Questions about U.S. global leadership. “Big year for foreign policy — but little mention in Obama’s State of the Union”, says Peter Feaver at Foreign Policy. And the New York Times’ Roger Cohen writes : “To judge by the nine paltry minutes devoted to international affairs in a State of the Union address of more than one hour”, Obama is “weary of America policing the globe. When Israel-Palestine merits not a word from a president, you know the United States is turning inward.”
Robert Kagan comments:
On the subject of foreign policy, the speech is very disappointing. Obviously, the president wanted the focus to be domestic, so the foreign policy and defense section is the dullest boilerplate. No new initiatives. No change in rhetoric. Indeed, practically no rhetoric at all. It is almost as if the president was turning the nation inward and stepping away from international involvement. There is no mention of Europe (except as a place where trains run fast), which Europeans will notice. No mention of Japan. And only one use of the word “allies,” in the context of Afghanistan. The perception that the Obama administration is pulling away from our allies, which is becoming widespread, will be strengthened by this speech.
As to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the speech is about withdrawal, not commitment. As for Iran, there is no mention of the Iranian opposition, the illegitimate Iranian elections, and only the briefest of references to human rights in Iran. Perhaps the world will understand that Obama felt he had to focus on the domestic issues. But it will be hard to avoid the perception that Obama, having little to show for his foreign policy efforts in the first year, has decided to downplay foreign policy. This is worrying.
Leslie Gelb seems to be less worried:
The foreign-policy portion of President Obama’s State of the Union address was among the shortest, if not the shortest, in the annual speech since the start of World War II. But it was laced with tantalizing statements about portentous decisions and policies in the offing. Mr. Obama most certainly didn’t intend to downgrade national security. Rather, he didn’t want international issues to divert from his main message: the economy and jobs. (…)
As with most things Obama, everyone will have to wait and see what he really means, whether he will mean the same thing three months from now, and whether he will not only fight, but fight effectively to get what he’s promised done.
Obama’s speech is also at the center of debates at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Gideon Rachman summarizes the debates (which you can watch live here):
The big political debates at the World Economic Forum are being shaped by two events that are taking place well away from the ski-slopes of Davos: Barack Obama’s efforts to re-launch his presidency in Washington and the conference on Afghanistan that is under way in London. Both events raise the same fundamental questions. Is the US now too weakened and introverted to exercise effective global leadership? And if the US cannot lead, what other combination of powers can sort out the most difficult global problems?
A year ago at Davos the election of Mr Obama was widely hailed as the one big ray of hope in a dark period in international affairs. Twelve months on, things look different. The world has avoided a new Great Depression and the mood among delegates from some of the big emerging economies – in particular China, India and Brazil – is confident, even ebullient.
But Mr Obama is a much-diminished figure. While he still gets high marks from the Davos crowd for intelligence and charisma, the president has struggled to make progress on any of the international issues that he identified as priorities – Iran, the Middle East, Afghanistan, the climate talks at Copenhagen or economic relations with China. The loss of the Democrats’ super-majority in the Senate and the fact that the president’s healthcare package is in deep trouble have further damaged Mr Obama’s image as an effective leader.
In EU circles the debate about Ashton and the EU’s “visibility” in Haiti continues. Ashton gave an interview to the Figaro to justify her reaction to the disaster in Haiti. Honor Mahony defends Ashton on her EU Observer blog. And the Commission feels obliged to react. A spokeswoman told the EU Observer that it is “a complete misunderstanding” to think the EU is trying to compete with the US on image amid the relief effort”:
“It would be wholly tasteless to enter into a beauty contest in such a situation. The first priority is that aid reaches the right people at the right time,” she said. “But it’s obvious that visibility is part of being effective. It’s important for the recipients of the aid to know who they are dealing with and for the European tax payer, the donors of the aid, to see the actions on the ground, in terms of their future engagement,” she added.
To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com