was decried. Unfortunately, the development of Afghanistan was of secondary interest than securing the area off the militants. Insurgency rose and warlords became overpowered in such a fragile situation.
For good, things are also changing on this end. A new bill has been tabled in the House which aims to draw funds for the tribal areas of Pakistan. It is now for the Obama administration to look into its proper utilization, instead of mere military purchasing.

2) South Asia

Then there is South Asia. When Obama had won the elections and was the president in-awaiting, fires started raging in South Asia. India's financial hub, Mumbai, was attacked. The tragedy of 26/11 drew international condemnation and disbelief. On March 3, this year, a visiting cricket team of Sri Lanka was surrounded by militants in a gun fire for 25 minutes.
The popular opinion in the South Asia accuses the neighbor. This opinion is further strengthened by the media, which dishes out sensationalism for “breaking the news first.” Resorting to popular demands, despite being indicated truly, would mean an outbreak of war – something the militants seem to desire.

Other than the two subcontinent states, Afghanistan is an important South Asia country whose challenge to Obama is discussed above. Analysts, therefore, rightly argue that South Asia will be a key test of Obama’s foreign policy. Further beyond Afghanistan, the region’s importance to U.S. future course of action is undeniable. As China grows in size, hit only recently by the global recession, and India also makes its head out, regional equation is threatened. Would that mean U.S. allying with India against China and Pakistan? True that Pakistan is strongly backed by China, but China also does not like Pakistan’s militants nor could China’s relation with Pakistan be defined along the Indian equation. U.S. will open up all the options for now. U.S. may want to keep India with itself, a desire expressed in one of Bush's foreign policy success stories of signing an Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. It may not want to lose Pakistan either. Not for now, at least.

Thus, Obama will have to perform a jugglery of keeping the states of South Asia in an order, and for the interest of U.S. The issue of Kashmir, a dispute region, will drag further, as U.S. would want to focus on Pakistan’s western border. When there were indications that Obama might appoint former president Bill Clinton a special representative to Kashmir, India did not like it. Similarly, when Richard Holbrooke was made Special Representative to South Asia, he has to assure the media that "Kashmir is not on his agenda." Simply put, Pakistan may prop up its excuse of the subcontinent rivalry being dragged on.
For Pakistan, India does not want to talk … on Kashmir. For India, Pakistan does not want to talk … on terrorism. For U.S., the key will be get them talk.

3) Russia

Critics decry Bush for focusing too much on the war against terror that it forgot the inheritors of its Cold War enemy. U.S. plan of deploying missiles in Eastern Europe was severely criticized by Russia. It’s punitive action, last year, against Georgia was a brazen challenge of America's growing sphere in the region. America has argued that the missiles were aimed against Iran, and not Russia. But Russia didn't believe so. Why not put them in Russia, as Russia asked?

This is a serious challenge to Obama. He will have to allay the fears of Russia, which came out in anger last year to show its lost pride. But Russia bashing would be of use for U.S. Obama will have to focus on settling issues with Russia, so that he can point towards other region – say South Asia.

According to a recent report in NY Times, Obama's aides have opened a secret channel of communication through which they ensured Russia of dropping the missile project, if Russia stops supporting Iran. Vice President, Joseph Biden, has called for “pressing a reset button” on the relationship. Russia also seems to have offered a positive response. What is clear is that the aim is to isolate Iran, in terms of its security.

4) Middle East

Here, Obama would inherit what Bush left. In Obama’s state of presidential limbo, not only South Asia was up in the flares, but the Palestinian region of Gaza was attacked. Although critics are warning of Israel's attacks and U.S. silence, it may not change much. Such a silence was also observed among the Arab states. Hillary Clinton's statements of going with the status quo endorse the fact that nothing may change so radically on the Israel-Palestine issue. Democrats’ past in moving for the dialogue between the states may help, but Hamas may not be included – whose existential position is of a non-state actor, and thus a non-party to the dispute.

However, Iran is an interesting case. One of the first few presentations which the newly-elected president got was related to Iran's nuclear program. Bush administration was criticized for not settling issues with Iran, either through dialogue or threat. His policy certainly includes one “reset” button for Iran; but what if threats from Iran are not discounted. Any move on this end will elevate the status of Iran towards U.S. – for good or bad. Obama is to decide.

Permalink